Re: A little partisan and backwards looking but I like the concluding paragraphs.

From: Teresa Hommel <tahommel_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 13:29:21 CDT

This article presents the same pathetic argument that corrupt people use --

"If you can't prove fraud, that means it didn't happen."

But democracy means that people have to watch the handling of ballots
and counting of votes. If that observation is not demanded and
facilitated by the BOE, and is instead prevented or made meaningless
(for example by forcing observers to stand so far away that they can't
effectively see what's going on), then suspicion of fraud is justified
and the election lacks legitimacy.

When was the last time you went to a bank, and the teller told you,
"DON"T count your change!" but you count it anyway, and you find you
were shortchanged, and the teller says, "Banks are never perfect."

Anyway, the lessson for OVC is that people -- election observers --
guarantee the legitimacy of elections, not computers. If the computers
are honest, that makes the job easier for the observers.

Teresa Hommel

Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:

>http://www.tompaine.com/20050505/articles/what_didnt_happen_in_ohio.php
>
>My apologies in advance if this news release hits some
>folks the wrong way. However, I personally feel, that
>for OVC it may be more useful to let other people
>continue to dig away at what did and din't happen in
>the 2004 elections while we move forward with the EVM
>system.
>
>Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:20 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT