Thank you Duer Galloglas, "Rec for the Show Me State" !!

Never give up, hang in there you have the likes of Al Gore and Dennis Kucinch on your side

Al Gore on Hand Counted Paper Ballots

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x469812

Will Kucinich Reintroduce HR6200- Hand Counted Paper Ballots?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_nadia_go_070729_will_kucinich_reintr.htm



Common sense ALWAYS PREVAILS Never Give Up, keep pushing!!

DUer Gallogos...

Akin could be beaten. Not saying he will, but MO is now 4 Ds and 5 Rs.

The ground work on Show Me The Vote!!'s run at a Missouri Constitutional Amendment to mandate hand-counted paper ballots, counted at precinct, and totals posted at precinct, is (in general) supported by well over 70% of the voters, regardless of party affiliation.

We failed to achieve the required number of signatures by this past Sunday (the deadline) but we did gather thousands of signatures working strictly from a Grass Roots level.

And we did it on the cheap, with word of mouth organizing and a good and honest Petition (see at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008petitions/08init_pe... ).

Other than the contributions from Board Members and Officers, our largest single donation was for $250 (from a True Patriot who posts at ER) and the rest was in tiny sums. With any type of support at all from the general public, we can do this work cheaper than any of the phony "Affirmative Action" type Initiative Petitions that are backed by special interest, as was this year's Missouri failure by Connerly.

I suggest that if we wish to ban the machines, we should start in the eighteen states that allow citizens to propose, and Petition for, their own laws. After all, does anyone really know anyone in public office who both wants to, and can, ban the machines?

If not, let's do it ourselves.

Oh, BTW, if we had gotten the Amendment on the November ballot, we would find Democrats winning both the 2nd District as well as either the 6th District, or Jo Anne Emerson's seat.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x501936#501993!!!


Thank you Galloglas, you are a true American :patriot:

MISSOURI: Hand counts or WHAT?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=482760&mesg_id=482760

before their ballots are allowed to leave their neighorhood, I hope you will tell them that little fact.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but it's a damn good question, nevertheless.

Go Galloglas! he'll always get a K&R from this guy! :thumbsup:

Thanks, kster.

I guess you're among those who mistrust corporate controlled electronic voting but embrace corporate controlled exit poll data.

So you want to slam OTOH because he won't trust corporate controlled exit poll data???

No matter that OTOH helped to write the auditing law in NJ that's the current state of the art. No matter that some potential sock-puppet shows up on a thread about the alleged galloglas hand count initiative.

Seems that you aren't well enough informed to realize that the alleged galloglas hand count initiative does not even once mention hand counts. That kster was chosen to start the off-topic conversation with is a nice touch, though

:shrug: It's a free world.

I don't think it's fair to ask, because the fact is, my profile reveals who pays me. I'm paid by Bard College. I'm not paid "as a result of all this controversy." So, when you propose to "ask" me whether I'm paid to promote electronic voting machines, I have to wonder why.

"At the least, he works closely with those who advocate their use."

I have no idea what this means. I work closely with all sorts of people. It seems to me that if you have come here to practice guilt by association (for people who aren't Bev Harris?), you should at least say who you are trying to associate me with. What are these "'non-profits'"?

"Mark Lindeman wrote a book with Republican Rick Brady:"

See, for many fair-minded people, the idea of refusing to work with tens of millions of people based on their partisan affiliation is a non-starter. In fact, for many election integrity advocates, the idea that we can make progress while refusing to work with tens of millions of people based on their partisan affiliation is obviously misguided.

If you disagree with something I wrote, with Rick Brady or otherwise, you could explain that without the irrelevancies.

I'm a little puzzled. You posted a link to something that obviously isn't a "book." I haven't written a "book" with Rick Brady. What do you actually know, other than that I work with Rick Brady and that Bev Harris gets a raw deal? :shrug:

I've revealed my identity; as far as I know, you haven't. Considering the bizarre uses that people make of mine, you're probably wise. But there's no point in pretending that I'm being less open than you are.

_{"I'm paid by Bard College."}

Bard pays you to post here?


_{"So, when you propose to "ask" me whether I'm paid to promote electronic voting machines, I have to wonder why."}

Well, we wonder if you are paid because of your words posted here. Because you have never PFD'd a good criticism of the machines. Because you are the only one telling us to trust the machines. Because your arguments are bad political science, ya know, like the idea Kerry won most new voters but lost over 4 million Gore voters.

_{"But there's no point in pretending that I'm being less open than you are."}

That could be true. You are openly for the machined count of 2004. You openly do anything you can to prove Bushco was legally elected. You openly oppose what the vast majority here believe: that the machined count is the reason Bush is squatting in our White House.

On the other hand, you seem quite closeted. You don't start threads. You don't propose legislation, or back any strong reforms of the machines. Its as if you believe the machines are cool and maybe just need to be tweaked? I say that because I can't recall any posts of your's going into much detail of reform except for a placid support of some form or another of audits. So yes, you do appear to be hiding, certainly when compared to the other regular members.

There's lots of stuff in your post that is just plain wrong, but maybe we can discuss something that is substantive:

Strange as you may find this, BeFree, no one has to take your word for this, and I don't.

Do you have an argument?

Will you tell us what your argument is?

Will you tell us what your argument is here and now?

Do you care enough about the 2004 election to present facts and connect them?

Or is this extreme umbrage shtick the only thing that interests you?

Show, don't tell.