READER COMMENTS ON

"Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org Joins Me to Discuss Memphis Election Mess on KPFK"

(104 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/22/2010 @ 3:31 pm PT...





After you and Bev get through explaining how easily rigged and unverifiable our elections are, I'm sure you'll both be urging listeners to vote. Step right up, folks! Cast your uncounted or flipped ballot right here, so the election integrity industry can sympathize with you when it is stolen. Help us document what we already know by sending money to this important cause so basic to our democracy. Don't forget to exercise your freedom to cast your uncounted vote!

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/22/2010 @ 3:50 pm PT...





bev and team have done an amazing job of showing how the machines in tn have spit out an impossible number....more votes than voters...

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/22/2010 @ 4:01 pm PT...





More votes than voters? Well, then, obviously the solution is more voters. Get out there and cast YOUR uncounted vote and badger everyone you know into casting their uncounted vote too! How can we verify uncounted votes if people don't cast votes they know won't be counted? People who are too apathetic to cast an uncounted vote should be shot!

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/22/2010 @ 4:01 pm PT...





Brad: I hope you'll find time to do a separate piece on Bev's coverage of the Memphis, TN election fraud mess. I mean wow!

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/22/2010 @ 4:38 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith ~ Your constant, ridiculous assertions that boycotting the vote is an effective means of protest are laughable and not worth even responding to, but in case anyone else is reading you and thinks you have a point: "Boycotting the vote is a counter-productive, destructive, uninformed idea that has been floated here more than once, and is never taken seriously for many, many, many, many reasons. Here are just a couple: 1.) Suggesting we abstain from voting as protest against the very people who *DON'T WANT US VOTING* is about the dumbest rollover suicide strategy I've ever heard of. 2) is ignorant of one of the only mathematical advantages we have in this fight:

TURN OUT. It's all we got. The now famous HURSTI hack (featured in HBO's Emmy-award nominated doc HACKING DEMOCRACY) proves it. Only a small percentage of votes can be diverted electronically (or erased completely) without causing huge disparities in the voter turnout / vote ratio. Brad (and Bev Harris and a handful of other election integrity heros) have reported impossible numbers from election after election; machine "failures", and "glitches" that (regularly) produce more votes than voters, more voters than votes... and only a few of us ever seem to notice that impossible elections are happening right under our noses, printed as stolen in statistics in every newspaper and on every website...if only any one ever bothered to look. If we can INCREASE voter turnout, the chances are much greater that any manipulation of the results will be more widely recognized, even if it's NEVER reported by anyone but Brad. (It's all very easy info to dismiss until it's YOUR vote that disappears down the rabbit hole.) 3) ...people have suffered and died, are dying, and *will* die for what's left of your right to vote. So get your ass off the couch and participate in your democracy. It's a dire, most important civic duty because the road to do so has been paved in blood and stone and it's the least you can do for the residual spirits of the sacred, brave American dead. 4.) If Brad and Bev can continue to tirelessly advocate for public oversight of our own elections, as the right to vote count is *the* right that comes before all others, then the least we can do is show up." (Brad / all - Please forgive re-posting this summation for Mark after having written it up for another thread. I'm just sick to death of his reoccurring lack of understanding re: VOTER TURNOUT's impact on MANIPULATED ELECTIONS. Please stop what you're doing. It's destructive and dis-informative.)

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/22/2010 @ 5:13 pm PT...





Jeannie Dean @ 5 said: I'm just sick to death of his reoccurring lack of understanding Me too. Thank *you* for having the patience to respond anymore. His comments continue to be idiotic and appalling. How he's decided that "your vote will not be counted" (or whatever horseshit way he put it this time) is beyond me. Yes, we have to fight to assure our votes are counted. Yes, we have to fight to assure they are counted accurately. But, as you point out, if we don't vote, there is nothing for the bad guys to do. We've done it for them. Mark: When you come up with a new idea, about *anything*, please feel free to comment. Until then, please take your tired, dead horse elsewhere. Thanks!

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Shortbus said on 9/22/2010 @ 5:39 pm PT...





Hey Brad, Are you going to Markos's book signing tonight? lol

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/22/2010 @ 7:11 pm PT...





Didn't know he was having one tonight, Shortbus! (Invite lost in the mail? ) In truth, I hear his presentation for his new book (American Taliban) is a good one, and I wouldn't mind hearing it!

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/22/2010 @ 8:05 pm PT...





Jeannie Dean, do you really believe that corporations, political parties, and candidates spend millions of dollars getting out the vote because they don't want people to vote? Yes, "Brad (and Bev Harris and a handful of other election integrity heros) have reported impossible numbers from election after election," and have also reported that nothing has ever been done about it. "If we can INCREASE voter turnout, the chances are much greater that any manipulation of the results will be more widely recognized," unless the central tabulators have been programmed to allocate a certain PERCENTAGE of the vote to specific candidates, in which case the total number of votes cast is irrelevant. However even if you strike it lucky and the manipulation IS recognized, and you publicize it, and sympathize, there's nothing you can DO about it. Nobody ever fought and died for the right to cast an uncounted vote. You need to learn the difference between an uncounted or flipped vote and a voice in government. Brad, as long as people are willing to vote in faith-based unverifiable elections, there is no reason for the powers that be to allow honest elections. The ONLY leverage We the People have is to REFUSE to vote in faith-based unverifiable elections and to withhold our votes unless we KNOW that our votes will be counted accurately. If you continue to vote in faith-based, unverifiable elections, you've done the bad guys' work for them because all they have to do is "disappear" or flip your votes, and then let you try to get your "elected" officials to do anything about it, which they won't. I did an informal poll in 2008 asking voters if they would continue to vote if the only federally approved voting mechanism was a flush toilet. Half of them said that they would, citing their precious right to vote that people had fought and died for. Unless your vote is counted, counted accurately, cannot be overridden, and is the sole determinant of the results of the election, it is NOT a voice in government and is NOT what people fought and died for. Stalin allowed people (in fact he forced people) to vote in his rigged elections--did that make the Soviet Union a democracy and its citizens free? How long are you going to keep attacking me and denying the truth that votes cast in faith-based unverifiable elections are NOT a basis for or an indication of democracy? In stolen election after stolen election, the election integrity industry has proven time after time that the elections were stolen, and that there is no possible remedy for stolen elections even when there is absolute proof that the election was stolen, and then encouraging people to vote in the next stolen election. That's what a professional shill does--encourage people to play in a rigged con game. Once a Member of Congress or President has been sworn into office, even if you could prove conclusively that not a single vote had ever been cast for that person, there is no Constitutional remedy. Only Congress itself could remove them from office and they won't. You can blog about it, investigate it, and commiserate about it all you want, but if you vote in rigged elections, you have to live with the results. How can you be so apathetic as not to care even after so many stolen elections that have harmed this country so greatly?

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/22/2010 @ 8:33 pm PT...





Look, we KNOW that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Bush took office and served out his four year term because there was nothing we could do about it. We KNOW that Kerry probably won the popular vote in 2004, but since he conceded before the votes could be counted and many records were illegally destroyed, it was impossible to prove and even if it had been proven, there was no way to remove Bush from office so he would have served out his second four year term, as he did, anyway. In 2008 Bush won AGAIN because the only two candidates with any chance of winning were both committed to the Bush pro-war, pro-bailout, pro-Wall Street anti-Main Street agenda, so the results of the election, more wars and bigger bailouts, were predetermined no matter how many people votes or how they voted and whether or not their votes were counted. And we know that in 2012 the corporations will spend millions of dollars to ensure that their candidates win, every dirty trick in the book will be used to subvert the vote, and that no matter how brazenly the election is stolen, there is no remedy for a stolen election. In the case of faith-based unverifiable elections, it takes Herculean efforts even to prove that the election was stolen when there's nothing that can be done about it anyway. The only reason the election integrity industry keeps encouraging people to vote in faith-based unverifiable elections, is so that it can continue to decry one stolen election after another. If you left your keys in your unlocked car and it was stolen, and you'd been unable to collect the insurance or get the car back due to your own negligence, I'd warn you not to do it again. If you did it a second time and the same thing happened, I'd start to wonder if you had any brains. When it happened a third time, I'd begin to suspect that you were in cahoots with the car thief because nobody is THAT stupid. So what should I think if you publicly announced your intention to do it a fourth time?

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... jani01 said on 9/22/2010 @ 8:36 pm PT...





{Ed Note: Comment deleted. Commercial spam. -BF}

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... psychologists sydney said on 9/22/2010 @ 10:00 pm PT...





{Ed Note: Comment deleted. Commercial spam. -BF}

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... ClintCurtis'Dog said on 9/23/2010 @ 12:07 am PT...





{Ed Note: Comment from user banned multiple times for continuous and flagrant violation of BRAD BLOG commenting rules, most notably using multiple user names, deleted.}

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/23/2010 @ 3:30 am PT...





I just uploaded my first video to YouTube. I'm not sure whether I'm in trouble or not, but I'm SURE most BradBlog readers will love it! Mr. Fund tries to tell us he's concerned about fraud in voting. Why does he defend Diebold here? Well, because HE'S a fraud; No? And yet we enter another voting season without any idea who won... Peace!

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Hesi exam said on 9/23/2010 @ 4:32 am PT...





{Ed Note: Comment deleted. Commercial spam.}

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 4:40 am PT...





Ah, Larry, but does it matter who won or whether or not we know who won? As long as we have our sacred right to vote, how can anyone be so apathetic as to care about who won or whether or not we know who won? You're right, at least as this BradBlog reader is concerned--I love the video you uploaded. It does get rather repetitive though. We can't verify the election and there's a chance that the election might be stolen, so get out there and vote. We can't verify the election, there are many discrepancies and glitches, and we think the election may have been stolen. We've proven that the election was stolen and that the wrong person has been in office for (two/four/six/eight) years now. Irreparable harm has been done, over a million innocent people killed, our economy wrecked, and there's no way we can remove that person from office but there's a new election coming up so please get out there and vote for somebody else. The election was stolen again, the wrong person was sworn into office again, irreparable harm has been done again, there's nothing we can do about it again, and we believe that the next election will also be stolen, so get out there and vote! Yawn. Oh, and don't listen to that nutcase suggesting that you don't vote--if you don't allow your vote to be stolen, how can we prove that your vote was stolen? People fought and died for your right to allow your vote to be stolen--don't forget to vote!

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 4:52 am PT...





Tonight's sweet tweets: JasonLeopold

Wouldn't it B gr8 if Obama & Dems said fuck it & started prosecuting/investigating Bush admin 4 war crimes? In other words, do their duty fubarista (me)

@JasonLeopold Wouldn't it B gr8 if Obama & Dems said fuck it & stopped continuing/expanding Bush war crimes? Even for five minutes?

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/23/2010 @ 5:07 am PT...





Mark E. Smith: I think that is the most cynical thing I've ever read. Obama defeated the plans of the right wing to steal another election through shear turnout and those people are still registered. Whether the right wing or your sorry ass has convinced them to give up will be known in a few weeks. What is your opinion about the video on this page? Honestly, I don't care! Keep it to yourself, dude.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/23/2010 @ 5:23 am PT...





Walden O'Dell is the dude who said he was going to deliver votes to monkey man in 2004 and John Fund CLEARLY calls him Warden O'Dell in my video. Fund is defending a man and he can't even get the name strait.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/23/2010 @ 5:28 am PT...





We're all monkey men, but some of us are more equal then others.

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/23/2010 @ 7:39 am PT...





While I am pleased that Brad deleted the post from the serial offender @13, I am deeply offended that this individual would choose the handle, "ClintCurtis'Dog." For the uninitiated, a few hours after The BRAD BLOG published its original story about the content of the Curtis affidavit in which Curtis revealed how former Republican Congressman Tom Feeney asked him to develop an e-vote stealing prototype, someone shot and killed Clint’s three year old German Shepard, according to Curtis. In an effort at gallows humor, during Murder, Spies & Voting Lies, Curtis observed that his dog’s death was not a suicide. This was supplied in relation to the mysterious death of Ray Lemme, an investigator with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), who turned up dead inside a Valdosta, GA motel room on July 1, 2003. Lemme had been investigating the the allegations that Curtis' termination by the FDOT was retaliatory. In June 2003, Lemme told Curtis “he had tracked the corruption ‘all the way to the top,’ and that the story would break in the next few weeks…” Careful examination of the crime scene photos raises significant questions as to the validity of the Valdosta PD conclusion that Lemme's death was a suicide.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/23/2010 @ 9:41 am PT...





Larry Bergen @14: I just uploaded my first video to YouTube. I'm not sure whether I'm in trouble or not, but I'm SURE most BradBlog readers will love it! What was the date on the vid, Larry? Any idea? I don't think it's recent, is it?

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... glf said on 9/23/2010 @ 10:17 am PT...





Sounds to me like Mark E. Smith is a shill for the GOP. Who benefits the most when the masses don't/can't vote? Rather than coming up with ideas to prevent or fight rigged elections, Smith's only suggestion is for people to not exercise their right to vote. Smith is similar to the ones who turn away people at the polls for illegitimate reasons except that he's trying to do it before they even stand in line.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 11:05 am PT...





Sure, GLF, anybody who won't grant their consent of the governed to the Republican agenda must be a Republican. All Democrats know that there's nothing wrong with the Republican war, bailouts, Wall Street, corporate, favoring the rich agenda as long as Democrats do it. Democrats voted for everything Bush and Cheney wanted during the two Bush/Cheney administrations, took impeachment off the table, are still protecting them from prosecution, and have expanded both the wars and the bailouts, but having Democrats carry out the Republican agenda is much better for the country than having Republicans do it. Just like having your vote stolen or even flushing your vote down the toilet is better than not voting at all. The ONLY way to fight rigged elections is to boycott them and refuse to vote in them. As long as people are willing to vote in rigged elections, there's no reason for those in power to allow honest elections. Just keep telling your elected officials that you want honest elections and that if you don't get them you'll keep right on voting in rigged elections. That's going to force them to change because they really care about you, right? Obama didn't defeat the plans of the right wing. The corporate right wing gave more money to Obama than to McCain because they knew he'd give them more money in bailouts than McCain would. There was no election in '08. The only two candidates with any chance of winning both had the same big donors, both had the same pro-war agenda, and both took time out from their sham campaign to issue a joint statement in support of bailouts. Yes, the Democratic candidate Obama, and the Republican candidate, McCain, at a time when the public was overwhelmingly opposed to bailouts and they were supposed to be campaigning against each other and appealing to voters, stopped campaigning and issued a joint statement saying that neither of them cared what voters wanted and that both of them were committed to the Republican bailout agenda. You want cynical? Google their joint statement in support of bailouts. Look at some of the news stories from that time about how much opposition there was to bailouts among voters. I couldn't get that cynical if my life depended on it. Obama and McCain said that they didn't care who you voted for, they both had the same agenda, and that they didn't care if 90% of voters opposed the bailouts, they both supported the bailouts. The best estimates I've heard are that at least six million votes went uncounted in the '08 election. You don't know who won because the election was unverifiable and you don't know if it was due to turnout or due to election rigging. You believe in faith-based elections because you have faith in faith-based elections and you don't like people who are too cynical to take things on faith.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/23/2010 @ 11:07 am PT...





Brad: It's from early September, after the Republican convention in New York in 2004. Here is the web page about it.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 11:10 am PT...





Oops, only the first 3 paragraphs above are in response to GLF, the rest is in response to Larry.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/23/2010 @ 11:24 am PT...





in case you dont have time to listen,i think this copy from bev @ bbv.org sums things up, Mike is correct. Their names were entered into an electronic pollbook (which had the wrong list inserted into it). The list wrongly identified thousands of voters as already having voted even though they had not already voted. Shelby County has admitted that it inserted the wrong list into the electronic pollbooks, claiming it inserted a voted set of May early voters instead of putting in the August early voters. I'm not clear on why they needed to insert any new list at all for Election Day. It appears that they inserted the list Aug. 3. Early Voting ended July 31 and Election Day voting began Aug. 5. Since the CORRECT early voters would have been listed in the database already, I am not sure why it became necessary to insert a new list. They claim that during the process of inserting the new list for Election Day they accidentally put the voted May early voter list in. But we asked for the incorrect "May" list they inserted and it does not match the May list. These people tell whoppers for breakfast. Yes, they do post a daily total of the number of Early Voters on their Web site. No, they do not have a physical sign-in sheet to confirm the electronic database placed into the electronic pollbook. It is possible to verify whether Early Voting reported totals changed from during the Early Voting process to Election Day - I haven't seen evidence so far that they did. But verifying that the purported Early Voters listed in the epollbook had anything to do with reality is another matter, and it is also open to question as to whether any of the early votes were ultimately the ones counted. - They did not print results tapes from their early voting machines. - They ran their early voting memory cards in-house out of view of observers. - They had their early voting machines up, unsealed, and wired directly into the central tabulator more than a week after the election. - They refused to release results until two weeks after the election. - They had additional voting machines, memory cards, admin and supervisor cards, and voter card programmers in an office which were running, more than a week after the election, and they refused to let anyone in the room to inspect those live voting machines. - And up until a week after the election they had a touchscreen voting machine wired up to the tabulator in a central tabulation room which was hidden from public view.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/23/2010 @ 11:28 am PT...





the number of peops disenfrachised by the "wrong data base" is over 5000..if mark was correct and turn out didnt matter why would they bother illegally denying peops the right to vote?

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... Rich Albright said on 9/23/2010 @ 11:59 am PT...





Our political system works fine, it's the abusers who constantly altering it to their benefit.

Voter apathy is even worse. What will it take to create a new mindset?

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/23/2010 @ 1:23 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith - Seriously, I don't have time (or interest) in slogging through your tiresome nonsense, detailing your "courageous" position of staying at home and doing absolutely nothing in support of your democracy, but to be clear, we have never encouraged anybody to go out and vote. If anybody does not wish to vote, that is their perogative, and I support (and defend) it. At the same time, I've never encouraged anybody to sit at home and do nothing and stay in their myopic world in which they believe there is only one election every four years, and nothing can be done to ensure that votes get counted and counted correctly. You may wish to capitulate to bad guys and wave a cowardly white flag as you curl up under your desk behind your keyboard, but you'll pardon those of us who actually believe that rights are worth fighting for. If you want to keep running your idiotic, years-long campaign hoping to convince people to not vote for some reason, please take it to a website where they spend time trying to encourage people to vote. We don't do that here, and your comments to that end are exceedingly boring and stupid at this point. I keep asking nicely, though I'm nearly done, please knock it the fuck off. Nobody here is interested in hearing your pointless position yet again. Thanks!

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 1:33 pm PT...





Karen, sometimes there are thousands more votes than voters. Nobody is denied the right to vote, all votes are counted, and the election is rigged by adding enough phantom votes to throw it to a different candidate. It isn't a question of denying people the right to vote, it is a question of controlling the results so that no matter how many people vote or how they vote, the votes don't determine the outcome of the election, the machine programming does. Like Stalin said, it isn't who votes but who counts the votes. If turnout matters, why did Stalin force people to vote? If you're interested in U.S. politics, you need to read the late Walter Karp's classic book, often referred to as "Politics 101," Indispensable Enemies. The two major parties aren't competing, they're cooperating. The elections aren't designed to give people a choice but to limit people's choices to options they don't want and force them to choose the less odious. If the only two people on the ballot with any chance of winning both have the same pro-war, pro-bailout agenda, the election boils down to which one you'd prefer to have presiding over an agenda you oppose. That's not an election. That's like a magician telling you to, "Pick a card, any card," when the deck has 52 identical cards so that no matter which card you pick, it is the same card. Our elections often boil down to personality and beauty contests, because there is no real choice of agendas. If you want peace, you can vote for one of two pro-war candidates, you can vote for a peace candidate with no chance of winning, or you can cast a blank ballot. It makes no difference because by voting you have demonstrated your faith in the system and delegated your power, granted your authority, and agreed to be governed by whoever wins, regardless of who you voted for. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, only 21% of voters think that our government has the consent of the governed. The other 79% of voters don't understand that when they voted, they were granting whoever won their consent of the governed. And they were doing it in what most of them know to be faith-based unverifiable elections. The Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The way that governments demonstrate that consent is by holding elections. Some dictators have their soldiers go door to door and force people to vote at gunpoint. In countries where there have been successful election boycotts, such as Batista's Cuba, Apartheid South Africa, and most recently Haiti where, after Aristede was kidnapped and Lavalas taken off the ballot, only 3% voted, the world knew that those governments did not have the consent of the governed. You don't know me, Karen. So I really doubt if you would give me all your money and trust me to spend it as I wished, keep or not keep records as I wished, and grant me full power of attorney and immunity from prosecution if I stole all your money. But you'll do that with our national treasury--turn it over to people you can't hold accountable and who may or may not have been legitimately elected. You'll vote in a faith-based, unverifiable election where the only two candidates with any chance of winning are both publicly committed to wars and bailouts that you know will indebt you, your children, and your grandchildren, and you'll seriously discuss which one of them is less evil than the other., And then Rich will say that you're a responsible citizen and that I'm apathetic because I won't grant my consent of the governed to people I can't hold accountable and I won't delegate the full power of attorney over our national treasury to people who have pledged to bankrupt us.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/23/2010 @ 2:25 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith: Save it dude! Nobody's reading.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... Accuvote4.6.4 said on 9/23/2010 @ 2:38 pm PT...





Brad. You break your own RULES.

"4) Do NOT post knowing dis-information."

OR ... you truly are so ignorant of what in totality it takes to hold an election that you conjure 98% of the dribble posted here. I have met several of the "Blackboxvoting" clowns and even got to see one dragged off to jail for interfering with a federal process. You people show up and cause a huge stink for the media but as soon as the cameras are gone so are you. The last guy I had to deal with made us pull OS tapes for days, he never took notes or wrote down anything, he just wanted to exercise his right , which is fine, I don’t care, I get paid either way but it did cost the taxpayer .

Of course there are memory cards everywhere!! Did you think the poll workers got trained on the same cards that go to the Polls? That would be a HUGE breach in security!

Do you think that they are trained on the same database that the election is run on? That would be a even bigger breach in security! There would never be enough time to clear training cards and re-burn them for the Polls. There are also backup cards for the polls sites that never get used and don’t need to be stored. There are training cards for precinct coordinators and trouble shooters. There are cards for Public teaching and demonstrations on voting for the schools. There’s probably cards from past elections that are non-functioning or have some issue. If you believe the worst then watch the canvas!

Every election, anyone can watch the canvas (which any election savvy person would know , this is the absolute most important aspect of the election process when it comes to “was my vote counted”).

I have never seen any "concerned" person last more the 20 min into the canvas. All of the temps (temporary employees) that have ever worked through a canvas will all give the same statement. " I had no idea it was this involved. Every vote gets counted!" AND IT HAS TO because it has to balance.

To be out-of-balance by 1 or 2 ballots in a precinct of 2000+ registered voters where 450 voted and maybe 60 were provisional and 35 ballots were spoiled,,,, happens in 1 out of every 20 poll sites and it’s still something we try to reconcile up to the very end .

CANVAS would catch all the errors that you are all freaking out about in Tenn. Especially at the numbers you’re describing. What you found is some innocuous straw laying around to build a Straw Man that you can knock down.

There is an extensive check and BALANCE system that occurs during canvas. A poll site might be rerun several times depending on what happened on election night at the poll site. Spoiled ballots get run in at the poll sight by mistake adding more to the count than there should be.

If you don’t believe then VOLUNTEER for the CANVASS and or watch the entire event asking questions.

This blog site along with BBV and the likes might have a passion for “something” but being armed with 2% of the election knowledge it takes to conduct an election, you are all truly talking out of your……Blackbox?

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 2:44 pm PT...





Brad, your post crossed mine. You are partially correct. I do not believe that the right to vote is worth fighting for. I believe that the right to a voice in government is worth fighting for. I don't believe that it is courageous to vote in elections which you know to be faith-based and totally unverifiable. In fact, I think that it is those who vote in elections they know to be faith-based and totally unverifiable who are throwing in the white flag and saying that they don't care about democracy or about having a voice in government as long as they can vote in faith-based unverifiable elections. I remember reading your amusing account of one election where your vote was flipped and you had to fight to have it recorded correctly. You fought tenaciously and you won. Your vote, after strenuous effort on your part, was recorded correctly on the ballot and the voting machine. Of course you have no way of knowing if the central tabulator tallied your vote the same way that it was recorded, but that didn't seem to matter. One time I angered Richard Hayes Phillips, whose book, Witness to a Crime, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there had been election tampering, and that it was impossible to conclusively determine who had won. He insisted that because his voting district at that time used lever machines (if I recall correctly), he knew that HIS vote was counted correctly, so he was proud to vote. The fact that fewer than 20% of voting districts in the country had verifiable election processes, and that 20% could not determine the outcome of a national election wasn't relevant to him. As long as HIS vote was counted, he didn't care if the election was stolen, other than as an exercise in attempting to prove that the election was stolen. I am fully aware that Presidential elections are far from the only elections, but in a hierarchical system the positions at the top are more critical, since they can make appointments and decisions for which the public has no recourse and that can cause irreparable harm. When a President starts or expands a war or a torture policy, the victims cannot be made undead or untortured by a subsequent election. When a decision is made to use depleted uranium weapons, the radioactive particles cannot be removed from the world's lands and oceans by a subsequent election. I'm not interested in fighting to have my vote recorded correctly or in proving that many votes were not recorded correctly. I'm interested in "citizen-owned, transparent participatory democracy," to quote the Creekside Declaration of which you were a signatory. If election results can be determined by the media, elections officials, computers, the Supreme Court, or anything other than the will of the people, it isn't a citizen-owned, transparent participatory democracy and I'll fight it. If a President can be sworn into office before each and every vote has been counted and counted accurately in a way that is completely verifiable, it isn't a citizen-owned, transparent participatory democracy and I'll fight it. It took me a lifetime, but I now know the difference between a vote and a voice in government. An uncounted, miscounted, or overridden vote is not a voice in government. A vote in a faith-based unverifiable election is not a voice in government. Nobody fought and died so that people could vote in Stalin's elections in the old Soviet Union. Nobody fought and died so that the Supreme Court could stop the vote count and decide an election themselves. Even though you disagree with what I say, you allow me to say it. That's because you believe in democracy and you have the courage of your convictions when it comes to freedom of speech. You also believe in democracy when it comes to elections, but when you say that refusing to vote in faith-based unverifiable elections is cowardice and doing nothing, which implies that voting in faith-based unverifiable elections is doing something courageous, you ARE encouraging people to vote in faith-based unverifiable elections. "Tiresome nonsense," "cowardly," "myopic," "idiotic," "capitulate to bad guys," "curl up under your desk," "boring and stupid," are not words indicating a neutral position. In no sense can they be interpreted as defending the perogative of not voting. If that was your intent, then I think you expressed it poorly.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/23/2010 @ 3:18 pm PT...





acc said,

pls correct me if i am wrong but the interview said,a month and a half later there has been no canvass,no official report of votes and acc,am i to understand that you see no problem with signed poll tapes in the garbage? or are you saying the dre system is so bad that the machine mistakenly counted over 3000 spoiled ballots?

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/23/2010 @ 3:38 pm PT...





since acc has infered that he is an election official,it reminded me of the last one we had here,tracy howard,the guy from the sensational bs story...the following is paste from news clip of that election official Radford, Virginia – After learning that local election officials have rejected numerous applications of eligible students who attempted to register using their valid university addresses, voting rights advocates at the Brennan Center for Justice, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia wrote yesterday to the Registrar of the City of Radford, Virginia, urging that office to remedy the situation so that eligible students at Radford University who were wrongly rejected can cast ballots that will be counted on Election Day. The letter noted that Radford Registrar Tracy Howard has delayed or refused to register students providing university addresses as their home address, in some cases rejecting such registrations outright, by requiring such applicants to meet additional and confusing registration requirements. The affected student applications number in the hundreds if not the thousands.

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Accuvote4.6.4 said on 9/23/2010 @ 4:30 pm PT...





Karen .. try thinking on your own. The August election has been certified, By law this means the Canvas is completed. I'ev seen signed lunch receipts and signed ballots and the flag signed by ... Poll workers. Depending on their trainning they might sign everything including the tape made for the poll site after closing and all backup/copies. The OS card will print the same tape out over and over unless it's messed with, and if it's messed with then the HASH ( no brad,, not the smokeable kind) number wont match the one in the server and the server will not read it ( a little thing "HURSTI hack" failed to mention and he was well aware of it)

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 5:34 pm PT...





Acc writes: "The August election has been certified, By law this means the Canvas (sic) is completed." That's nice. But before you tell somebody else to think for themself, why don't you try it? By law where I live, the precincts for the canvass had to be chosen randomly. They weren't. I took the Registrar to court and the court found that the Registrar hadn't complied with the law and that the precincts hadn't been chosen randomly. The judge then suggested that next election the Registrar should consider complying with the law, dismissed the case, and that was that. What something means by law and what actually happens, can be two quite different things. Elections are certified all the time despite the fact that by law they aren't certifiable. Another election here was certified at a time when the Registrar admitted that thousands of votes had yet to be counted. Just because the election was certified, and that by law the election cannot be certified until the canvass was completed, does not mean that in reality the canvass was actually completed. You're great at muddying the waters, but not too good at thinking for yourself.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 5:41 pm PT...





If people didn't break laws, we wouldn't need cops and courts to enforce laws--all we'd need are laws because nobody would break them. We could save enough money to start another war and another round of bailouts. If the problem is that laws may have been broken, citing the laws does not prove that they weren't broken and isn't an example of thinking for yourself.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/23/2010 @ 5:48 pm PT...





Mark E Smith @ 34: you say that refusing to vote in faith-based unverifiable elections is cowardice and doing nothing, which implies that voting in faith-based unverifiable elections is doing something courageous No. I said that you're years-long campaign to get other people to not vote is cowardly and does nothing to improve anything. BTW, as I recall, you live in CA. So you're elections are not unverifiable. Beyond that, don't have the patience to read your absurdly long comments. Wish you would spend half as much time fighting for your democracy, instead of against it.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/23/2010 @ 6:38 pm PT...





i screwed up that blockquote thingy last time..gonna try again CANVAS would catch all the errors that you are all freaking out about in Tenn. Especially at the numbers you’re describing but they didnt catch it,the 3000 plus votes with no voters are still there

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 6:50 pm PT...





Well I sure am ignorant then, Brad. I was unaware that we now have verifiable elections in California so that things like the election glitch of 2008 https://bradblog.com/?p=6373 can't happen here any more. That's great news. Would you mind explaining to me how you verify that the central tabulators tally the votes the same way that the paper ballots and optical scanners record them? I'd certainly consider voting if I could be sure that the votes had been tallied the same way that they had been cast and recorded. Back when I stopped voting, as I mentioned above, we couldn't even ensure that all the votes had been counted (or miscounted or flipped as the case may be) before the election was certified. Official observers weren't allowed to watch the absentee ballots being counted, and although the Registrar insisted that it was the absentee ballots that had swayed the election, since the absentee votes were often two-to-one or three-to-one AGAINST the candidates who had come out two-to-one or three-to-one ahead at the polls, nobody ever saw the absentee ballots counted because he "forgot" to notify the observers. Now they've almost completely eliminated the polls and almost everyone votes by mail. It isn't mandatory yet, but without as many polling places, it is more convenient. As for Acc's observation that poll workers will sign anything, the same seems to be true of SOME elections officials. Although the office of the CA Secretary of State may have access to the audit logs, they don't have time to check them all before local elections are certified and I was unaware that the public had access to audit logs prior to the election being certified. You can verify that your vote is recorded by the voting machine the way you intended, but I'd be EXTREMELY interested in finding out if there is a way to verify that the central tabulator tallied the votes the way the op-scans or voting machines recorded them. If I go to the bank and make a small cash deposit, I count out the money to the teller. The teller counts it again in front of me. But I don't just walk out satisfied that we both agreed on how much I deposited. I want a receipt showing that my account was credited that amount--that it was correctly entered into the bank's computer system. It also bothers me that between the election and the canvass (the tally, or mandatory minimum hand count), the ballots are in the sole custody of our elections officials for one to three days, in a building to which the public has no access except to a reception area in front during business hours. And our elections officials, as you know, are a former Diebold salesperson, and a guy who once said that when his elections officials in Cuyahoga County manipulated the hand count so it would match the machine count, they'd done nothing wrong. I want public oversight of all elections processes at all times, no secret vote counts, no breaks in a publicly visible chain of custody, etc. I have NO FAITH in elections officials or in computerized tallies. None. Total atheist. I'm not saying all elections officials are like Tony 'Trust Me' Anchundo, just that elections are so important that if I was counting the votes myself, I'd want people checking me every step of the way to make sure that I didn't make any mistakes. Maybe elections officials aren't human, but I am and I'm capable of error, as I may have done in assuming that our elections are still not verifiable. Yes, I understand that YOUR VOTE is verifiable, I want to know if THE ELECTION is verifiable. When I'm talking about faith-based unverifiable elections, I'm not talking about faith-based unverifiable votes. Even if every single vote is verified by the voter when cast, it does not mean that the election, the vote tally, is verifiable.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Bev Harris said on 9/23/2010 @ 7:02 pm PT...





Well this thread has the propagandists out, doesn't it? So this San Diego County employee, now calling himself Accu ...etc... is apparently using county taxpayer dollars sitting here spitting out talking points on a blog. Posting during business hours, eh? Is that what the taxpayers are paying you for, Accu? One correction. I asked two people who I believed would know, and neither said there was a physical sign-in sheet. Randy Wade, a candidate for sheriff, told me today that there is a list of signatures for who showed up at the polls. That's something to check, then. Now, Accu-propaganda up there seems to believe that if a bunch of good old boys give a thumbs up to an election, the public must accept it whether the numbers match or not. Well, the numbers don't match, and the public doesn't have to accept this, and the public is NOT accepting this.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/23/2010 @ 9:14 pm PT...





I think it rather unlikely that Acc is in San Diego. And extremely unlikely that Acc is employed by the San Diego ROV. Acc's writing style, rhetoric, assumptions, general attitude, and liberties with the facts are almost identical to those of a former elections official in another state.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Marlene said on 9/24/2010 @ 8:45 am PT...





Dear Brad,

First, I want to thank you for continuing to cover voter fraud. You are just about the only journalist who is willing to tell voters the truth about our so called democracy. After working, breathing, eating and researching the voting system in DuPage County, Illinois for 10 years, I am rather dismayed to see you advertising Early Voting in Illinois. Early Voting is strictly done on touch screen machines, here in Dupage, unless the voters travel to Wheaton, and vote at the DuPage County Election Commission. This is something that very few voters, in Dupage County, realize. And, as you know, the touch screens are the worst means of voting. I have read only a few of the current posts on today's articles, and I must agree with those folks who say it is time to stop talking about our votes not counting, and do something. Well, I have tried for 10 years to do something, and I have even spoken to Durbin about this issue, and guess what? No one even cares, not Durbin, not even the Democrats. They all believe that, if the Dems turn out enough voters that we can override any cheating that the DuPage County G.O.P. can do. During my 10 years as a Democratic Committeeman, I did everything in my power to confront the issues around voter fraud. I was the only PC telling her voters NOT to use touch screens, or Early Voting. The other Dems would not tell their

precincts, because they were afraid that no one would vote. Well, I know more than most local voters, and I still vote!!! Maybe, if the Democrats, and our Democratic pols would do their jobs, and fight for the voters, they would give everyone a reason to VOTE!!!!

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/24/2010 @ 10:02 am PT...





I am wondering Bev Harris @43 & Mark E. Smith @44 why the two of you assume that "Accuvote4.6.4" is actually an election official, as opposed to a paid propagandist of a private vendor. His (or her) comment @33 calls to mind Rob Pelletier and the article Black Box Voting published some years back, The Diebold Persuasion Machine [PDF]. In that piece, BBV revealed, among other things, the Diebold-funded creation of "The Blackboxwatchdog site" a few days after the Hursti hack which immediately began hurling false accusations against election integrity advocates, including a false claim that "Hursti and employees of Black Box Voting (naming Kathleen Wynne, Bev Harris, Jim March) were soon to be arrested for felony vote-tampering." I suspect that enough digging would expose "Accuvote4.6.4" as a paid-for industry propagandist.

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/24/2010 @ 10:34 am PT...





Marlene @ 45: Thanks for your supportive comments and, far more so, for your work in trying to oversee your own democracy in DuPage. As you likely know, the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project (IBIP) is one of the smartest election integrity groups working out there and I'd encourage everyone to support their efforts. Big time. Among the things I've been able to learn about through them is the outrageous fact that a far-Right GOP operative, Dan Curry, is actually sucking off the government teet to making thousands of dollars each month as the PR operative for the (supposedly, non-partisan) Election Commission. In short, Curry is one of the unapologetically worst of the worst Tea Baggers there is, with a record of lying about any number of things in order to achieve partisan advantage as a Republican operative even while collecting a check from DuPage County each month to supposedly represent all voters. That he hasn't been drummed out by now, along with the partisan scam artists who funnell tax dollars to him on behalf of the government, is an outrage that should draw round the clock protests outside of both the Election Commission and the local media for allowing him to continue his despicable work in attacking democracy, rather than supporting it. As to ads you may have seen here encouraging Early Voting out there. Ads that readers see is based both on content on any given page, as well as their locality. Being out here in CA, I've not seen the ads you refer to and, in truth, I have very little (often no) control over which ads run via the ad networks we use. Next time the ad comes up, however, if you're able to screenshot it and email it to me, I'll be glad to give it a look and see if it violates our guidelines for advertising here. My guess is that it does not though, as we do our best to firewall ad content from editorial content, unless any particular ad is offering out-and-out disinformation. One last thought: Your greatest concern on the touch-screen systems is not "voter fraud". The voters are doing fine. Please leave them alone. It's "election fraud" you need to be concerned about, where insiders (like Curry and his friends) have unfettered access to tabulation systems on which they can flip the results of an election without ever being discovered. And thanks again for the kind words and all you're doing out there!

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/24/2010 @ 10:44 am PT...





Ernie @ 46: "Acc" gives his position away, as working for SD County in his own comments. Furthermore, I can confirm that the posting was made, during work hours, from a San Diego County computer. Clearly, "Acc" has little interest in following county guidelines on that score, and proves once again, therefore, why no election official should ever simply be trusted (as the actually good ones will tell you!), but instead be overseen carefully by the citizenry, along with their elections. Given that San Diego makes it next to impossible for citizens to be able to afford to oversee their own elections (see the 2006 Busby/Bilbray debacle, and how the far Rightwing SD Registrar's office capriciously set the price for hand-counting of ballots at $1/ballot for a citizen lawsuit and refused to release public documents, while neighboring Orange County allows same for appx $.14/ballot), I suspect that even "Acc" knows, he's full of shit. If he doesn't, then, as he foolishly tried to describe me, he is "truly...ignorant of what in totality it takes to hold an election" in a transparent American democracy, that he must "conjure 98% of the dribble [he] posted here."

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/24/2010 @ 12:33 pm PT...





Thanks for checking that IP, Brad. It looks like I was wrong about Acc but correct about our elections still not being verifiable. It isn't those who admit to human frailties who should be viewed with suspicion, but those who claim infallibility. To paraphrase an ancient wisdom, let those who have never been wrong throw the first stone.

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... karen said on 9/24/2010 @ 3:39 pm PT...





I just want it noted that without Brad and Bev, there would be so little know about how unverifiable our elections are. Thanks Brad and Bev, I know many others assist, but without your leadership we would be so much worse off. From my small experience in this world, must corruption gets unmasked eventually...I think Shelby county and some other crazy stuff this Nov will be the time we look back and realize that was when it the tide finally turned. Majority in country believe Iraq war a was about 911 or wmds or something elso, not they dont. Unfortunately , rats will be onto something else it will take use 10-15 years to expose, but preserving democracy is worth it

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/24/2010 @ 3:43 pm PT...





I'm sorry, Mark. I haven't had time to plow through all of your essays here, but yes, California's election's (other than in Orange County and San Mateo) are, indeed, verifiable. No, I wasn't speaking about YOUR ballot, I was speaking about ALL of our ballots (with a few minor exceptions, such as in O.C. and where voters are stupid enough to use unverifiable "disabled accessible" DREs.) If you spent half as much time trying to help your fellow citizens to verify those elections as you do trying to convince people to not vote at all for reasons which remain beyond anybody's grasp here over the last several years that you keep choking that same dead chicken, we might have moved democracy more forward than we have by now. And yes, there are great patriots on the ground who have succeeded in moving it forward, making it more verifiable, fighting to verify ballots, fighting to assure access to those who want it, even if you seem to refuse to be one of them. Seriously, Mark, give it a rest. Your years-long campaign of one is a failure, with absolutely nothing to show for it (compared to so many who read this site every day, who actually do something positive --- successfully --- about the situation.)

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/24/2010 @ 6:00 pm PT...





Okay, Brad, since you don't have time to read my comments, you wouldn't have seen where I said, "I'd be EXTREMELY interested in finding out if there is a way to verify that the central tabulator tallied the votes the way the op-scans or voting machines recorded them." I'm still extremely interested. If there's a way, before the results have been certified, to verify that the central tabulators haven't been accessed by unauthorized persons during the election, I'd be happy to volunteer to help examine the audit logs. I haven't done coding since the days of COBOL and FORTRAN, but if the public can access the central tabulator software before the election is certified, to compare it with that which is on file with the CA Secretary of State and ensure that it hasn't been modified, I'm capable of doing a line by line comparison and would be happy to volunteer to help get it done. I was unaware that you'd made that much progress, if indeed you have. On the other hand if the public still has no access to central tabulator audit logs and software before the results are certified, then there is still no way to verify that the central tabulators tallied the votes the same way that the op-scans and DRE's recorded them. All you can do is verify that your vote was recorded accurately, and then wait for the election fairy to swoop down and tell you the results of the unverifiable central tabulator tallies. You have to have faith that the central tabulator software wasn't illegally modified and that the processing wasn't hacked. Where I am, the public can't even get close enough to the central tabulator to ensure that it isn't illegally connected to the internet, and as Acc pointed out, anyone who tries will be arrested.

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/24/2010 @ 7:21 pm PT...





we won a small victory in az that i thought mark might be interested in since he said his area does same 8) (WON before court started) Finally at point eight we win a big one. Just before the trial started the county stipulated they were wrong, a shrewd move to quietly remove one of our bigger claims: no more picking precincts to hand count until after they release precinct-detail vote totals as per the ARS 16-602. What they were doing was both crafty and disgusting: by learning which precincts would be counted before releasing details for each, they could rig the vote totals among all precincts at the central database and then once they learn what will be counted, un-rig those ones selectively (shifting any false totals assigned there to other, uncounted precincts). This was the single most blatant violation along with the unsigned results tape and they gave up before trial started. We have on video two different times that we protested on this point, on 11/05/08 and on 08/25/10.

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/24/2010 @ 8:57 pm PT...





Mark - Presuming you live in California, you have the right, as an elector, to ask for a hand count of any race, at any precinct you like. You can have your own hand count of the ballots, right before your eyes. You can also make public records requests for Audit Logs to examine them. You can't look at the source code for the machines, however, as far as I know. Though it wouldn't do much for you anyway, since there's no way to know that you're looking at the code actually used on election day. But if you have the ballots to count yourself, that's far more valuable anyway, most likely. You can also look to the Maricopa, AZ lawsuit by AuditAZ that Karen just referenced above. They are doing an extraordinary amount of good work out there in bringing heat to both Maricopa and Pima County's, forcing procedural changes of all sorts, allowing far more oversight and accountability. (And, a couple of years ago, won a decision from the court that the databases of how voters voted, etc. were public records). There are all sorts of things that can be done to fight for transparency and/or ways to verify elections in various ways. Taking actual action on behalf of your democracy and rights would be a very good thing for you to do --- rather than posting years long rants about how people should not vote and otherwise do absolutely nothing.

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/24/2010 @ 9:31 pm PT...





I'm not convinced that they wanted it, but the Democrats are in power today because the voters overwhelmed the attempts to rig the election in favor of Republicans in 2008. Do I have any proof? Not a scosh, but I'll believe it until the day I die.

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/24/2010 @ 11:07 pm PT...





LOL @ Larry. Ain't no arguing with beliefs. Karen and Brad, I do follow Maricopa pretty closely, mostly through Dave Griscom who worked with and stays in touch with John Brakey. I came across two articles today that appear to share my point of view. The second one is labeled satire, but as with many satires, contains much truth: The Progressive Dilemma

http://onlinejournal.com...blish/article_6342.shtml Study concludes Americans are the Stupidest People on the Planet

http://onlinejournal.com...blish/article_6350.shtml Since the corporations and the military-industrial complex want war, and since both major parties are dependent upon them for jobs and funding, the only candidates with any chance of winning will be pro-war, and the results of any federal election will always be more war. So the questions of who can vote, how voting is done, and whether elections can be verified, are just distractions from the fact that in U.S. federal elections, the only choice voters have is war. Everything else is off the table, unrealistic, or impractical. Voters divide people into three categories: 1. Those who prefer Republican war. 2. Those who prefer Democratic war. 3. Those who are too apathetic to care which brand of war we get. Although I've personally begged each and every one of them not to, most of the self-described peace activists I know vote. Then they act surprised when the outcome of the election is more war.

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/24/2010 @ 11:45 pm PT...





COL@Mark,(whoever): COL stands for "crying out loud" and I'd be willing to bet my life that's not your real name. Whoever said: Voters divide people into three categories: 1. Those who prefer Republican war. 2. Those who prefer Democratic war. 3. Those who are too apathetic to care which brand of war we get. The whole purpose of this blog is to prove that voters can't vote and it has proven it without any doubt whatsoever. You're and idiot!

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/24/2010 @ 11:47 pm PT...





The last election had nothing to do with apathy!

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/25/2010 @ 1:17 am PT...





You lose, Larry. That's my real name. Just about any San Diego area election integrity activist can verify that for you (Brad can, if he wishes, put you in touch with some if you don't happen to know any), as could quite a few prominent election activists in other states. The problem with elections is that people like you aren't betting their own lives, they're betting other people's lives. Millions of other people's lives, in fact. I'm intrigued by your statement that, "The whole purpose of this blog is to prove that voters can't vote and it has proven it without any doubt whatsoever," and I'll be very amused if Brad agrees with you.

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/25/2010 @ 2:05 am PT...





Mark: Give me a call dude: 801-265-9221 I usually have to work, but leave me message on my answering machine about YOUR phone number... K?

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/25/2010 @ 2:15 am PT...





I meant to say "leave me A message"

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/25/2010 @ 3:25 am PT...





I'm waiting...

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/25/2010 @ 3:56 am PT...





Sorry, Larry. I have my own website and post to several other blogs and mailing lists, in addition to having what passes for a life, so I'm not on here 24/7. My phone number is (619) 702-7251, but since I never plug the phone in unless somebody I wish to speak with has emailed and prearranged a time to call me, it won't do you any good. My full name and address: Mark E. Smith

1055 9th Ave #203

San Diego CA 92101-5527 Since I can't imagine anything I'd want to talk with you about, I'm not giving you my website or email. You may continue to call me an idiot right here if you wish, but I won't allow you to do it over the phone. If you have something to say, do it here where people can see it. Using your statement about the purpose of this blog as an example, if you'd said it over the phone and I told people that's what you'd said, nobody would believe me. And that's something I couldn't have made up if I'd tried. I owe you nothing, I want nothing from you, and I don't think I'd benefit in any way from getting to know you better. I think you owe me an apology, so if you want something from me or wish to get to know me better, that might be a good place to start.

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/25/2010 @ 4:36 am PT...





And by the way, Larry, although there are only 46 people on my personal mailing list, I enjoy making new friends. I'm always happy to get to know and work with any leftist with an I.Q. over 150, as long as they're well-traveled, well-read, have done or written anything I admire and respect, and are capable of engaging in intelligent discussions without stooping to personal attacks. Somehow I don't get the impression that you'd be a good fit with my crowd, dude.

COMMENT #65 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/25/2010 @ 5:44 am PT...





Since your phone's not plugged in, (jackass), I guess I can't call you. I have no idea what my I.Q. is but I can assure you that I'm not well traveled OR well read. Nothing else to say, eh?

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]

... Paul Lehto said on 9/25/2010 @ 6:07 am PT...





Brad Friedman wrote: "yes, California's election's (other than in Orange County and San Mateo) are, indeed, verifiable." I'd have to question this statement. In 2006, in the Busby Bilbray race two CAlifornia citizens sued for a recount and have yet to see their first ballot, despite voter turnout percentages in some precincts not only over 100% but over several thousand percent higher than the number of registered voters according to the Registrar's own printouts. Another common thing in San Diego county is for the statutory audit to find discrepancies and nothing is done to follow up on them. This things have been the subject of more than one lawsuit by more than one attorney and no action by the Registrar was forthcoming. If one can't verify the election when they REALLY want to (such as when they want to badly enough to sue for it) then one can't really say "elections in California are verifiable" unless by "Verifiable" one means "capable of being verified in theory" but not in actual fact.

COMMENT #67 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/25/2010 @ 2:17 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith: I can't recall a single comment by anyone else who has agreed with your year's long effort to convince others to stay home; don't vote. Can you, Mark? If not, don't you think it's time you stopped beating that dog.

COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 9/25/2010 @ 2:56 pm PT...





I'm always happy to get to know and work with any leftist with an I.Q. over 150 I'll wager that the vast majority of people with IQs above 150 would be "leftists" according to your worldview.

COMMENT #69 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/25/2010 @ 5:03 pm PT...





Yes, Ernest, I can recall hundreds of comments agreeing with me over the past years, dozens in the past few months, and two yesterday from people I don't know on a blog where I rarely post. But not on blogs like this which allow personal attacks. People who agree with me, but see me being subjected to personal attacks, usually don't wish to subject themselves to personal attacks also. On forums which allow direct or personal messaging between users, I often get feedback from people who agree with what I've written but don't want to incur the wrath of cyber-bullies by saying so publicly. Adam, there are many people with high IQ's who are corrupt, short-sighted, or driven by greed and lust for power. I'm not denying that they exist, just saying that I don't particularly want them as friends. Intelligence without compassion, that is, a brain without a heart, is, in my worldview, an indication of stunted development.

COMMENT #70 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/25/2010 @ 5:36 pm PT...





Adam, I think Henry Kissinger is a good example of a person with a high I.Q. whom I wouldn't want as a friend. His I.Q. is said to be well over 150, but I don't think anyone would describe him as a leftist, as a compassionate being, or as an ethical person. The type of society one lives in, often determines who rises to the top. In a democracy, meritocracy, or ethical society, the cream can rise to the top, but in a tyranny, plutocracy, or corrupt society, it is often the scum who rise to the top. There's a crucial difference and it is useful to be able to differentiate rather than simply assuming that anyone who is smart and powerful is therefore worthy of respect.

COMMENT #71 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 9/25/2010 @ 6:31 pm PT...





Larry - Personal insults against commenters (other than against folks like myself) are against our very few rules for commenting here. Please knock it off. Mark - If you'd like Larry's comments deleted, just let me know.

COMMENT #72 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 9/25/2010 @ 6:40 pm PT...





... Mark E. Smith said on 9/25/2010 @ 5:36 pm PT... Adam, I think Henry Kissinger is a good example of a person with a high I.Q. whom I wouldn't want as a friend. His I.Q. is said to be well over 150 Yes, Henry Kissinger is a brilliant criminal sociopath. What would you estimate Noam Chomsky's IQ to be?

COMMENT #73 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/25/2010 @ 8:14 pm PT...





Thank you, Brad. I think your rules are very well thought out. I'd prefer that Larry's comments NOT be deleted, but I'd also appreciate it if his personal attacks do not continue. Adam, I think Chomsky's I.Q. is also off the charts, and I don't think even his severest critics have accused him of any sins of commission, so to speak, although he has sometimes been accused of refusing to address controversial topics that could jeopardize his academic reputation. Those who have sought his insights on issues like the JFK assassination and 9/11 Truth have been disappointed, but he may feel that in addressing the more controversial theories he could damage the very credibility that would make his analysis valuable. Critical thinkers had hoped for his analysis, which they would then have subjected to their own analysis, while those who rely more on authority than on independent thought, support his choices to avoid the pitfalls of challenging the conventional wisdom in areas that determined some of the very policies he so ably critiques. Personally, I'm grateful that my own lack of credibility and academic stature allows me the latitude to explore questions which I might not otherwise feel comfortable addressing. Sometimes lesser intellects can make valuable contributions by simply investigating evidence that greater minds won't look at.

COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/25/2010 @ 10:03 pm PT...





brad,ty for supplying the background and link for me,they are doing fantastic work there in az mark,we the people do not give our consent to be governed by voting anyways..ur whole premise is incorrect..we imply our consent by staying i have read ur stuff here and at bbv,you could be a force for good ,maybe it is hopeless but i dont think rosa had any idea what she started when she refused to give up that seat,so u nevr know what one person with really sore feet can start... a guy with a sore attitude that is a lawyer..we could really use him...u and i both know the same peops that rig the machines are the ones that want continual war...why not hassle them..in a totally legal way of course

COMMENT #75 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/25/2010 @ 10:36 pm PT...





Karen, anywhere there are people and there is a government, unless the people abandon the country en masse, their government may be a legitimate government with the consent of the governed, or an illegitimate government without the consent of the governed. The reason that governments, even tyrannies, hold elections is that there is no other way that they can demonstrate that the people they are claiming to have the right to govern, have given their consent to be governed by that government. In other words, as long as people voted, the Apartheid regime in South Africa had a claim to being the legitimate government with the consent of the governed. It wasn't until they held an election and the people of South Africa refused to vote, and they could only show a voter turnout of 7%, that it because indisputably clear to the world that the Apartheid regime did not have the consent of the people of South Africa. If we had such a thing as a vote of no confidence or a binding "none of the above" (along with honest verifiable elections, of course), where, not only could people be certain that their votes would be counted and counted accurately, but also that if the government in power did not get the consent of the governed, it would have to step down, could changes be brought about through voting. Take a look at my post #106 here: http://emptywheel.firedo...wlaki-he-just-is-damnit/ If you believe that people who want war are rigging the machines (not that it is necessary to rig the machines when the only two candidates with any chance of winning are both pro-war), how can voting hassle them? Rosa Parks didn't start anything. Many people before her had refused to give up their seats and move to the back of the bus. Rosa Parks was the final straw that mobilized the people to a bus boycott. No matter how tired their sore feet, they walked instead of taking a bus. It was the bus boycott that brought about change. I really hope that the Memphis case will be historic and will result in some sort of remedy. Year after year, election after election, I've helped or supported or watched activists do the tedious work of proving that the results of an election were wrong. And year after year, election after election, the proof was obtained but no remedy occurred. Perhaps in this case, or perhaps in some future case, a remedy may be possible without an election boycott. But I suspect that until and unless people get so fed up with rigged elections that they stop voting in rigged elections and boycott rigged elections--just refusing to vote until we can be sure that the elections are not rigged, the rigged elections will continue. As I've said many times, why should anyone stop rigging elections as long as people are still willing to vote in rigged elections? If the people of Montgomery, Alabama had been willing to continue to ride the bus even after Rosa Parks, like so many before her, had been arrested, and hadn't organized a bus boycott, I suspect that the buses in Alabama would still be segregated. In case you're unfamiliar with the Rosa Parks story, here's the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks It is an excellent example of how injustice will continue until the people get fed up and refuse to participate any more.

COMMENT #76 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/25/2010 @ 10:38 pm PT...





Sorry Brad, I was in a real bad mood and I was out of line. You can delete my comments. Sorry Mark, but when I think somebody's trying to mess up an election it gets my hackles up.

COMMENT #77 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/26/2010 @ 10:42 am PT...





Brad, please don't delete Larry's comments. Larry, why did you think I was "trying to mess up an election"? Do you believe that our elections are free, fair, open, honest, transparent, and that the results are never wrong? Do you believe that the major parties, or even one of them, represent the interests of the majority of the American people? Do you think that when corporations spend close to a billion dollars funding the campaigns of political candidates, they are doing it for the good of the country without expecting anything for themselves in return? How do you think it would "mess up an election" where millions of votes go uncounted, or where the Supreme Court overrides the popular vote, if people didn't vote? I can understand why political party operatives who are paid to get out the vote, become irate when somebody suggests that people not vote in rigged elections, but why would demanding honest elections by boycotting rigged elections anger any honest person? Do you think that someone who refuses to play in a rigged card game and warns others that the game is rigged, is therefore opposed to all card games? There are many ways to mess up an election that do not involve the number of people who vote. For example, central tabulators can be programmed to allocate a certain percentage of votes to each candidate. If the central tabulators are programmed to allocate 60% of the vote to Candidate A, 30% of the vote to Candidate B, and distribute the other 10% of the votes among third party candidates, if 10 people vote, Candidate A will get 6 votes, Candidate B will get 3 votes, and a third party candidate will get 1 vote. If a hundred people vote, Candidate A will get 60 votes, Candidate B will get 30 votes, and third party candidates will get 10 votes. If a thousand people vote, Candidate A will get 600 votes, Candidate B will get 300 votes, and third party candidates will get 100 votes. And the proportions will remain the same if a million, 10 million, or even 100 million people vote. Unless there is a way to ensure that the central tabulators have not been programmed to mess up the election, it doesn't matter how many people vote. It is not surprising in a capitalist society, that the candidate who attracts the most corporate donor money, would win the election. What would be surprising would be if the candidate who was the most popular but didn't attract as many large corporate donors, managed to get a major party nomination. Do you know of a case where that happened? This thread began with a discussion of a Memphis election that is being investigated by Bev Harris and others. They have uncovered evidence of fraud and proven that the numbers available so far cannot be verified and are completely implausible. Do you think that it was the voters who messed up that election? There were found to be thousands more votes than voters. If 2,000 people vote and 5,000 votes are tallied, do you think it is because not enough people voted? Would you have more faith in such an election if 10,000 people had voted and 5,000 votes had been tallied? In some cases of suspected election fraud, the numbers appear to have been flipped. For example one candidate may be leading, 53% to 47%, and the next morning the results show that the other candidate "won" by that exact percentage. Do you think that if the first candidate had been leading by a larger margin, it would have prevented the votes from being flipped? Your anger is understandable. You believe that if more people vote for one candidate than for another, the candidate with the most votes will win, particularly if a huge majority votes for one candidate and only a small minority votes for the other candidate. In our elections, illegal voter purges, voter caging, insufficient distribution of voting machines, and other dirty tricks can make a lopsided election appear to be closer than it really is, and allow a vote-flip by the central tabulators to appear plausible. But in the '08 election no vote-flip was necessary. The candidate with the most money won, the agenda that the majority of people wanted changed, continued unchanged, and therefore the allegedly missing six million votes, which would not have changed the outcome of the election, were never challenged. So in your belief system, the '08 election was not messed up. Had the candidate with somewhat less corporate donor money, McCain, whose Senate voting record and agenda were virtually identical with Obama's, won the election with six million votes unaccounted for, I think you'd be claiming that the election had been messed up. In other words, I don't think you care about whether the election is messed up or not, you just care about your candidate or party winning. You're angry because you think that anyone who cares about honest elections isn't supporting your candidate or party and might even be supporting the other candidate or party. In your belief system, election integrity is irrelevant and the only important thing is that your side wins. Similarly, in Mongomery, Alabama, those who owned or held stock in the bus company would have been angry with those who boycotted the bus system because to the shareholders the issue wasn't segregation but continued profits. As long as the bus system remained profitable, the shareholders had no reason to care whether or not the buses were segregated. Only after the bus boycott had threatened the profitability of the bus system, did the injustice of segregation come to the attention of the shareholders so that they were forced to end segregation in order to get people to ride the bus again. That's how an election boycott would work. Right now, those in power don't care if our elections are honest or not, as long as they can remain in power. If there was a successful election boycott, however, and the only way that they could get people to start voting again was to have honest, verifiable elections, they would be forced to confront and address the issue of election integrity, instead of caring only about who wins.

COMMENT #78 [Permalink]

... Larry bergan said on 9/26/2010 @ 12:54 pm PT...





Mark: Maybe that IS your real name and if it is, thanks for being willing to divulge it. Even since I started reading this blog I've been amazed that there are many, many people who are willing to get on here and other blogs just to mess up the conversation, by pretending to be someone else or just using a moniker to do the same thing. Somebody actually used my name to post one time. I get upset an try to get commenters to reveal their own name knowing it will make them more honest. Your insistence that people give up trying to vote over and over again is despicable and very suspect. But you know that.

COMMENT #79 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/26/2010 @ 1:37 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith @49 wrote: Yes, Ernest, I can recall hundreds of comments agreeing with me over the past years, dozens in the past few months, and two yesterday from people I don't know on a blog where I rarely post. But not on blogs like this which allow personal attacks. Let's analyze that. 1. You concede, Mark, that not one single person at The BRAD BLOG has agreed with your years long crusade to get people to boycott the electoral process as a reasonable solution to the billionaire assault on democracy. 2. You attribute your 100% failure rate in convincing anyone here as to the wisdom of your crusade to "personal attacks" even though this blog's rules discourage personal attacks. With all due respect, Mark, I have to question the scientific basis for your assumption. Both Brad and I have been the recipient of personal attacks with respect to numerous articles here at The BRAD BLOG. While people can and do disagree with what either of us has had to say on any given topic (and, indeed, are encouraged to do so in a respectful manner), in spite of those personal attacks, many have agreed and continue to agree with Brad and I on topics that do not receive universal acceptance. This would suggest that your 100% failure rate in convincing anyone here at The BRAD BLOG that your boycott is a reasonable means to resolve the electoral dilemma or to reduce the democracy deficit is due to something other than personal attacks, i.e. the invalidity or lack wisdom embodied by your boycott elections argument. Regardless, since you've been playing this tune for more than a year now and since it has bombed here every time, perhaps the time has come for you to abandon what amounts to an exercise in futility.

COMMENT #80 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 9/26/2010 @ 1:43 pm PT...





Mark E. ~ Amazed that your superior intellect doesn't tip you off to this, but Boycotts only work when the vendor has a VESTED FINANCIAL INTEREST in the boycott of the product. They don't gain anything from my participation but gain everything from my lack of participation. So...why do they care a whit if everyone stays home? Supply / demand economics is N/A, here. How is it that your Giant I.Q. still fails to register that simple dinky-do? I love that karenfromillinois (and Brad) have both tried to put you onto your better medal in this fight (and any fight in this fight is better than your fight, Mark E., really 'tis) and arouse some plucky thing in your Great Big Mind that will advance a cause (any cause, cuz any cause in this cause is better than your cause, Mark E., really 'tis) only to be met with the same anti-voting dribble-drabble you've been espousing here for years with expert ineffectiveness. Your remarkable lack of aptitude for understanding cause / effect over time should be the next big discovery tackled by science. We've been 'Ground-Hog Day-ing'this discussion with you round n' round every year since 2006 - so here is my '10 version and final draft, Mark: Abstaining from the vote aids and abets the corporate take-over of this country. Your solution to make it an even easier coup - a less hostile takeover by less aggressive means - does nothing but advance the ball for the opposition, hands them the full cheese platter, and calls it a day. No matter how much blah blah you (quite tragically) devote to it, your idea can not stand on it's own merit. ...I'm a complete dummy and I see that. Brad is right: can't you give it a rest until you get some NEW bad ideas? (Advance heads-up volly as you consider the dissertation thesis you've got forming in your head in response: I won't read it, so keep it really, really short. Like...one syllable.)

COMMENT #81 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/26/2010 @ 2:26 pm PT...





For thousands of years, Ernest, most civilizations were ruled by tyrants and might made right. There was no such thing as democracy. So it would have been an exercise in futility to advocate democracy. All previous attempts at establishing a democratic form of government had a 100% failure rate. Some fools persisted anyway. Do you think they were wrong? At one time people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. All attempts to convince them otherwise had a 100% failure rate. Yet some fools, even at the cost of their own credibility and sometimes their lives, persisted anyway. Do you think they were wrong? Everyone here on BradBlog (at least those willing to post publicly--I have private communications from several people here who agree with me), believes that it is possible to bring about honest elections without boycotting rigged elections. So far they have had a 100% failure rate. This topic is about yet another attempt, this time in Memphis, to remedy election fraud by proving that there was election fraud and seeking remedies within the system. There have been numerous such attempts in the past, and they have had a 100% failure rate. Do you think that people should therefore stop trying to remedy election fraud by investigating and documenting election fraud? In many previous elections, it was proven conclusively that there were more votes than voters. Had this method of deterring election fraud met with success in the past, it would not have occurred again in Memphis. But it apparently has happened again. Since documenting election fraud has met with a 100% failure rate in preventing future election fraud, would you advise that such efforts be abandoned? What you're really saying is that because nobody here dares to openly agree with me, I should shut up and go away. I remember when election fraud was considered to be a lunatic conspiracy theory and people like Bev were banned from web forums just for mentioning election fraud. For a long time those who attempted to discuss election fraud on many large forums had a 100% failure rate. It simply was not allowed. Nobody agreed with them. There was no election fraud and that was that. But some fools persisted and today there are very few forums left that still deny the existence of election fraud, or attempt to silence, discredit, or ban anyone who mentions election fraud. One of the reasons that Brad allows open discussion of ideas, even unpopular ideas and ideas that he himself does not agree with, is because a contest of ideas is not a popularity contest. In an open forum, ideas which have previously been universally condemned, can, if all other ideas prove unsuccessful and there's nothing else left to try, eventually prevail. I stand on the shoulders of giants, like Cleisthenes, Galileo, Bohr, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and yes, even Bev and Brad themselves, who persisted in advocating universally unpopular ideas even when such ideas had a 100% failure rate before them. That's my scientific basis for persisting in advocating an unpopular idea, Ernest. And if you think about it, I suspect that even you may eventually support my right to do so.

COMMENT #82 [Permalink]

... Adam Fulford said on 9/26/2010 @ 2:39 pm PT...





I see news to the effect that Democrats could win elections in Texas...as if that could happen with rigged unverifiable election machines.

http://www.dallasnews.co...texgovpoll_.25c8eff.html

COMMENT #83 [Permalink]

... karenfromillinois said on 9/26/2010 @ 4:36 pm PT...





mark said,

how can voting hassle them? you misunderstood,take them to court to hassle them

COMMENT #84 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/26/2010 @ 5:04 pm PT...





Karen writes, "...take them to court to hassle them." Which court, Karen? Many courts are presided over by judges who are themselves elected, and who therefore are loathe to penalize elections officials who have the power to determine the outcome of local elections. In other words, if you're a judge who will have to stand for reelection, and you know that local elections officials have the power to rig those elections, you have a strong motivation to stay on their good side. The CA50 case went through several levels of appeal until it reached the Appeals court of the State of California. At that point the attorney for Congress sent the court a letter citing Article One, Section Five of the Constitution where it says that Congress has the sole power to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members, so the court found that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the case. In fact, the case was not about a Member of Congress, it was about obtaining a local recount. But since a recount might have allowed citizens rather than Congress itself to judge the results of a Congressional election, the court determined that it had no jurisdiction. (As for Congress considering election fraud, you might ask Clint Curtis about the chances of that happening.) Or do you suggest taking them to the Supreme Court that stopped the vote count and gave the election to Bush in 2000? Our legal system is not a justice system. It is not designed or mandated to bring about justice, but only to interpret and enforce the laws. According to California elections laws, if elections officials find that they have to violate the elections laws in order to hold an election, they are allowed to do so. In other words, our law says that elections officials can break the law without penalty by claiming that they needed to do so. Our legal system is very strange. For example, our Constitution says that citizens are entitled to due process, but Obama says he can assassinate citizens he considers to be terrorists without first according them due process. Last I heard, the courts said that the decision is up to Obama, not to the courts. If you mean "hassle them" in terms of forcing them to spend time and money in court, their time is paid for by our tax money, so it doesn't cost them anything--we're paying for both sides of any court case against the government, our side, and the government's side.

COMMENT #85 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 9/26/2010 @ 7:11 pm PT...





Mark E. Smith wrote @81 For thousands of years, Ernest, most civilizations were ruled by tyrants and might made right. There was no such thing as democracy. So it would have been an exercise in futility to advocate democracy. All previous attempts at establishing a democratic form of government had a 100% failure rate. Howard Zinn in A Power Governments Cannot Suppress wrote: It is easy to be overwhelmed or intimidated by the realization that the war makers have enormous power. But some historical perspective can be useful, because it tells us that at ceretain points in history government find that all their power is futile against the power of an aroused citizenry. There is a basic weakness in government, however massive their armies, however vast their wealth, however they control images and information, because their power depends on the obedience of citizens, of soldiers, of civil servants, of journalists and writers and teachers and artists. When the citizens begin to suspect they have been deceived and withdraw their support, government loses its legitimacy and its power. Mark may think that he and Howard are saying the same thing, but actually their positions are polar opposites. Zinn is addressing the need for an active movement, and there is no reason why that movement would not actively engage in the electoral process--demanding transparent elections. Where Howard Zinn posits an assessment that the power of governments is precarious and rests on the consent of the governed, Mark offers no solution whatsoever, sort of--"Oh shit! Its all black so why try?" The fact that Obama, and Bush before him, have violated the constitution does not negate the constitution. The fact that HAVA opened the door to electronic theft of elections does not mean that HAVA cannot be replaced by a law that requires paper ballots and a hand count. The fact that election laws have been broken, does not mean that they cannot be fixed. The fact that, at present, the corporate media controls most of the flow of information does not mean that people cannot become educated, aroused and effectuate meaningful change. There's a reason why no one here at The BRAD BLOG has agreed with your proposal to boycott elections, Mark. And it has noting to do with "personal attacks." It has everything to do with the fact that your "solution" amounts to abject surrender to the hard right forces behind past electoral thefts. You want to keep beating your defeatist drum, Mark, go ahead. But no one here is buying the brown, smelly substance you've been selling.

COMMENT #86 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 9/26/2010 @ 7:57 pm PT...





Ernest - I do not believe Mark is at all saying "It's all black, so why try?" I believe he is saying that if, in our vote, there exists the power to legitimize government, then the ... what is it, contrapositive? ...should also be true, that an active stance of mass non-voting, there exists the power to de-legitimize. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that conclusion, but I would applaud Mark publicly for making a well-thought out argument. The thing that bothers me the most about the turn that elections have taken is the abandonment of exit polling. Exit polling was, only a short while ago, considered a lock. It was clear to me that there was an "inside game" being played with our votes on a mass scale when there was no MSM hue and cry over the loss of exit polls as a standard. I, for one, am willing to say that I see potential in both sides of the coin, and I don't think that Mark is trying to undermine democracy in any way, shape or form, and furthermore I continue to be intrigued and appreciative of both sides in this discussion.

COMMENT #87 [Permalink]

... Mark E. Smith said on 9/26/2010 @ 10:06 pm PT...





Thank you, Soul Rebel. Ernest quotes Zinn: "There is a basic weakness in government, however massive their armies, however vast their wealth, however they control images and information, because their power depends on the obedience of citizens, of soldiers, of civil servants, of journalists and writers and teachers and artists. When the citizens begin to suspect they have been deceived and withdraw their support, government loses its legitimacy and its power." Citizens demonstrate their obedience by doing their jobs. When citizens rebel, they go on strike and refuse to do their jobs. Consumers demonstrate their obedience by shopping. When consumers rebel, they boycott stores or products instead of shopping. Journalists demonstrate their obedience by writing what they're told to write and not leaking anything like the Pentagon Papers that the government would prefer remain hidden. When they rebel, they cease to be obedient and start telling the truth. They stop doing their jobs and start doing what they know is right. Citizens demonstrate their obedience by doing their civic duty--by voting. When citizens rebel, they boycott elections and refuse to vote. It is interesting that Ernest didn't answer one of my questions. Ernest writes, "...no one here is buying the brown, smelly substance you've been selling." Actually, I'm not selling anything, Ernest. I'm trying to convince people who are so angry with our government and with the lack of choices in elections that they often say that they have to hold their noses when they vote. The reason they have to hold their noses is because they're voting for smelly brown substances--candidates they can't hold accountable with policies they don't want. Millions of dollars are spent getting out the vote--close to a billion in the '08 Presidential election. What is it spent on? On TV debates where nothing is debated. On ads trying to convince people that no matter how bad this candidate is, the other candidate is worse. And most disgraceful of all, on appeals for money, appeals from millionaires and billionaires with millions of dollars in corporate backing, to the same citizens they're screwed by wrecking our economy to make themselves and their cronies richer. I sent money to Kerry in '04. He promised to ensure that every vote was counted. I wanted that so desperately that I convinced myself that no matter how stupid it seemed for an extremely low income person like myself, well below the poverty line, to send money to a billionaire, it would be worth it if it would help him ensure that every vote was counted. Well, he didn't bother. He'd lied. He'd promised what people wanted most so that they'd send him money, and then he took the money and walked away. In other words, he was full of brown smelly stuff. And Obama, who promised change? Is expanding the wars, increasing the bailouts, and continuing the Bush/Cheney agenda while protecting them from prosecution the change that people wanted, or was that more brown smelly stuff? Everyone I know wanted Kucinich to get the nomination. But he didn't represent the corporations so he couldn't raise as much corporate money and the superdelegates made sure the nomination went to somebody who could. I'd asked people what they'd do if Kucinich didn't get the nomination, and they said that they'd hold their noses and vote for whoever did. You don't have to hold your nose if you're not voting for brown smelly stuff. If our votes are meaningless and do not legitimize government, then there's no reason to vote. If our votes are what legitimizes government, then the only way we can delegitimize government is to stop voting for brown smelly stuff. So now that at least one person has said that they don't think my arguments are without merit, are you going to keep tediously repeating that nobody here thinks my arguments have merit and I should shut up and go away? Howard Zinn supported unions whose workers went on strike for better conditions. He didn't s