[Voterescue] Voterescue Digest, Vol 2, Issue 6

[marztheron at austin.rr.com]

That's telling 'em! Thank god I'm not the only one willing to be rude to
these people. Anybody know who to tell off at MoveOn?

>
> >
> >Matt,
> >
> >You have absolutely no concept of what you're permitting with this 
> >bill (or you know exactly what you're permitting). Many computer 
> >scientists, statisticians, and data security and cryptography 
> >experts have all spoken out against exactly what you are 
> supporting. 
> >These experts provided all their work to the Holt people. They 
> were 
> >elbowed out of the bill writing process by ignorant egomaniacs or 
> >those with an antidemocratic agenda, and this piece of shit was 
> >substituted for the proper legislation. And YOU are supporting it.
> >
> >Your logic is insupportable and your failure to learn from the 
> >experts is unforgivable.  Only a fool or a fascist would say," But 
> >the bill does require paper records for the first time, and even 
> >more importantly spells out that the paper record must be used in 
> >recounts and wins out in discrepancies between paper and electronic."
> >
> >You'll get no further support from me on any of your initiatives. 
> >Take it to the bank.
> >
> >Jerry Lobdill
> >
> >At 10:52 AM 9/6/2007, you wrote:
> >>Jerry: I'm sorry that we don't see eye-to-eye on this one, but 
> I'm 
> >>really glad you took the time to write to us. I know that the 
> >>process of getting this bill through committee has been long, 
> >>frustrating, and full of compromises. But the bill does require 
> >>paper records for the first time, and even more importantly 
> spells 
> >>out that the paper record must be used in recounts and wins out 
> in 
> >>discrepancies between paper and electronic. On balance, we felt 
> >>that was not useless at all.
> >>
> >>I know some people feel we should hold out for more, and we 
> respect 
> >>that opinion. But as we said in the e-mail, we're now approaching 
> >>the third national election using totally paperless machines, and 
> >>we feel like some steps forward must be taken.
> >>
> >>Again, though, I really appreciate you taking the time to write. 
> I 
> >>hope you understand how we came to our position.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Matt Holland
> >>Director
> >>TrueMajority.org / TrueMajorityACTION.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>From: Jerry Lobdill 
> >>[<mailto:lobdillj at charter.net]>mailto:lobdillj at charter.net]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 4:41 PM
> >>To: alerts at truemajorityaction.org
> >>Subject: Re: No More Stolen Elections
> >>As one of the researchers who contributed technically to the 
> >>material that was provided to Holt but was totally ignored for no 
> >>good reason and a watered down totally useless bill substituted I 
> >>object to your promoting this betrayal of the people.
> 
> 
>