I just had a discussion with my PA state representative David J. Steil about DRE voting machine integrity. Why am I so doggone cynical about the nice corporations who only want to help the public?
I just had a charming conversation with David J. Steil, a Republican state representative for my district in Bucks Co., PA. I stated my concern that the DRE machines in my precinct have no paper trail. I told him that I would like, as a citizen, to be able to observe the vote count. I told him that I saw no physical, verifiable connection between what voters did in the voting booth and the results that are spit out of each machine. It became confrontational when he suggested that no corporation would still be in business if it tampered with the votes. He insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any tampering had taken place in PA.
I referred to Clinton Curtis's testimony http://www.youtube.com/... about the source code he created for Rep. Tom Feeney of FL before the 2000 elections. I asked him whether he was disputing the possibility of election fraud based on lack of motive or opportunity. He disputed both. His argument for the former was that corporations have no reason to defraud the public. I pointed out that these corporations are patronized by elected officials. He countered that no, elected officials do not purchase the machines, boards of elections do. I reminded him that these boards are appointed by the elected officials; therefore they will do as they're told. I also pointed out that these voting machine companies have contributed disproportionate amounts of money to the RNC. He denied that fact. http://www.commondreams.org/...
The basis of his argument for privately-run elections was threefold:
- Corporations would be out of business if they defrauded the public. Huh? That's absolutely counterintuitive. That's the kool-aid that Republicans have been serving the public for decades! In truth, any corporation that utilized a source code that influences elections without public knowledge would be patronized by politicians that benefit. The only way such a corporation that would be "out of business" would be one that had been exposed...thus the result of Diebold changing its name to Premier. He kept insisting that corporate interests were always the same as the public interest, which I countered with numerous examples of the opposite (environmental issues, labor laws, food protection, the tobacco industry). In fact, I suggested that the opposite was almost always the case. I guess I sounded like a godless commie conspiracy theorist to him!
2) There is no evidence that election fraud through source codes is taking place. I pointed out the descrepencies between exit polls and final tallies in the last two presidential elections. He denied them, then proceeded to state that it didn't happen in PA (pick one or the other; did it not happen at all, or just not in PA?). I suggested that there is plenty of evidence of conflict of interest (campaign contributions). I asked why a corporation would lobby or contribute to campaigns if it didn't benefit them to elect their chosen candidate. His reply was that these companies don't lobby for their individual industry's interest, but for "general pro-business policies." Huh? I felt like I was arguing against the non-existence of Santa Claus!
- There are counters on the machines that guarantee that the number of voters squares with the final tally. OK, but how does that prove that there's a connection with how they voted and the final tally?
It was so frustrating to hear his party line. I reminded him that he is MY employee, and he works for me. I told him he was fired; but he said he had quit and was out of office in two weeks. He said it sounded as if I had "no faith at all in the way the government is run." That tickled me pink...faith-based voting! I asked him if it was my right as a citizen to audit the vote. He said it was being done for me by the department of state.
I asked him what he personally had done to ensure that the voting machines were counting votes accurately. He said he was "comfortable" about the election process. He claimed to have read a report about these DRE's from the department of state. I asked him for the link, but he was unable to give it to me. I suggested that perhaps he had not read any such report at all.
I asked him to register my concern as a citizen as evidence that these voting machines were inadequate to maintain and support democracy. I asked him to keep track of the number of such citizen complaints. He refused, and said he would do no such thing. Mr. Steil by no means treated me with the respect due to a constituant. He insubordinately ended the conversation as if I were the employee and he were the boss! Am I mistaken when I suggest that he works for me? Would you hang up on your boss, even if you had already turned in your resignation?
I urge all Kossacks to contact their state representatives and discuss this issue. Let's register our lack of faith with a resounding confidence that informs these "comfortable" powermongers that we're going to insist on our rights! Speak out against "faith-based voting!"