New Wisconsin Election Bill Not as Positive as Originally Reported

1/5/2006

New Wisconsin Election Bill Not as Positive as Originally Reported By Activists and Others
Contrary to reports, bill does NOT allow for examination of source code!
Original version -- which did -- was changed during amendment process to remove important clause!

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org and VoteTrustUSA.Org

Additional Reporting by Brad Friedman

The voting activist and election reform advocacy community was excited yesterday upon release of news about the signing of a new bill in Wisconsin, AB267, that originally included wording that would allow munipalities to "provide to any person, upon request, at the expense of the municipality, the coding for the software that the municipality uses to operate the system and to tally the votes cast". Indeed, The BRAD BLOG received many email reports last night about the "good news" concerning this bill.

The bill, as understood and reported by many, would have been the first time that voting activists would have been afforded the opportunity to actually "look under the hood" of voting machines by examining the source code used in the software in order to see what was really being done on the equipment supplied by Voting Machine Companies. So far, those companies have managed keep such source code secret and proprietary and away from the 'prying eyes' of the pesky public who has been forced -- by the corporate privatization of America's public elections -- to rely on such secret
software to accurately record and count their votes.

The apparent "good news," however, was incorrect, as The BRAD BLOG has learned. The language from the original bill was changed during the amendment process to strip it of the provisions that would have allowed the public inspection of the secret code!

The good news still left to report is that the bill, signed yesterday by WI Gov. Jim Doyle, will at least require a voter verified paper "record" for every vote cast. In theory, the measure would allow for a manual count or recount of votes in cases where the state determines such a count would be necessary.

snip

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002239.htm

into what's going on with this.

See his posts in this link.

on the greatest page, it seems fitting that this extra information also be there to let folks know. And so...a recommendation.

C'mon, dude, give us a hand here. :-)

and clicked it only to find out I don't have enough posts to recommend a thread.

I guess a :kick: will have to do.

Anyone else willing?

Steven P.

Thanks, it seems to have made it.

I'm always happy when I can help. :hi:

Steven P.

process to strip it of the provisions that would have allowed the public inspection of the secret code!"

Changed by whom?

If holding State Legislators responsible for their hand in election fraud isn't already part of the GuvWurld Revolution, it should be.

Personal Accountability NOW!

Changed by whom?

His approach to election fraud is to handle it locally and to hold the SOBs responsible personally accountable for their involvement.

IMO, that is KEY to ending this crime spree.

I know he has been effective.

What is IMO?

Sometimes, you'll see IMHO: In My Humble Opinion.

When I first found DU, I had to spend a lot of time at AcronymFinder.com ;)

I misunderstood...

*slaps forehead*

and thanks for the URL.:hi:

It isn't much, but it has helped me.

:D

to the surface, and it will, we need to track down who made the change and hold them accountable.

Because they knew exactly what they where doing when they did it!!

(Doh!) ;)