The Truth will prevail, but only if we demand it from Congress!

9-11 Inside Job and Neocons Hacked 2004


Home ] 9-11 Inside Job ] Federal Reserve ] Hacking Elections ] Iraq War ] Fake War on Terror ] New World Order ] Media ] Peak Oil-Petro Euros ] Fascism in U.S. ] Editorials ] About Us ] Links ] Contact Us ]




Jonathan Simon-“No” to Holt Election Reform Bill


Very well informed voting integrity activist, Jonathan Simon, is strongly opposed to supporting the Holt bill in its current form.  Please take a minute to review Jonathan's remarks and the associated links and consider what action steps you may wish to take in light of this additional information, including contacting True Majority and your Congressional members to express your concerns.

The Holt bill is not a step forward but a step in a very dangerous direction: the illusion of honest elections coupled with a federalization of counting and auditing process that only the White House and the vendors could love. Just as HAVA, on its surface, appeared to be an improvement, but really set in motion the disaster we are now witnessing, Holt, as written, will set us back even further, while providing the political cover that the problem has been addressed and we can all stop our shouting. Here is a two-part analysis of the Holt bill that I hope you are willing to review and send out to your list:

What's wrong with the Holt Bill? Part 1

What's wrong with the Holt bill? Part 2

    In general it must be understood that any federal legislation on this core issue would be highly suspect. The governing majority is simply not going to kill the goose that is laying its golden eggs (and incumbent Democrats also have some degree of investment in not rocking the boat), but they will probably yield to pressure to look as if they are doing something. The result will be something like Holt, which not only proposes a completely inadequate audit concept as a check mechanism, but allows the executive branch to all but take over the checking process. We know what that means. Determined rigging would continue and local/state innovations to stop it would be hindered or prohibited entirely.  The version of Holt, or any other bill, that would emerge from the Republican run conference committee would not be something we want to see--guaranteed.

    The logical (and proven) appraisal of this Congess vis a vis election integrity: if it passes, it won't work; if it might work, it won't pass. It's as simple as that, only worse: the right will find a way to make it work against our efforts to bring about honest elections. When will we get it that all they look at and care about is the bottom line: "will we be able to continue wielding power no matter how low our approval ratings go?" The Founders knew what they were doing when they decentralized and localized control over electoral processes; look at what HAVA has already done and beware, do everything you can to stop, further federalization of the electoral process.

    Activists in the states and localities (and many on the national level) recognize this and have not endorsed Holt, let alone this frenzied and potentially disastrous lobbying push. Why TrueMajority and VoteTrustUSA are centering their strategy around Holt and lobbying this Congress for action is beyond perplexing. The line has been drawn at Holt in the elections integrity movement and it is important to take the time to study both its provisions and strategic lay of the land, so that we can advocate an informed choice of action, rather than merely jumping on board a bus that is not going anywhere near where its sign indicates.

    With best wishes--Jonathan Simon