Mike wrote on Aug 10, 2006 4:17 PM:Jim, Just like you're earlier essays on this issue, you still ignore the simple fact that those filing these lawsuits aren't trying to overturn the election result. They ARE trying to make sure that we don't have those in charge of our elections that will cheat us out of our Democracy. Because our vote IS our fundamental building block of our Democracy. It is NOT something to be dismissed lightly! Mikel Haas would be like a Bank exec that in one branch chooses to put up paper mache bank walls and not have any other security measures, because he believes all of those coming to the bank and working at the bank are "honest". Even if 99% of the people that work and come to a bank are honest individuals that aren't interested in stealing what's not theirs, that doesn't stop banks from erecting walls and strict security measures to prevent that 1% that might have other plans. The same applies to our elections. If you apply the same principles, you are asking for trouble. WHY aren't they putting better security measures in place? It makes no sense not to if they want to invoke confidence in the electorate that we do have "safe" elections. There might not be evidence of "voter fraud" available to us now, but there IS evidence of inept if not criminal negligence in following current state and federal rules for using these new forms of voting machinery that ARE susceptible to election fraud as many others have documented. Why aren't those that are suing suing other areas for the same reasons? Why did Al Gore only pick a few counties to do his recount. Why have Democrats mainly gone after Lieberman in ousting a sitting Democrat when there are others that probably irritate them just as much? The answer is practicality and trying to focus where one CAN make a difference and where it is more important. How many other races for the house have been run this year where each party is facing each other. Busby/Bilbray was a rare instance of this. The stakes were high. The amount of money both parties spent on this race is a testament to that. If there was a race we wanted to make sure was secure, this would be it. If there was a race that we could try and make sure that proper election procedures are followed to ensure that we don't have the same problem in November when the whole country's votes are on the line, this race was it. It's too bad you don't understand this, or are too partisan to accept it as a legitimate reason for taking this to court. So, is Roger Hedgecock one of these "Democrat activists" that you claim are the only ones concerned about this issue? Last I heard he was a very conservative individual that supported Bilbray. Did the voter registrars in Iowa that saw that there were visible problems with the voting machines' counts of Republican primaries that lead to the wrong people getting nominated also do the wrong thing by doing a manual hand count there? What they did would have been illegal by what many consider corrupt election laws in Florida now and would have prevented the proper Republican candidate from having been nominated and potentially cost them a political office. There were also pre-election polls that showed Busby ahead of Bilbray too. The results are by NO means conclusive based on polls. And we have no way of conclusively saying there was no fraud or other error in the result when the vote was counted on decertified machines.

Lillian M. Ritt wrote on Aug 11, 2006 4:37 PM:No doubts. Nice if you do not have a brain and have not spent years studying the subject. I, a co-plaintiff in that lawsuit, began my quest for voting rights in 1974 as a homemaker. You do not have to be a lawyer to know what is right and wrong. Now that I IS a lawyer, wrong and right have not changed. Oh well.

Helloooooooo? wrote on Aug 12, 2006 1:23 PM:http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

RB Resident wrote on Aug 12, 2006 8:46 PM:Where in the heck did you get your information from, bud? Was this article intentionally misleading, or just that way because of improper sources? These machines are frighteningly insecure, and you should be scared, not poo-pooing legitimate concerns. The article stated, "The evidence of a fix in the 50th Congressional District simply doesn't exist." What, exactly, did you check to make sure that statement is true? Nothing, that is what. Because there is no proof one way or the other. Just the *possibility* of fraud should be enough to warrant a hand recount. Someone definitely *could* have manipulated this race. The machines were not only completely hackable, but SENT HOME WITH THE POLE WORKERS. It is preposterous that the ballots should be prevented from being counted by hand after such a horrendous security breach. You are looking quite the fool, Mr Trageser. But I guess the election was good enough for *you*, so I guess it should be good enough for *me*, too, huh? Who cares if the count was accurate or not. And of course in November, when there *aren't* any ballots to count, because we use all touchscreens, we should all just "trust" that the votes were counted correctly. Give me a break. Sheesh. -- RB Resident

Brother of Carlsbad Family wrote on Aug 13, 2006 2:51 PM:This guy, Jim Trageser, does not appear to be a reporter, more like an entertainer or commentator for the right. His facts are wrong, his conclusions are wrong, his intentions are partisan politics. Does this paper have any legitimate reporters?

Barbara wrote on Aug 15, 2006 12:30 AM:Safeguarding Democracy How do we safeguard democracy? We safeguard democracy by asking questions to find out the truth and to require transparency in all aspects of government. Of course, there will be some critics who will try to silence, condemn or embarrass those who ask questions for accountability by interpreting motives or actions based on incorrect assumptions. Your comments indicate how easy it is to spin incorrect facts. The public has a right to know if their elections are conducted fairly, accurately and securely. Mr. Trageser, my concern as an American and as a voter is to make sure my vote is counted the way I voted. Also, that all registered voters are able to exercise their right to vote and have their vote properly counted. Whether, Republican, Independent, Democratic, Green or Undeclared as a Party, all Americans win when we know that election policies and procedures are sound and appropriate for the age we live in. Allowing poll workers to take home easily hackable electronic voting machines for days and weeks before an election is not a safe way to insure that our votes are fully secure. If the door is unlocked or left open, saying it is safe does not make it so. If someone left their doors open for 40 years, it does not mean it is safe today to do that. We live in a different time, and we have new voting equipment today. It is foolish to continue old practices that have outlived their appropriateness. Recounting elections can be exceptionally expensive, especially in San Diego, according to rates set by our Registrar of Voters. If you have the money to do a full recount of every race in the June 6, 2006 election, by all means, pay for and request it yourself. We were told that it would cost $120,000 - $150,000 to recount only 158,000 votes for the 50th Special Election. That was for only one contest. What have you done for democracy lately?

Kathryn wrote on Aug 25, 2006 5:50 PM:Jim Trageser conveniently overlooked a few discrepancies with the election. Not only did voting officials ignore security and chain of custody on the voting machines, some precincts had several times as many votes for Bilbray as there were voters in the precinct! Let's look at a few things. The previous incumbent was not only a Republican but was convicted of bribery and corruption. Did his entire political machine suddenly vanish, or did they just decide to support Bilbray instead? After huge security breaches of the voting equipment, their new candidate seemed to be ahead by a small margin, perhaps assisted by stuffed ballot boxes. The Republican-dominated House swore him in before the results were certified. I'm sorry, but if this happened in another country, everyone would agree the outcome was invalid until a recount. Voters would go on strike and march in the streets. Yet in America, dedicated to spreading democracy throughout the world, we have a fishy election and both election officials and columnists tell us we should "trust" the process even if it's done in secret. A recent poll found that 92% of Americans believe citizens have the right to know how their votes are being counted and even observe the process. Nobody even thought to ask the poll question "Do you think Congress has the right to decide who the winner of the race is independent of the election results?" That's right, Bilbray's attorneys claim that because he's already been sworn in, even though the election results were not certified yet when they did it, the actual vote counts don't matter. 1. If Bilbray and the Republican majority believe he won, why are they afraid of a vote count? Why not beat it into the Democrats' that the Republican really won? Maybe it's because they know he doesn't have the majority of the bonafide votes. 2. If Congress can chose its members independently of the number of votes they receive, we no longer have a democracy. Don't let people like Jim Trageser confuse you. This isn't about being a sore loser. This is about the party in power stealing our democracy. We Do Not Consent!