A Step Backward For Voting System Transparency
Verified Voting is reporting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act (S. 3212). While having many commendable features, this bill also has a few stinkers, including language that would exempt from any verification requirement those paperless voting systems purchased before January 1, 2009 to meet HAVA's accessibility requirements. This would leave millions of voters (particularly those with disabilities) dependent on insecure paperless electronic machines for years to come. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow, so if you have an opinion, now is the time to make yourself heard. Rush Holt has a much better bill.
"First it came for the towns in the country, the ones no-one would miss. Then it came for the cities, as once-great beacons of the light of civilization fell into a terrible, eternal darkness. Then it crossed state lines and escaped. It is howling. It is hungry. It is baying for you. Beware it's approach. Beware it's awesome power. Beware... THE NECROTIC DOG PENIS."
Residents of surrounding states and Canadian provinces are advised to stay in their homes and arm themselves sufficiently to defend their loved ones, and should keep weapons loaded and ready in the event of any form of electrical disturbance. Any strange or unusual 'baying' noises, particularly heard coming from wooded areas downwind of major population centers, should be reported to the state police and the National Guard. Stay safe, stay alert, stay alive.
- Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum,
Chief, National Guard Bureau.
Duly noted.
But what period are you referring to?
Third period, for voting HS seniors, or for hockey players?
Some length of time, as in the period from January 2009 to February 2009?
A menstrual period, which is just icky?
The length of a sine wave?
Your clarification is appreciated.
Even accepting the stretch that "failure to know contents of a bill" = "dereliction of duty", it's quite obvious that "dereliction of duty" != "treason".
In fact, even if a congressperson is willfully corrupt, taking bribes and rigging elections, it's still not treason until they willingly act to overthrow the government. There's really no debating this definition (but just in case you try, please provide sources).