Dear editor:
I am a former member of SAVEDemocracy, an on-line think tank devoted to the subject of election reform. Two of our members were computer programmers, and one of these programmers is also an election official.

Here is what they both had to say, about so-called paper trails: That it is "easy" to rig the election computers to fool you into thinking that you have voted for so-and-so, yet internally, to record a vote for someone else. By simply misaligning the pushbuttons with the computer's internal mechanism, computer programmers can arrange for Candidate A to be voted into office, when you press the button for Candidate B. Yet, the receipt would reflect that you did actually vote for Candidate B.

We think that a recount would be accurate: Are we kidding ourselves? After the Florida and Ohio election messes, WAS there ever a recount? WHO are we trusting to accurately report these recounts, anyway? Paper "Trails" provide the public with false security, at best:

If there even was to be a recount, with a paper receipt in hand, the public would be all the less likely to challenge the claims made by computer programmers responsible for accurately (?) reporting our votes. A paper receipt will only serve to back the historically falsified claims.And this is far from the public assumption, that a paper receipt would challenge falsified figures!

A) The only safe and trustworthy way to elect an official is to hand-count paper ballots. B) The way to prevent falsification of the figures is to televise the hand-counting C) Just as importantly, it should be American citizens, not hand-picked individuals, who do the counting. Those conducting the hand-counts should be chosen at random, like with jury duty, and it should be a public duty ,also like jury duty. D) Citizen tallying of the figures MUST occur not only at the local precincts, but very importantly, at the state and federal levels. It is at these two levels that much of the falsification secretly occurs. E) YEIKS!!

Recording Democratic and Republican votes on separate ballots just may be one more way to single out which ballots to toss out! THIS PRACTICE MUST BE DONE AWAY WITH! F) Should it turn out that citizens are acting based on their own agenda, then a second panel of citizens summoned by random drawing should re-count the votes.

FACT: Canada hand-counts its paper ballots within four hours, with very few mistakes. America has at least as many citizens per square mile as Canada. Therefore, we can just as efficiently use paper ballots as Canada.

FACT: ELECTION COMPUTERS CONTAIN TOP-SECRET SOFTWARE CODING. ONLY A SMALL HANDFULL OF SPECIALLY TRAINED COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS CAN "CRACK" THE SECRET CODE. Even most computer programmers cannot read this top secret coding, let alone the ordinary public.

FACT: Even if the election computers contained mainstream computer coding, the lack of transparency to the ordinary public would be a disturbing concern for the sake of fair and Democratic vote-counting processes.

FACT: We are relying on computer programmers using top secret programming, to honestly and accurately report our votes! Who are we really trusting with the integrity of our votes? Why not let American citizens do the work of counting the figures? This is what American citizens should "plug" for: Summons for the civic duty of tallying the voting figures. Please send out group e-mails asking your friends to call their local Senators and Representatives, and their State Assemblyman, calling for this civic duty to be penned into law. Please also ask them to post this requested legislature to blogs, forums, send it to their local newspapers, etc.

--Drina Brooke, concerned citizen, Novato

A well-thought out plan to withdraw from Iraq:

March 7, 2006

Editor:

I am deeply disappointed with the Democrats' response--more accurately nonresponse--to BushCo blunders. It's a grumble-and-go-along policy that can't possibly elicit enthusiasm from American citizens. Specifically, in the case of Iraq, they mewl about the war and then vote for yet another off-budget demand for more Billions. The cost is nearing $400 Billion--that's 400,000 millions-- with no end in sight!

I think the Democrats, on every conceivable occasion, need to convey the following:

The war was wrongly begun.

Throwing more money at it will ultimately bankrupt our nation--and cannot possibly buy a happy ending.

Continuing to wage war on Iraq, while China, India, the EU, and other nations engage in peaceful commerce will leave the U.S. in the dust!

I think the Democrats could very well suggest the following way out:

We need--insofar as is possible--to make amends and pay reparations.

We could IMMEDIATELY arrange to take all monies being spent on the war, plus the amounts we will undoubtedly spend over the next one year if we continue to fund this debacle, and divert them through the United Nations to be used in the rebuilding of Iraq--a modern Marshall Plan--and then we remove as quickly as possible all troops AND MILITARY BASES from Iraq soil. No more patrols. No more bombing. No more prison camps. Just leave.

It seems to me this would accomplish a number of beneficial results:

Put a limit on the ongoing war costs, which are bleeding us dry.

Remove from Iraqi soil the prime reason for unrest and insurgency there.

Convey the message to the Iraqis--and all other nations--that we are big enough to own up to our mistakes and honest enough at least to try to make restitution.

We can then focus on our own nation and our own problems: education; infrastructure including levees, water and sewer systems, public transportation; technology; a decent health care system to cover everyone; a fair and secure voting system. We can mind our own business, manage our own ports, restrain corporate power, and get the money out of politics. We have plenty to do here at home.

The inevitable criticism that we can't or shouldn't "cut and run" must be called for what it is: a desperate attempt by the militarists to defend a failed policy. Actually, "cut and run" refers to cutting the cable of a ship so that it can set sail quickly. Refusing to "cut and run" means that the ship remains tied down, unable to move to safety and subject to whatever storm may be bearing down on it. Our ship of state darned well better cut and run if it is not to be wrecked on the rocks of Iraq!

The insistence on "staying the course" when that course is taking us straight for disaster is hardly wise.

If you're still with me here, thanks for your attention!

L.M. Arndt

-------

Tourism is a major source of revenue for South Dakota, which just passed a law banning abortions. This writer suggests that we send Governor Rounds our thoughts at http://www.state.sd.us/Governor/

Here is a message she sent the Governor of South Dakota.

March 6, 2006

Dear Governor Rounds,

I am not a South Dakota resident, but I am an outdoors enthusiast (sports participant, natural wonders tourist, etc.). I have travelled to many (most?) of our country's most spectacular areas, all the while spending time and money. I have not yet travelled to South Dakota, but I was in the
stages of planning a trip that included your state.

I am quite disappointed, "disturbed" in fact, by your recent abortion decision. As such, I join with the large numbers of folks I have read about in the news who intend not to visit your state or spend any money associated with your state. I will continue with my boycott of your state as long as
you and/or your state proceeds to limit women's choices and personal privacies. There are many other states to travel to who welcome my visits and dollars.

What perplexes me about your decision is that South Dakota does not have a monopoly on tourist destinations and it is not at the top of the list of states with strong economies. As Governor, shouldn't your role be to lead your state towards health and wealth rather than focusing your energies
toward imposing your personal views? What exactly have you done to improve the economy and well being of your state?

If you are so concerned about protecting babies and children and the sanctity of life, where is your legislation to provide large amounts of funding for prenatal and child healthcare? Where is your
legislation to provide funding for the mothers who were raped or abused and are now pregnant and needing to pay for additional medical and child expenses so that their baby can survive. Why does the word "hypocrite" come to mind.

Susan