USGENWEB-SW-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-SW > 2006-06 > 1151176370


From: "Douglas Anderson" <>
Subject: Re: [USGenWeb-SW] Next Motion
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:12:50 -0500


Hello Mr. Samuelsen,
First, I suppose I should thank you for your recent volunteer service on the Election Committee. Myself, I have never served on the EC committee, and per your email,

>>
David Samuelsen wrote:
As for the current cycle as you implied by this quote "...voters are
there..." I do not know. Only the NC would have full knowledgement.
and secondly, Mr. Anderson does not serve on the EC last time I checked
so he can not be a privy to the information, otherwise he would be told
to shut up to protect the integrity of the process, and leave to the
Chair of the EC to handle that as necessary.
<<

I have never claimed, implied, or suggested I have ever been on the Election Committee. What I have done is aggressively researched and gained much information on the Election Committee and its process. Plus, there are many correspondences which I have read concerning the EC that you are not privy to. But that is not the point here. The point that bothers me is this not who knows more or who knows less, but together and with consensus, with all our knowledge and expertise, how do we correct the issues (human and inanimate)involving our election process.
Which leads me to my second question or comment. You were privy to either first hand, or second hand information concerning possible corruption and voter fraud or proven corruption and voter fraud by your comments.

>>
David Samuelsen wrote:
Having served on the EC recently, I can assure you none belonged to
Archives. It's the other around. Of at least 4 I knew of, 3 left the
Project when the SC got suspected before the EC could report to the AB.
the fourth one left when the SC got whiff of fraudulent attempt to host
the county in her state.
<<

Were you given the opportunity to blow the whistle of what you witnessed? What was the procedure for reporting inside the EC to bring this information to the forefront?

I further read your comments with regard to a methodology for error detection and proofing of the registration process,

>>
David Samuelsen wrote:
The registration is very tight and carefully cross-checked to prevent
such attempts. When attempts are discovered either by the EC or by the
SC or others, they are reported to the NC.
<<

and I am assuming the process is mostly performed manually either on primary documents generated by the forms input, or secondary documents sent out to volunteers (email) manually from the primary documents. The only inkling reference I see from your comments of an automated system (incidentally, it would have to be manually error proofed), is the database (if it exist) receiving the input from the nomination forms. Of course, I have never been a member of the EC and I can only gain intelligence from what I physically see and read, my hardware and software knowledge and experience, and additional research. However, I do see what has to be input perfectly to the EC, and what must be the perfect output from the EC. Why is this so imperfect sometimes? Man or Machine? I have seen explanatory votes for the man, but not much concerning the machine.

I would appreciate any enlightening comments you may have, any disagreements, or correct me if I am wrong.
I thought your email to be very beneficial with regards to historical perspectives. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience.

Sincerely,
Douglas

This thread: