Paul Lehto on Prof. Tokaji

Facing facts on Tokaji: the DREs he’s successfully litigated for, with the secret vote counting they enable, are the equivalent of a 24/7 Warren County lockdown. But this time the lockdown is on democracy itself and all elections. These DREs have the ancillary effect of forcing election activists into debates about “paper records” or Paper ballots on DREs as some kind of attempt to mitigate the effects of the 24/7 DRE lockdown on Democracy, with the debate being between those who argue that “first steps” are needed and those such as myself that say it won’t work and that once somebody has jammed their hand down your pants pocket you can’t negotiate with them to remove their hand, but only part of the way. This will be explained more in the followup piece to Cramdown, Stripdown Lockdown on US Democracy. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0604/S00233.htm

I sent the following email to Tokaji, which received the following reply, indicating that I may have prompted him to blog on an issue he wasn’t fully prepared to engage. I wrote back to him and challenged him to a debate, promising to attempt to recruit up to 200 of my “closest friends.” I’ve heard no response since that time, and it’s been around four days now. Prof Tokaji apparently receives EAC grant money. He’s taken what I consider to be a world class election disaster-course by representing the plaintiffs in Stewart v Blackwell (6th Cir. 2006) in which, as the suit is framed by Tokaji, none other than Ken Blackwell gets to argue the anti-DRE position! This led to a published case that upheld the constitutionality of DREs (and precinct count optical scan) and found central count optical scans and punchcards to be unconstitutional violations of equal protection based on Bush v Gore and an analysis of the voting systems’ relative “residual vote” rates. The problem is, residual vote rates are a prominent symptom of current and past election fraud and suppression methods, which of course were and are targeted at minorities (read: Democrats). So Tokaji’s answer to this is to use that residual vote data with its minority disparate impact, and use it to knock out the technologies of voting when it’s the people that do most or all of the damage, and to uphold DREs instead WHERE THE PRIMARY METHODS OF ELECTION FRAUD NO LONGER INVOLVE DETECTABLE RESIDUAL VOTE RATES. In other words, with DREs on board, one no longer needs to worry about voter suppression — let them all vote!! The election cheaters can just shave 1/20th off of all Democratic votes instead of stealing entire ballots from African american voters. SO Tokaji will bring us DREs (precinct based opscans can be later challenged on language and other grounds) and pronounce success in bringing on a “modern” technology. In the end I’d not be surpised once we have mostly DREs to see a “golden age” of universal suffrage. All made possible by Prof Tokaji’s quest for DREs. (Write to the ACLU and tell them they are litigating us out of the frying pan and into the fire).

Paul

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *