When Diebold declined to share proprietary software with NC elections officials in 2005, Electronic Systems and Software (ES&S), through Printelect, became the only approved vendor of election equipment in North Carolina. Printelect is a North Carolina company with offices in New Bern and printing operations in Fayetteville. Printelect is the authorized dealer for ES&S in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia and the only ES&S certified printing vendor in these states. Printelect specializes in printed optical scan ballots which it supplies nationwide as well as providing other election related products.
Printelect is presented on company websites as "Printelect, Inc.," and as the "Owen G. Dunn Company" doing business as "Printelect". The NC Secretary of State's Office has no record of a corporate filing for "Printelect, Inc.," either as a new company, name change or merger. The last Annual Report filed by the Owen G. Dunn Company was for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2004. The company also operates "Dunn's Office Solutions" in New Bern.
Searches of the records of the Registers of Deeds in Cumberland County, Craven County and Wake County do not indicate the filing of any Assumed Name Forms for an entity named Printelect. The only related filing was in 1998 in Cumberland County for the "Owen G. Dunn Company" DBA "Fayetteville Printing and Office Supply Company".
Since 2006 there have been some concerns about the cost of printed optical ballots for ES&S machines due to very specific requirements mandated by ES&S which amount to a 20 cent premium per ballot.
In Wake County, N.C., which uses ES&S optical scan machines, Board of Elections Director Cherie Poucher said a local, non-ES&S certified vendor, Commercial Printing, charges no more than 13 cents per ballot. Printelect charges up to 33 cents per ballot.Poucher said her elections office felt it was wise to use Printelect for the 2006 primary and general elections because those were the first elections using new state-required voting equipment.
By all accounts Printelect is a responsible and reliable vendor and election observers are relieved that Diebold did not succeed in 2005. At a meeting of the Forsyth Board of Elections in 2006 Joyce McCloy of the NC Coalition for Verified Voters commended the Board for not choosing Diebold voting equipment. At the same meeting Elections Director Rob Mr. Coffman discussed the printing of the ballot:
He stated he got a quote from PrintElect, who was an ES&S recommended vendor, and the ballots would cost 28 cents each. He received a quote from another ES&S certified printer in Michigan and the ballots would be 14 cents each. He explained had talked with the State Board of Elections and they were fine with using the Michigan printer on the condition they get ballots to test and are able to confirm the quality of the ballots.
From Printelect.com and PrintelectStore.com
Printelect, Inc., located in Fayetteville, North Carolina, formerly Owen G. Dunn Company and Fayetteville Printing Company have been in business combined for over 176 years. We have printed optical scan ballots since their introduction in the Southeast in 1976.
:::::
Today, we are the largest printer of optical scan ballots on the east coast, and one of the largest in the United States. In most election years, we will produce over 10 million ballots. We currently furnish most optical scan ballots used in North Carolina, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, Missouri, Alaska, Virginia and New Mexico.
:::::
Originally trained and certified by Election Systems and Software (ES&S), we print ballots for the Optech III-P Eagle and Optech III-P machines. We work together with your ballot programmer in answering any technical questions which may arise concerning your ballots.
I am not a connoisseur of elections, election equipment or procedures. Others are much more knowledgeable (and opinionated) than me on the subject. From what I know optical scan technology is very reliable, ES&S is deemed superior to Diebold in North Carolina and Printelect has been dependable. I have always been troubled by the sole sourcing of equipment, supplies and service. For matters related to the integrity and security of voting I would however expect the credentials of vendors to be impeccable and verifiable. When voter registration criteria, including identity and location, are contentious I don't think it is too much to ask that Printelect formally register where it conducts business.
Q. How long has Printelect been in the elections business?
A. Formerly Owen G. Dunn Company, founded in 1902, in New Bern, North Carolina, Printelect has been in the election industry for over one hundred years. As the largest printer of optical scan ballots and one of the largest printers in the country, we currently furnish millions of ballots throughout the United States annually. As an authorized dealer for Election Systems and Software (ES&S) in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, we have extensive experience with optical scan and DRE technology. Printelect has installed and maintained the state-wide voting systems in both North Carolina and South Carolina and we are currently growing transactions throughout Virginia. Our corporate office is located in New Bern, North Carolina and our printing facility (formerly Fayetteville Printing and Office Supply) is located in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
[Edit notes moved to the bottom of this post and retained for the record. I believe the questions raised have been addressed. Greg]
NOTE: NC Voter has links to the Secretary of State filings, which suggest Greg may have missed a document in his research. I'm leaving this up on the front-page until he has a chance to weigh in. Don't you just love the interTubes? The truth will out.
Would the person who has inserted this edit please identify themselves and note my comments below. My information comes from the same document. I have not missed it. Greg
My mistake. A. Sorry for the confusion.
Comments
Tempest in a teapot
I know personally Joyce and David to be true blue and I respect you all on BlueNC as well. Sorry I've got a possible tornado bearing down, more later.
tHave you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name
Stay safe.
n/t
Thanks, A.
Danger has passed but there was a touchdown near Thomasville and a funnel cloud spotted in northern Guilford Co.
What I wanted to say is, the voting issues really seem to touch people in the sore spots. I remember the last post on voting issues did something similar. Such passion.
It makes me feel better knowing that there are individuals who care so deeply about these issues and isn't this one really about the people needing to take back their elections? Why do we need to outsource any of our ballot printing, our equipment, our election support staff. etc.? North Carolina could do the job. I know it!
Have you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name
counties don't have to "outsource" ballot printing-see law
*We don't have to outsource any of our ballot printing.* Counties can purchase the ballots from the ES&S rep, or they can obtain their ballots from any printer that meets standards as set by the State Board of Elections. In fact, they could set up their own print shop, if they wanted to.
The language requiring ballots has been been updated this year:in SL 2007-0391
The ballots must be very precisely printed, if they are off just a little bit, they might not be counted by the machines.
Some election directors I have talked with prefer to use ES&S for their ballot printing because they don't have a vendor that can print the ballots up to standard. Other counties, especially large ones - often have local printers who have been printing ballots for years and can meet the standards.
It is likely that counties don't go into the printing business themselves because of the costs and the need for expertise. Similar to county govts using local vendors for some printing needs.
Computer scientists recommended using the vendor for at least one or two elections since the equipment was new, so that if there were any problems the vendor would have to accept the responsibility.
Some counties have qualified local printers. My county got a new election director when the other one quit (because our BOE wouldn't approve Diebold as a vendor). The new guy, Rob Coffman is from Michigan and had ES&S up there. He has contacts with a printer who produces ES&S ballots suitable for our M100s at a more affordable rate. Cherie Poucher in Wake County also has a local printer. The ballots we use now are "shade in the circle" and require more precise printing than the former "connect the arrows". There are advantages to shading in the circle - voters are familiar with that from taking multiple choice tests in junior high.
Now that we have run a few elections, counties will probably do what they did pre-2006. Some will buy from ES&S, some will use local printers.
Thanks for the vote of confidence!
Hope your day was uneventful and tornado free.
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
I agree that there is unexplained venom here
And I agree with Anglico's comment:
I don't think Greg needs my defense or to recite his biography. His tone on this thread and the tone of all of the other commenters speaks for all of them.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
why I commended my BOE for not choosing Diebold(hint my lawsuit)
I commended my BOE for not buying Diebold. This was a tough fight for them because the Elections Director wanted Diebold and also had lined up the County Commissioners on her side.
The Forsyth County Election Director - Kathy Cooper quit (or retired) because our BOE refused to buy Diebold.
SInce Diebold tried to gut our law, stating that they couldn't meet its requirements, we had a county by county effort to block them from getting any business. Diebold even extended an offer to our state to re-write our law on their way out!
We didn't like Diebold because: Diebold went to court to gut major sections of our Public Confidence in Elections Law, and I had court action against them with Electronic Frontier Foundation and local atty Donald Beskind representing me.
We had activists all over the state fighting to keep the conniving Diebold out of each county.
Even the Warren County NC GOP chair urged the local BOE against buying Diebold. Cited improper certification, questioned ties of SBOE members to Diebold. See "Dont Buy Diebold"
I'm glad you fought Diebold.
I don't think anyone here wants a potentially corrupt voting system. That's why we want to hold Printelect to high standards. Just because we don't want Diebold doesn't mean we should unquestioningly accept any other vendor.
An admin needs to close an italics tag.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
It seems simple doesn't it?
Italics fixed.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
and we should hold bloggers to high standards too
that means doing due dilligence before "holding" someone to high standards.
A good investigative journalist doesnt speculate they investigate. They call the parties involved and ask questions and give them a chance to answer.
Even bloggers should try to be responsible.
We have seen the damage that has been done to the e-voting movement by people who don't use due dilligence.
I would never have beat Diebold if I failed in my due dilligence.
Thanks for the ethics advice,
but it works both ways. Inciting followers to go to specific sites/blogs to forward your viewpoint is a form of spamming, and to then scold the targeted bloggers for irresponsibility is hubris and blatant hypocrisy:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4676
You know what? I tried to throw a little water on this fire in an earlier comment, but I'm getting really fucking tired of the sanctimonious and self-righteous attitude that you and some others have been exhibiting here. This blog is about a North Carolina company who is selling machines and the printed ballots to go along with them, and their target market is taxpayers.
We're trying to find out more about this company, because we know from experience that contracts are often awarded without due diligence being performed.
an action alert equal to the Blogger Brad Blog
It is not ethical to encourage people to rebut a major effort to kill federal legislation to require voter verified paper ballots for all 50 states.
Are you telling me that "for profit" Brad Blog has the right to encourge people to fax/emal/write their congressmen to kill paper ballots, but I don't have the right to encourage people to show that not everyone agrees with him by posting to his blog?
That isn't spam - Brad deleteds comments all the time if he doesn't like them or doesn't agree with them.
In fact, he tracks the IP addresses of any who visit his website.
Same as Bev Harris does.
Everything I said in my "action alert" which is what it was, is true, and was ethical.
After working for federal legislation for 4 years, knowing people in the paperless states, I consider it unethical for one blogger to have the bully pulpit.
BradBlog calls himself a journalist, so people should tell him that they are the opposing view and don't agree.
But that isnt the issue here, the issue is that bloggers should do due dilligence.
I disagree.
The issue is that PrintElect apparently doesn't have all of it's shit together. You don't think Greg did "due diligence". It appears to me that he did. So we disagree. Oh well - free country.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
No, the issue is Printelect.
Amid all the insinuations about blog ethics, being part of a plot to hurt voters, being too lazy to check facts, having connections with Diebold, blah blah blah, we still can't find Printelect on state-wide government filings. Found Owen G. Dunn listed, including a 2005 lobbyists report, but not Printelect. The company who is the exclusive supplier/representative of the (now) only remaining authorized voting machine in the state, who stands to bring in millions of taxpayer dollars.
And you and your pals have scolded people here for not turning over every little rock in each county to discover the missing paperwork. Thanks.
"Even though bloggers are not journalists.. A simple phone call"
My "pals'" hard work is why people in NC don't have to vote on paperless machines any more. It is also why, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, NC has one of the best election audits in the country as well. This work took them away from their jobs and family, and cost out of their own pocket.
Kosh, or David Allen advised:
A simple phone call. Its not too late to do that.
Audits
For the record, what the Brennan Center actually said was:
and
yes, and that puts us way ahead of the rest of the country
And because I linked to that source, you were able to read the entire article.
I helped get that audit language written, and I also have written about the audits.
And you can't audit the election until "post-election".
If the poster did not pose the question to the company first
then he didn't pass the due diligence test. Sorry, but that is the way it is.
It is easy to paint this as the little guy versus a soulless corporation, and wash our hands. But, I know the PERSON behind the company, and have found him to be honest. To paint him otherwise by innuendo based on an incorrect assumption is not fair.
I am willing to sit down with anyone face-to-face and discuss/debate this issue. Constant back and forth posting once folks have got their back up solves nothing.
We do have real issues to deal with in NC, but this is just not one of them. Focusing on purported wrong doing where none actually exists wastes our time and resources.
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
And the only point I a have suggested
Is that the questions should have be posed to Owen first. Then, if his answers were found lacking, one could have a discussion as to why.
Instead, the tone of the post was to cast suspicion on the company. Again, I have met the people who run the company and found them to be nice folks who take their responsibilities seriously. Just because they run a business that sells voting machines doesn't make them corrupt.
It seems to me that the gist of this post was that PrintElect wasn't registered with the SoS. Reasonable point, and one that could have been cleared up in 5 minutes. PrintElect is a DBA ("doing business as") name, and not the corporate name registered with the SoS. There is nothing dodgy about this, it is a common business many companies use.
That would seem to explain the discrepancy as "non-sinister".
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
Our law sets the standards for "accepting" the vendors
We never have been a fan of any vendor.
We wrote our law to set stiff requirements that vendors MUST meet, and consequences if they don't.
Many states do not have such requirements and civil and criminal penalties for vendors, and that is why they have so many problems.
No, its never been about accepting any vendor, its been about the LAW.
I don't know anyone who would "unquestioningly accept any other vendor. "
The vendors had to meet the requirements of the law in order to do business here in NC.
HAVE YOU READ THE LAW?
Have you provided a link to the law?
It is customary in this community that when we're referencing something with which most readers will not be intimately acquainted that at least one link should be provided so that folks can read it on their own, rather than taking your word for it. Speaking for myself, I have no reason to take your word for anything. Show me the link, quote the citations. Those are not higher standards than we ask of anyone else here.
I'm not saying I don't believe you. I'm saying that you didn't (and don't) present your point of view in an effective manner.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
intro & links to NC election law
I did link to the law in a few of my comments, but maybe people missed them.
The point of my question was - have people read the law or are they just going by what they heard?
David Allen gave his bonafides, and I have mine too.
I have been interviewed by state and other media about the law and the battle to protect our law in NC.I have worked on this issue full time for 4 years and was the plaintiff in cases to defend our law. I launched the NC Coalition for Verified Voting in January 2004. I have the website www.ncvoter.net.
WIthout David Allen, the part of the law that drove Diebold out wouldn't have been written. Without Progressive Pitbull, Wake County would be voting on touch-screens. Without our law, many more of us would be voting on paperless machines.
NC Election Law:
The legal code regarding ballot printing says that counties can choose their own printers. ( I posted this in another comment but will do it again) is in S.L. 2007-391 under SECTION 24.(a)
The comment "our ballot printing is outsourced" Is something often said on in the blogosphere, and has been discussed as a national issue. Our law clarifies that counties have a choice. Open source code voting systems are a great future goal, but in the meanwhile, audits and having something to audit are key to election integrity.
There are over 600 pages of election law for North Carolina, so it takes awhile to absorb it.
probably the son
its funny that owen g dunn turned into owen dunn andrews but not that strange, probably their related.
for example owen dunn andrews could be the grandson of owen g dunn. his daughter maybe married someone named andrews an d named her son after her father.
owen dunn andrews is the president of the company on this report here http://printelect.com/downloads/Fall_2005_Newsletter.pdf
correction for "vendor lacks paper trail"
The OP says:
Its probably confusing for someone who wasn't closely involved in all of the work that went into getting our law introduced, passed and then defended after the fact.
On December 1, 2005 the State Board of Elections certified 3 vendors:
Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia(conditionally) even though Diebold said they couldn't meet the source code requirements.
This is even after Diebold got a TRO to gut our law, and after EFF represented me in Wake Superior Court and got the TRO revoked.
The SBOE argued that they had performed the required source code exam, as the law allowed them to designate an entity to do if for them. They claimed the independent testing lab's exam of the vendors to suffice as the review.
EFF represented me again when I filed suit against the SBOE and the State IT dept for approving the three vendors without source code review.
The court ruled in favor of the State Board of Elections.
Then,
We have our own idea as to why Diebold quit the bid in North Carolina, a state where they have a factory that makes the voting machines:
So Diebold withdrew rather than try to meet the standards of the law. Sequoia withdrew because they were having trouble getting their machines certified to the most current federal certification guidelines, and that was the major stumbling block for them. At that time, vendors were in a sort of "arms race" trying to get federally certified as many states require that.
A broader history of the Diebold/Vendor certification issue is posted here.
Source
From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
December 23, 2005
After EFF Litigation, Diebold Pulls Out of North Carolina
the source compared to your op
any text taken from the EFF article should be sourced where it is.
It is not clear what you cited directly or what is your opinion, since you didn't cite link and there are no quotation marks in your first paragraph.
That way when people read the OP, they can go to the source and read the context.
I came to this OP because MY name was in it, and I am the one whose name is on the court filing to revoke Diebold's temporary restraining order.
I very well know the facts of the story of NC. Since no organization would take up the e-voting issue in our state, I started NC Verified Voting.
Citing sources for your text is important, or else it should be stated that what you are telling the reader is your opinion.
This is a blog
It's not deposition or a doctoral paper, it's a discussion.
Now it appears you want to contradict the very people who represented you. With every word you write you undermine the credibility of your organization and the work you have done. I am utterly dismayed.
I have focused on an egregious inconsistency between the public declarations and the public records of Printelect, even as this discussion has wandered. I stand by what I have written.
You obviously hold me to a higher standard than Printelect.
When you wrote a post back in June about Les Merritt I personally edited it (for formatting and readability) and front-paged it. At the end was this text:
So much for "simple checks and balances" and good luck getting volunteers willing to tolerate hostility towards anyone who asks for them. I am done with this discussion.
yes I hold you to equal standards of those you write about
and how hard would it be for you to follow David Allen's advice and pick up the phone?
based on internet only, Gregory Flynn is a registered republican
if I based my entire belief on what an examination on the internet provided, I would be led to believe that Greg Flynn is a registered republican. That could be completely wrong!
Going to the State Board of Elections database of registered voters, I could not find a Greg Flynn in Wake County. I could find a Gregory Flynn, just one.
And this only Gregory Flynn has voted just twice since being registered in North Carolina or since being registered as a republican:
This is an example of how internet research does not provide the entire story. It could be that Greg Flynn is registered with a different first name, and that Greg is a middle name.
Instead of me assuming or stating : Greg Flynn is a registered republican who has only voted twice, I could do due dilligence and ASK if this Greg Flynn is registered under another name, or in another county or if this person is registered to vote at all.
Is there a reason not to pick up the phone and then there may be a story?
My work regarding Les Merritt was to provide a DOJ memo to David Ingram at the Charlotte Observer, and Ingram did due dilligence and discovered Merritt's involvement before breaking the story. The story started with the DOJ memo, and blossomed into the Merritt story. Due dilligence can lead to a much bigger story.
You have stepped over a line
You deserve no further response.
I think ncvoter has 'issues'
ncvoter tells Greg not to speculate and then ncvoter speculates about everyone.
and why is ncvoter putting anyones private address on the internet, first she speculates that the person is the same Greg then she puts an address online.
and why does ncvoter think calling someone and hearing words is more proof than getting official records from secretary of state
and why does ncvoter think just because their is a law that means everyone follows it
I am not sure I follow this, correct me if I am wrong.
the company is going by two different names, is there any legal document that makes this okay, and who is that other lobbyist and what does he and the owen andrews lobby for?
I think this could be important, I hope Greg keeps it up
You're being an ass.
And losing potential allies faster than a Diebold machine loses Democratic votes.
I'm with Greg. Bye.
I recommend that you stop going after Greg
You'll piss people off and take all attention away from whatever point you are trying to make.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
I would be really happy
If someone could explain what on Earth is going on here ... I've only been able to drop in and out recently with everything that's going on, and once we get over 100 comments, I don't know where to begin.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
Recap
Greg found a discrepancy in public filings relating to an NC voting tech company and posted about it. A couple of folks ("Folks") took exception to Greg's existence while displaying a way-over-the-top level of defensiveness on the topic or maybe just a need to fill up their "people who think I'm an ass" scrapbook before the holiday guests started arriving. Greg's original point about problems with the company's filings stands, but the aforementioned Folks helped pass a law, so they are right and Greg is a Very Bad ManTM. Also, Greg is a Republican (much better than being a Republican't, if you ask me) and Linda Cloud's stamina in calling out the Folks despite their inability to stick to a single point suggests that she is, in fact, a member of the lost race of Titans. Oh, one more thing: you don't get out enough, and your shoes are too clean. And did the Folks mention that they passed the law? Well they passed that fucker, all right?
Good Job
I feel better now.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
I'm the person that was called an Ass here at Blue NC
Sam,
I am the person who is being called an Ass etc. My name is Joyce McCloy, and my name and comments have been mentioned in the OP/Blog. (I was not called or contacted by the blogger for a comment or for any input.)
I wouldn't have even noticed this blog - but my name and comments were in it.
I get quoted alot in the media, but some media will just use my website to extract a quote or comment from our organization or myself. Because of this, I have a google search set up to alert me so I can make sure that quotes and attributed comments are correct. The google alert that came to my "inbox" made me aware of this specific blog. There was no link backing up the comments referenced to me. There are other parts of the blog that would benefit to attributions and or links.
When my name is in a blog, I take a close look at it. Most people would if their name was in an OP. I probably do expect a lot from any article that quotes me or attributes comments to me. If a reporter had written this, they probably would have called me up for my comment.
I hope you will take a look at what Kosh has posted. See below quote box. Kosh is David Allen, and he served on the Joint Select Committee on Electronic Voting. He was able to steer an 11 member committee to the best legislation we could get. As well as being a publisher, he has done public presentations across the state regarding the e-voting issue. He is familiar with all aspects of this issue.
I am told that the point of the blog is a sort of investigation of the vendor. That's good. The blog infers that some improper activity may have been done by the vendor. But it is all based on internet research.
I never said that the blogger of the OP is a republican.
I said that, if I did an investigation of the blogger in the same manner as he did of this vendor, solely based on what I found on the internet, that I would find the one and only record of a voter by his name is someone registered as a republican. Based on the internet, that is all that I can find. It can be mis-leading. Not always are the records on the SBOE database complete or correct. The blogger may be using his middle name publicly, not uncommon.
In my opinion, the investigation is not complete without the investigator making a call to either the subject of his investigation, or the Secretary of State, or the State Board of Elections. At this point, the investigation is dependent solely upon what has been found on the internet.
A phone call, that's not that hard to do.
This is a tad unfair, don't you think?
I don't think she called him a Republican, she was making a point that by simply relying on Internet postings she could come to that conclusion. she could then make an accusation that a Republican was posting at BlueNC. But if she bothered to pick up the phone/email and actually CONTACT Greg, he could point out that the person she found online was not him, and such a post would never have been made.
She was ILLUSTRATING HER POINT WITH A PRACTICAL EXAMPLE.
Personally, I would not have used the example she did for precisely the reason demonstrated here. She is now branded as accusing Greg of being a Republican, and is being dismissed.
No one has said Greg is a Very Bad Man TM, just asked why he didn't contact Owen and ask his questions before this post.
Joyce and I mentioned our involvement in the NC law to establish that we do have some expertise in the matter and do know what the law says. For some reason you have chosen to interpret this as boasting.
Wonderful.
Folk actually take the time to get involved, to make a difference, to fight for what they believe in, and their reward is a snarky post belittling that effort.
*sigh*
I'll stipulate that Joyce could be a tad more diplomatic in her posts, but come on, she is not the person you are painting her to be. NO ONE here is acting in bad faith.
But could we PLEASE try to remember that this medium is prone to misinterpretation?
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
I don't do "fair"
Which will undoubtedly be a great source of disappointment for my daughter. Your sighs notwithstanding, you will find ad hominem attacks on Greg in this thread. And I'll thank you not to reply to my snark by pretending to take it literally; it demeans us both.
Ah,
I see.
As you have no interest in "fair" then, I bid you adieu, and wish you luck,
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
And have I mentioned
That I miss BlueNC terribly? It warms my heart to see my bluencer friends in action. And I need a "dust-up" alarm that goes off for threads like this to alert me to the opportunity to make caustic comments.
Joyce seems perfectly capable of making her own impressions
and her own points. If she's not willing to own those, she needs to stay off-line. I don't think anyone is acting in bad-faith, and yet instead of thanking Greg for pointing out a discrepancy in the paperwork for the only authorized vendor for this god-blessed ballots, advocates for verified voting have been attacking him for not going further in his "homework", and accusing him of not doing legwork (i.e., contacting Register of Deeds offices) that he had already done. They flew way off the handle because of any experience with some one mentioned in the original post (BBV.org) who has nothing to do with the meat of the story, and hysteria ensued.
If Joyce and her minions were truly as concerned about verifiable voting in NC as she claims, she could have made those phone calls she wanted made her self. "Progressive Pitbull" could have waited for Greg to respond to the email/phone calls he made instead of spilling ugly all over the page. But they didn't. They don't need you to say "They're really nice people and could have been more diplomatic." They're (assumedly) grownups and showed everyone reading this thread exactly who they are and how they operate.
As for misinterpretation - I think it was pretty clear what was going on. I appreciate the peacemaking you're trying to do, David. You seem like a very reasonable man, and I admire you for your level head. But you can't un-ring a bell. Speaking only for myself, I am grateful for the work done to get Diebold out of the state. However, that act, and the act of assisting in getting a law passed (which many of us have done as well) does not give anyone the right to throw their weight around BlueNC like some elephant with a bladder infection.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
While it impossible to "un-ring" the bell
I had hoped that folks would give reasoned discussion another try. This appears not to be the case, and it is futile for me to try and persuade folks otherwise.
I appreciate your civility in the matter and thank you for your kind words.
David Allen
The revolution will be blogged!
Liberalism as a badge of honor!
No apologies, no excuses.
should the call have been made?
Do you do believe that the phone calls to either the vendor, the sos or the SBOE should be made?
Or do you think that everything has been done and you are satisified with the results?
I could make the phone calls that have not been made - but:
1. I strongly believe that the blogger of the OP is responsible for that, and
2. I have no reason to expect that anything else I say will be respected or listened to, or taken in good faith based on your comments and the name calling I have been the recipient of. It will be a waste of my time and the wrong person making the call.
If I didn't care about verified voting, I wouldn't have worked on this issue since September 2003 pro bono, nor would the many other people in our state who were there.
There are issues with e-voting that still needs to be addressed in NC and nationally, but the local vendor rep isn't one of them. I have seen no ethical issues with Printelect, which is Owen G Dunn Inc doing business as PrintElect.
PrrintElect is a DBA. "Doing Business As" is used when a company needs a brand name for a segment of business that it is addressing.
We face the constant threat to weaken or repeal our law. If our law was weakened, it would be a step backwards, and we might not ever regain our ground, much less move forward.
No, I don't think the phone calls should be made.
No, I don't think the phone calls should be made to the vendor; people can lie over the phone just as easily as not fle necessary paperwork. The Secretary of State's office is irrelevant, since Assumed Name paperwork should be filed with the Register of Deeds in the County(ies) where the company is doing business. In his original post, Greg said he checked with those counties RoD offices. I don't have the need to check on his work. No, I don't need to call the SBOE, because the paperwork in question would not be filed with them.
I think that Greg was responsible with the research he did in his original post. Satisfied with the results? I'm not sure which results you're talking about. Am I satisfied with what he found? No, I'm not. I'd like to see that all companies that do business with the state file the paperwork that needs to be filed. The results on this blog? I don't know. I think we've certainly seen the true nature of some posters, that's for sure.
1.We have established before that there is a bit of disagreement about what you think should be done by the original poster and I believe that the original poster did a fine job. Differences in opinion are what make democracy possible.
2. You're right, you've certainly lost your credibility, at least in my eyes. You may have worked on verifiable voting in NC, but your knee-jerk reaction and diversionary complaints about Greg referencing Blackboxvoting.org as a source showed a distinct lack of the professionalism and objective standards you demand of other bloggers. Not only that, you bring in reinforcements who have the balls to question the work that anyone here has done. On-line or off-line, bad move. The ad hominem attacks began with you, and the direction of the discussion lies clearly in your lap. Frankly you should see the names that were deleted.
Of course you care about it, other wise you wouldn't be so passionate about it. I get that. But you know, everyone else who shows up here is passionate about progressive politics in one way or another, and as I've posted before many of us are active off line as well as on. Just because we don't show up at Wake County meetings to drink beer doesn't mean we don't have mud on our shoes and raw knuckles from knocking on doors and dialing the phone. Thanks for the work you've done, but you're not unique. We all work for our causes, and we all work for free.
Really? Gee. Thanks. Didn't know that. Oh - wait. Yes I did. Even if I didn't know that before, I would have known that from reading Greg's original post. Companies who are "DBA's" must file paperwork with their county Register of Deeds. They apparently haven't. Hence the lack of paper trail of the original post. What a waste of bandwidth this has been.
No one here has advocated for a weakening or repeal of our law. In fact, everyone here, at one time or another, has advocated for the strict adherence to the law. That was the point of the original post - did you read it?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
why blog this at all if SBOE or SOS need not be contacted?
If you don't think the calls should be made, then how does this have anything to do
with North Carolina elections?
The blogger referred to info at the SOS website, but shouldn't check with the SOS to find out more?
THe blogger is concerned about our elections but shouldn't call the SBOE.
The blogger has written about the vendor, but shouldn't even contact the vendor to get a response, and then evaluate that response or any new information from that response.
So these entities should not be contacted about this issue.
So is this just for gossup sake, since none of the parties involved are to be contacted?
The parties that can respond, or the parties that can do something about this - need not be notified?
From where I sit
the company involved could clear this up in 2 minutes with a simple post. I'd even front-page it. Maybe you think the company shouldn't have to do that because a mean old blogger didn't jump through all the hoops you think he should have? Sorry. You bring the hoops, you do the jumping.
In the time you've spent ranting about this, the questions could have been addressed and flattened a dozen times over. You're obviously more interested in being right than solving the problem.
This is the last time I'm going to respond to you on this thread, so let me leave you with one thought:
You obviously didn't read my answer
or you are incapable of understanding it.
The paperwork that needs to be filed is called "Assumed Name" or "DBA". That paperwork gets filed with the County Register of Deeds, not the Secretary of State, or the State Board of Elections. Greg already checked with those county Register of Deeds. That's why I don't think the phone calls need to be made.
And no, it's not for gossup's (sic) sake. It's for information's sake. Jeebus.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
none who can resolve it, none who can affect it
If there is an issue with an elections vendor, than the SBOE would address it IF they were called, written to or other wise corresponded with. The vendor has to answer to the SBOE, but you do not believe that the OP writer should contact them regarding his information or investigation.
IF there is an issue over records that are posted to the SOS website, or if the records are insufficient, the SOS can investigate and advise. But you don't believe that should be done.
You don't believe the OP writer should contact the vendor and invite them to comment because the vendor might lie. (I like to ask for comments because I like to get someone on the record.)
None of the entities who might resolve this with certainty will be contacted.
Yes, its clear.
Why don't you call them?
You and others have spent more energy demanding that Greg call them.
Why don't you call them?
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Pages