BBV question: We have over 30000 DUers. I don't know if

[LittleApple81]

I missed it, but are we involved in a write-letter campaign to write to ALL our DEMOCRATIC representatives to force the discussion of the issue? We cannot write to the REPUBLICAN representatives because they will be happy with having the votes stolen.

After watching the black caucus forum yesterday, Rangel and Conyers emphasized that IF YOU DON'T WRITE (and we DO need to spend the stamp money: they pay more attention to letters than to phone calls than to e-mails) they won't even discuss it in Congress (they gave the example of the Martin Luther King holiday).
Again, is there such a write-letter campaign, and if not, are we going to start one?

[Pobeka]

1. We need to write every single goverment official

From local representatives right on up to the federal congress. Regardless of party affiliation.

We have to make sure not one of them can get by with "I didn't know about this issue".

It's about who knew what, and when.

We know the what now. The Diebold internal memos tell us that election officials can't certify election software, because they don't have the technical skills, and we can't expect that much of them. Any new software scheme will be the same old wine in a brand new bottle.

Now is the when.

Who is our representatives. They have to be told now. They can't be allowed the excuse of ignorance.

[donsu]

2. Why do they ignore e-mails?

is it a ploy?

[punpirate]

3. If they refuse to accept email from out-of-state...

... citizens, they're cutting themselves off from input on national issues.

I tried to email Rangel, and his system only takes email from his local constituents.

It's dumb, but that's the way they've set their systems up. It takes me a minute or two to compose and write and send an email, but it takes me a half-hour to get to a post office box and more time to print a letter, stuff it and stamp it.

If Rangel and Conyers can't figure out that email is the quick way, and that it's an expression of sentiment equal to a letter, then they are denying themselves ammunition because they don't acknowledge the changes in technology. They need support for issues that are national and aren't local in their districts? By god, then _they'd_ better get with the program.

Cheers.

[Pobeka]

4. It's all true, what you said, but that makes postal mail more impactful

Impactful, is that a word? ;-)

Point being, that if they see a lot of people taking time to physically write a letter, stuff, stamp and trod down to the mailbox to send it off, they'll know that this is an issue that they just can't ignore, because you've taken those extra steps to get them the message.

[Generic Other]

5. Go to Congress.Org

They post the emails online. And you can write to anyone from president of the US to your local city officals. Also, they are read by more than just a staff person.

They will also hand deliver emails for a price.

[sandnsea]

35. Cheat

Look up an address and zip code in their district and e-mail them anyway. That's what I do. It's not the same as a letter, but it's a little drop that helps. And my Senator and Congressman both answer my emails. Not all of them, but enough that I continue to email. I snail mail when it's of major concern.

[gully]

6. Lets design a template with the issues outlined that people can copy and

paste? Or ... lets spend time urging moveon.org to take this on?

If enough people write them perhaps they will get involved.

I have sent them an email already.

[GregD]

8. Sample letters at VerifiedVoting.org

Last week we put up several documents, including flyers and sample letters at http://www.verifiedvoting.org

[shance]

15. Thanks Greg - good information

n/t

[seemslikeadream]

17. Really great

thanks!

[Eloriel]

21. Why Not both?

It would be a VERY good thing to get MoveOn onto this. Don't know why they haven't picked up on it before.

Eloriel

[shirlden]

7. Write, e-mail and phone

your congressperson. No matter what party they are. Mine is a Repig and I had to educate him on the issue. He knew nothing about it. Do your duty......tell them you demand they support the Rush Holt Bill for a verifiable paper ballot.

:kick


We are making progress. A month ago there were only about 23 supporters of the bill....now he has 40.

[phoebe]

9. is there a list available of supporters? need to know who's misinformed..

n/t

[GregD]

12. We need Republican support

Rush Holt was on NPR's Science Friday and feels that the Republicans have made this a partisan issue. He thinks they believe this is some sort of silly payback for 2000. You can probably listen to the show online by going to their site. It has been made clear by his office, for months now, and he says essentially the same thing on the show, that if we cannot get some of the Republican leaders from the House Administration Committee (listed here http://www.verifiedvoting.org/fair_elections.asp) then this will unlikely get out of committee much less have a prayer for passage. We need much more that the 40 that are there now. We also need a companion bill in the Senate....

Education is critical, spreading the word that this is truly a non-partisan effort. Overwelming demand from the public needs to be raised.

Anyone that can write an op-ed and get it published in your local paper should do so. We need to make sure that our parents and grandparents, the lady across the street and the guy at the gas station knows about this.

Someone shared some background with me recently. In passing this legislation, it is my understanding that the Republicans never even attended the markup session when HAVA was considered. The legislation was never supposed to be passed into law. The Dems were planning to call for cancellation of the bill based on identifying an error in the parlimentary procedure, but they didn't find anything the Republicans did wrong, so the bill got passed. In the same conversation, I was assured that the arms industry were the heaviest lobby for HAVA. So if we are up against resistance to get this sucker opened back up and changed, that may just be who is lurking in the background pulling the strings.

So now we have this bill that sucks, and not many folks in Congress want to open the can of worms again. What does that tell us? It is going to require all of us taking individual action to spread the word, to facilitate more people to become involved or at least take an action like write a letter or make a phone call, and to develop overwhelming noise around this.

Besides encouraging MoveOn to help, if people have connections with TrueMajority or ActForChange, these would be additional sources of support. We at VerifiedVoting.org would gladly work with them, and others in the community, to form a strong message that they could distribute. I would think that the more requests from the troops, the more likely they will take action.

FYI, ActForChange is concerned about this, and did a mailing for California when the public comment period on the HAVA commission report was about to expire, and asked people to contact our Sec. of State.

We also need to find a way to educate those who oppose us. Among them are CommonCause, ACLU and the League of Women Voters. There is much dissent within the LWV concerning National's position, and they are working to change that position, but I would think they need support and I am uncertain as to how to make that happen. FYI, LWV membership is not particularly expensive, and some have joined just so they could speak out on this - food for thought...

My 2 cents...

[RedEagle]

22. Op Eds

I've managed to get several op eds in newspapers. They always print something from the Secretary of State's office to "balance" it out. The SOS always has the same, reassuringing drival. And they have way more access to media, governors, and legislators.

The state legislators have a hard time understanding what they are hearing from the SOS offices is often times far from the truth.

I'm sure there are a few SOS out there who are on the citizens side of this issue, but it sure isn't ours.

So, how do we combat their influence? Remember that the infamous R. Doug Lewis has had a long time to bend the way these people think. He has his hand in many state, county, and local organizations. In turn, these people train other people at the local level, and they just parrot the same attitude.

I ran into one of these parrots in a forum this week. Sounded just like one of our state election officials and was spewing the same misinformation. Some of this misinformation is out and out lies.

We need an effective campaign to negate the influence of NASS and NASED, at the least.

I'd welcome ideas. I got the audience to see the fallacy of their position and flat out have the proof on one contention, but the deception continues, they don't stop even if they are confronted and exposed. They just go on to the next meeting you are not at.

[KoKo]

39. Fax them! It works......and I've gotten responses from faxes....mail is

still being examined so the letters can be delayed (this was posted on DU in an article many months ago).

Faxes and Phone calls are immediate.

[Oilwellian]

10. Ah, but we can.....

and MUST write our Republican representatives if we are to make any changes. It is they who are in power and it is they who must feel the most pressure from their constituents.

[Oracle]

11. I'm listening to Bev on Mike Malloy's show right now...she excellent!

http://homepage.mac.com/benburch/WRIndex1.html

[LittleApple81]

13. Well, I am going to WRITE LETTERS to ALL senators and mail them.

That will be around $100 dollars counting the paper and envelopes. For the house, I am going to selectively send it to the black caucus and other liberal representatives... Otherwise it will be too much money for me alone. But I think it is important that they get INDIVIDUAL letters or cards. If that is not possible, even group signed letters, phone calls, and e-mails is better than nothing.

[shance]

14. Hi everyone - I feel like we are all sitting down at our desks.

We should do this more often...

What about faxing? Sure is a fast way to get the letter up there straight to the office.

:)

Should we keep a record of all the Reps/Senators we are writing and send PMs to someone or post results here?

This will also be a good project to initiate at the Election Reform meetings COMING UP ON THE 8th of October.

[KeepItReal]

16. Here's my letter...feel free to copy & modify

I sent an email and the letter below is going in that mail TODAY!! 'Luck y'all


27 SEPT. 2003

Rep. Jane Harmon
2400 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Hi Rep. Harman,

I would like you to please review and lend your support to the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (HR2239).

As a computer consultant, I am frankly amazed that voting districts all across the county are installing new PC-based voting systems that have no paper trail by which the actual votes cast can be audited.

I see that Los Angeles County may be going in this direction, as touch screen voting (computerized voting) is an option in the upcoming recall election. If there is no voter-verifyable paper trail created with each vote cast, there truly is no way to know that the outcome of a given PC-based election represents the actual votes of the electorate.

From the sponsor of HR2239, Rep. Rush Holt:

"Last October, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), groundbreaking election reform legislation that is currently helping states throughout the country replace antiquated and unreliable punch card and butterfly ballot voting systems.  HAVA, however, is having an unintended consequence.  It is fueling a rush by states and localities to purchase computer-voting systems that suffer from a serious flaw; voters and election officials have no way of knowing whether the computers are counting votes properly.  Hundreds of nationally renowned computer scientists, including internationally renowned expert David Dill of Stanford University, consider a voter-verified paper trial to be a critical safeguard for the accuracy, integrity and security of computer-assisted elections.
 
“Voting should not be an act of blind faith.  It should be an act of record,” said Rep Rush Holt. “But current law does nothing to protect the integrity of our elections against computer malfunction, computer hackers, or any other potential irregularities.” "

Rep. Harmon, I know that there are other issues of pressing concern to you and your fellow members of Congress. I think the idea of elections left in the hands of unaudited and unchallengeable PC voting companies is a bigger threat to our Democracy than just about any other issue.

With fair and accurate elections, the American people truly tend to do the right thing. Please help make sure they have that opportunity by supporting HR2239.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Ya Boy, KeepItReal (heh heh...my real name is in the letter of course) :-)

[ParanoidPat]

18. You can start by contacting federal and state elections officials......

.....The contact information for your Secretary of State and State Elections Directors as well as many Federal Elections officials can be found in the Activism/Events forum under the thread titled
Black Box Voting TAKE BACK THE VOTE! Tool Kit! :evilgrin:

[dill]

19. Representatives/Senator positions

Another thing we're trying to do, with only limited success so far,
is get everyone on the record on HR 2239: in favor, opposed,
worried about some issue, or whatever.

This includes Republicans as well as Democrats. Especially
Republicans, in fact.

So it would be very helpful if you could check verifiedvoting.org's
pages first, then, if there is no position listed for the person
you are interested in, CALL their office, ask to speak to the
appropriate staff person, and explain that you are trying to find
out what their position is on HR 2239 so we can fill it in on
verifiedvoting.org's web page.

If they want more information, a good start would be the "Brief
Introduction" at
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=138

If they need more in-depth information, please let us know so
we can contact them.

[DEMActivist]

23. So, Professor Dill....

Can you give us some feedback on what you think of the Maryland SAIC report?

How about the status of your VoteHere solution? Can you tell us where that is? Do you still intend to endorse it as the solution to this problem?

What do you think of California's ACLU arguing FOR the electronic voting machines?

I think many of us activists here would like to hear your stand on these issues.

[DWright]

24. ACLU

"What do you think of California's ACLU arguing FOR the electronic voting machines?"

SAY WHAT??????? I think I'm going to be sick.

Jeebus, that is appauling.

[DEMActivist]

27. Yep, that's exactly what they were doing

The ACLU argument which first won the day to delay the California recall was that the most densely populated black communities would be forced to use the punch card machines, while the affluent communities had touchscreen and optical scan machines.

They argued that, since the punch card machines were ruled defective, disenfranchising black voters disproportionately, the election should be halted until the electronic voting machines were in place in ALL counties in California.

The 3 judge panel agreed with them, halting the election and the 11 judge review panel overrulled them.

[gristy]

25. DEMA, this thread is on contacting our representatives

So be nice.

[DEMActivist]

26. I am being nice....

were those questions unreasonable? Do you not want answers to them?

[Eloriel]

28. Yes, and further

What I would like to know is why are you giving tacit endorsement to the notion that a technological "solution" to various vulnerabilities of computerized voting is possible let alone acceptable in any way, and in doing so also giving obvious endorsement to VoteHere itself (which claims to be able to provide technological solutions to voting machine vendors)?

What do you have to say about VoteHere's ties with SAIC and the CIA? Are you not more than a little alarmed that major defense industry groups and the CIA have their hands in our voting processes and want even more control over them? I am! and you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to feel some discomfort with that fact.

When we're talking about something as important as our vote, I don't think anything less than a NON-technological solution such as VVPB -- and I do mean BALLOTS, not "audit trails" -- is acceptable. Why do you? Why are not you on the side of VVPBALLOTS? I really want to know the answer to that question. Well, all my questions.

----------
From your website:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=129

VoteHere Open Technology Review

We at verifiedvoting.org believe that no voting system can be considered trustworthy unless the basis for that trust is publicly disclosed. Current voting system designs are hidden behind a veil of secrecy. Even the results of evaluations by independent testing laboratories are confidential.

VoteHere, Inc. has offered to disclose the details of its cryptographic voter- verification technology for public review. To encourage review of this technology, we are providing links to the technical information on VoteHere's site, and we're providing a thread in our forum for discussing the technology. It is our hope that VoteHere's technology will be scrutinized much more carefully than voting systems currently in use, so that the strengths and weaknesses can be thoroughly understood.

WE ARE NOT ENDORSING VOTEHERE'S TECHNOLOGY. There are two reasons for this: First, we haven't yet studied it in detail, and no independent technical evaluation has occurred. Second, even if the technology appears to be highly secure and otherwise advantageous, non-technical issues would also need to be considered, such as whether voters without strong backgrounds in cryptography will trust such a system.
----------------------

I LOVE that last paragraph. Let's take a closer look:

WE ARE NOT ENDORSING VOTEHERE'S TECHNOLOGY. There are two reasons for this: First, we haven't yet studied it in detail, and no independent technical evaluation has occurred.

The obvious implication is that, as I've already pointed out, you are ready and willing to embrace and endorse a technological so-called solution to some of the problems inherent in computerized voting. There are a number of computer experts who don't think a technological solution is possible. Why do you? Why do you favor adding further complexity to our now corporate-owned voting processes instead of reducing complexity AND technology so The People can remain in control of the voting process and their votes?

This obvious tacit endorsement coupled with your insistence on using the term "voter verified AUDIT TRAIL" makes me very nervous indeed.

Second, even if the technology appears to be highly secure and otherwise advantageous, non-technical issues would also need to be considered, such as whether voters without strong backgrounds in cryptography will trust such a system.

I'm not just saddened, I'm ALARMED that your only concern is voter acceptance (as opposed to validity, feasibility, appropriateness of the solutionin the first place, potential impact on democracy and the democratic process itself, etc.). Absolutely alarmed, Professor.

More: VoteHere also told you it would provide a portion of its code for review. Has it done that yet? If not, why not?

Too, I thought you were far too busy with your professional career and would be getting out of the voting issue "by the end of the summer." What, pray tell, changed your mind? Is your work helping VoteHere gain public acceptance not quite finished? Yeah, I know. You HAVE no ties with VoteHere. Right. Funny, I read somewhere where you were having drinks with -- Jim Adler, wasn't it, not too long ago? I dunno. Call me a purist, but I don't have drinks with people I have "no ties" with.

And it always struck me funny you agreed to host their stuff on YOUR website in the firstplace -- a website whose companion name was recently OWNED by VoteHere. But of course that was just an innocent mistake or something. Why would YOU offer or agree to host it when they have their own website? Ah yes -- I know, it IS on their website instead of yours, you just have links. But that wasn't the original agreement, was it? It does look somewhat better tho, esp. now that you've invited other companies to participate in the "technology review."

Do you not understand that ANY involvement in something like that provides a level of AUTOMATIC ENDORSEMENT by you who are seen as something of an "expert" on the voting issue? Of course you do. That IS the point, isn't it?

I'm sorry, Professor. You simply can't play both sides of this issue, and hope to retain any real credibility on the issue. You can't be friends with the voting industry AND be a credible "activist."

And while we're having some full disclosure here -- I just want to make sure everyone knows that GregD, also posting on this thread, is Dill's webmaster. He's a volunteer too, of course, and probably also has no ties to the voting industry.

Oh, speaking of full disclosure. I heard a rumor that your professional work includes, or has included, work for DARPA. Is that true? Can you share with us what exactly you were helping them with?

Eloriel

[GregD]

31. Can we please call a truce?

Dear Elorial (and DEMActivist):

It will be quite a step in the right direction when we reach a point that you can stop worrying about whether I have voting industry ties (NOT!), or am somehow co-opted and "not to be trusted"...

Yes, I am webmaster for the Verified Voting site. I am also webmaster for these:
www.MarinForDean.org
www.SundaySalon.org

I am supporting all these efforts because I am sick to freaking death over what is being done in our name by this disaster of an administration.

And before the country went to shit because of this regime we are dealing with, I was just a happy guy whose greatest concern was tying flys, tormenting trout, and helping advance local coho and steelhead conservation by building www.northbay-tu.org - a local conservation group on whose board I have served for many years. Today I work as much as I can on this voting issue trying to advance it in hopes we will have a few shreds of our Constitution remaining 13 months from now when we can get these pukes back to whatever rock they crawled out of under.

So would you please get a grip, despite our mutually shared paranoia as to who may not like what we are doing, and what they might do to discourage us, and try to accept me as someone who gives a rip about saving this country. Or would you simply prefer that I also not post here, and go away, just as you found it appropriate to cancel me from BBV? Yes, I know you you have been threatened (or worse). But hey, I have made my name and location and position on this issue www.greybearddesign.com/verifiedvoting.asp very public. I have nothing to hide, and make no attempt to do so (as opposed to you who would use pseudo-names) - I am not your enemy - and I am really tired of being treated as if I were.

If you notice other posts I have offered today, such as links to sample letters and background as to the challenges we face in passing HR2239 - I should think that I would be recognized as having value that I can share in this community. I'm not going to continue to deal with your false allegations, and hope we can start moving forward, regardless if that requires mutual silent contempt for each other. I'd prefer to work as a team - however arm's length as that will apparently be. We all have value to contribute!

[Eloriel]

32. Greg -- Chill, baby

I had one sentence about you:

And while we're having some full disclosure here -- I just want to make sure everyone knows that GregD, also posting on this thread, is Dill's webmaster. He's a volunteer too, of course, and probably also has no ties to the voting industry.

Why are you so exercised about one sentence -- are you not a volunteer? is it true you don't have ties with the voting industry, just as you say? (It is, isn't it?) And yes, I was being a little snide, since your volunteer boss does have ties (depending on how he'd like to define ties, I suppose), but it's hardly worth that anguished and martyred post of yours. YOU are the one bringing up the past. I could do that too, of course, but chose not to, as you will see if you bother to read the only part of my post that applies to you. No false allegations have been made about you at all.

And DEMActivist said NOTHING about you whatsoever, so your even addressing this to her was highly inappropriate.

IOW, I have a grip. How 'bout you?

Eloriel

[GregD]

33. This is why

I reacted (a) because yes, you were snide and (b) I'm tired of your allegations (regardless of their being couched in "he probably isn't"), and (c) the events of last week at BBV that included DEMActivist. The details of that need not not be repeated here, but you know exactly what I am referring to. It would be nice if the privacy of email were respected - and not posted to the message board and mocked. That is crap, and leads only to an abolute lack of trust, ongoing suspicion of the other person, and anger when posts like your message tonight are made.

So, shall we drop it now, and find a way to win this BBV issue?

Truce...

[Eloriel]

34. Okay, Bud

I've always considered it extremely bad manners to bring the squabbles and conflicts from one board to another. It's just unseemly. But this isn't the first time you've been unseemly IMO.

I warned you about old business, and YOU keep insisting on bringing up even more. Old business, a different board. Just can't let go, can ya? Nor are you even complaining to the right person.

YOU are now on ignore. That's pretty bad. Hell, I don't even have TFHP on igore.

Truce? Go truce yourself.

Eloriel

[GregD]

30. SAIC Report

David may have additional comments, but we have posted this:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=143

Also, I hope you noticed the day that the SAIC report came out that he replied to Bev's post, and that his response included a reference to "whitewash"... I don't think that was too vague an opinion.

Concerning CA-ACLU, our reaction to them is the same as our reaction to Common Cause and the LWV - we reject their position outright. Yes, there needs to be appropriate accomodation for the disabled community, but not at the risk of uncertainly in our elections. Somehow there needs to be a solution that addresses election security and voter confidence, without obstructing the privacy and independence of disabled persons.

While the Recall sat on hold awaiting further deliberation, and the ACLU argued that communities were being disenfranchised over the use of punch cards, we all rolled our eyes in frustration and wondered "what the he** does it take to get through to these people?" I was ready to call them and offer to trade: "Here, you take these stinking touch-screens, and I'll take your chad boxes..." Now, who gets disenfranchised? Alameda, Plumas, Riverside, and Shasta Counties. And my county, Marin, uses the optical scan boxes with that lovely GEMS software over at the Civic Center. Considering taking a sledge hammer to the polls with me that day...

In response to our concern over the upcoming Recall, we posted this alert, asking voters to consider using absentee ballots in those counties: http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article_text.asp?articleid=141

I hope this begins to answer your question.

[dill]

37. DEMActivist questions

Can you give us some feedback on what you think of the Maryland SAIC report?

There's a high-level commentary on verifiedvoting.org.

How about the status of your VoteHere solution? Can you tell us where
that is? Do you still intend to endorse it as the solution to this
problem?

Trick question: It's not MY VoteHere solution. The VoteHere
information is posted on one our web page. We never said we
do or plan to endorse it. The "review" is not even underway
yet.

I definitely don't subscribe to the notion that we can't LOOK
at some voting scheme because it will corrupt us.

What do you think of California's ACLU arguing FOR the electronic
voting machines?

I think it's seriously misguided. One of the most amazing things
I've run into since I started is opposition from "voting rights"
groups. They have real concerns that make electronic voting
attractive to them, but they completely discount the computer
reliability and security issues. That's like saying smoking
is great because it's relaxing and helps concentration, without
considering the health issues.

I think many of us activists here would like to hear your stand on
these issues.

[DEMActivist]

38. Thank you for answering....

Now, with particular attention to the ACLU, those sure are nice word, but how do you plan to change minds and attitudes? Do you simply accept that as the ACLU stand and plan to do nothing?

As for your SAIC commentary, I don't plan to go to your site to read it. Given the history of voting machine companies owning the name and IP address, I won't visit your site. I don't trust the ownership of said site, nor will I hand my logged information over to it.

I would suggest many feel the same way.

[dill]

40. ACLU, site visiting

Now, with particular attention to the ACLU, those sure are nice word,
but how do you plan to change minds and attitudes? Do you simply
accept that as the ACLU stand and plan to do nothing?

I've participated in phone conferences with various ACLU figures
and met with one of the major voting rights people.
(I'll now wait for the barrage of criticism for talking with them.)
I've tried to clarify the technical issues with voting machines
for the public, including the ACLU. I've written a response to the LCCR policy analysis, which is useful because the ACLU voting rights
are very active on the issue in LCCR.

Their is an ACLU chapter in Florida that is part of a coalition
pressing for a voter verifiable paper trail, and the national
organization has not yet taken a position one way or another.
There is probably good reason for concern about what that position
may be.

What have you done to influence the ACLU's position?

What I HAVEN'T done is send out a crack team of VoteHere/SAIC
brainwashers to change their position.

As for your SAIC commentary, I don't plan to go to your site to read
it. Given the history of voting machine companies owning the name and
IP address, I won't visit your site. I don't trust the ownership of
said site, nor will I hand my logged information over to it.

I would suggest many feel the same way.

It is time for everyone to start questioning the divide-and-conquer
tactics of you and Eloriel. What possible benefit could their be
to our side of this issue to suggest that visiting our web site is
somehow dangerous? You seem to be putting a tremendous amount
of energy into tearing down people who are fighting a very tough
battle for a voter verifiable audit trail. I'm sure the people
on the other side appreciate your efforts.

I doubt that many people have any concerns about reading our
website. Accessing our site is hardly controversial.
I'm sure that lots of people visit including activists, journalists, the ACLU, people in the federal, state, and local governments, and voting machine companies.

However, if anyone is concerned, they should understand that sites
can be visited anonymously. The anonymizer (www.anonymizer.com) is
one service that does this. I'm not sure what others are out there.

[Eloriel]

41. There are no "tactics" of any kind here, let alone divide and

conquer.

I am simply expressing -- and will continue to express -- my disappointment in and distrust of your alignment with VoteHere. I asked some questions which you seem to be ignoring. Instead of addressing those questions, you launch a counter attack. I'd describe THAT as a tactic.

I definitely don't subscribe to the notion that we can't LOOK
at some voting scheme because it will corrupt us.

What about the notion that as soon as you agree to look at a "voting scheme" which adds more complexity along with less popular control and oversight, you are helping subvert the whole effort, such as it is, because you, the "expert," have by your very willingness to consider some cryptography scheme have inherently given an authoritative imprimatur to the notion that such a thing can work and could appropriately be used> As soon as you agree to listen, nevermind weigh in on their technology, you've said to the world that you, an "expert," approve of a technological solution.

I find that unacceptable. You obviously don't, but haven't given a good answer as to why.

There are a lot of people (experts themselves) who disagree with you. It's true, the CIA and defense industry IT organizations (such as SAIC) may have come up with some truly uncrackable, unhackable encryption software. But WHY THE HELL WOULD WE WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE INSTEAD OF SIMPLY ADDING VOTER VERIFIED PAPAER BALLOTS? Why are you not fighting for paper ballots to the exclusion of any other possible so-called solutions?

The LAST thing we need is a technological solution that in reality only papers a veneer of acceptability over a very broken, untrustworthy system and lulls election officials, Congress, state legislators and others into a sense of complacency about these voting machines.

This isn't just ANY old software system or problem we're talking about here, Professor. We're talking about democracy itself.

If you want to call my conerns and alarm a divide and conquer tactic -- go right ahead.

The fact is I just don't see you on our (The People's) side, and your taking up with and remaining in league with VoteHere, however innocent it may be, doesn't help my opinion or suspicions. Nor have you done anything to persuade me otherwise.

I only care about winning this thing so that we're not left with merely the illusion of democracy, so people who pretend -- or even innocently THINK -- they're on our side but end up sabotaging the effort -- again, whether innocently or not -- are a big concern to me.

So don't be surprised that I don't take a counter attack instead of a response to my questions as evidence or testimony to your innocence.

Eloriel

[dill]

42. Divide and conquer

Maybe you're just accidentally being divisive.

Unfounded charges and personal attacks are divisive.

Suggesting that people should not go to our website is divisive
(that's what I was responding to in the previous post).

Sometimes allies will disagree on issues, and sometimes people
will accidentally work at cross purposes. That doesn't justify
rumor- and fear-mongering and outright false statements.

I don't accept that examining VoteHere's scheme, or any other scheme,
is dangerous. What IS dangerous is accepting schemes without
examination, which is what is happening now. There is a good chance
that, if we are partially successful, our concerns about security
will be "addressed" by some company marketing an unproven and
undisclosed cryptographic technology. Maybe it will be VoteHere's,
or maybe it will be something cooked up internally by one of the
big companies.

Our scrutinizing something does NOT aid this. It sets a precedent
for anyone else who tries to do something similar.

I'm not assuming that an evaluation of VoteHere's system will be
produce a favorable result.

[RedEagle]

43. Why would we even consider a cryptographic system?

Dill,

I have been quiet on the issue of you and VoteHere and I don't now wish to flame the fires of dissent. But I wish you would elaborate to us all why you would even consider VoteHere's so called "solution?"

As stated so well previously, we are talking about elections here.

Our vote is our contract with our government. It's our only chance to really influence the course of the business of government. When we engage in such a contract, we have an inherent right to insure that the contract we signed (ballot) is available as a document, to refer back to as to the original agreement signed. (voted)

Therefore, the ONLY system that satisfies that legal need, is a physical document of proof. Except, in the special case of an election, that document (ballot) does not go with the voter, it remains in secure custody to be used to recount or audit the voting system.

Schemes like VoteHere's, and there seem to be some variations on this theme coming out now, fail in many HUGE ways, as a voting system and indeed, suffer from many of the same flaws currently found in Touch Screen systems that do not produce voter-verified paper ballots that are put in a ballot box and used for recounts, audits and to determine true voter intent:

1) In VoteHere's system, the voter gets a receipt.
(Note that this is not called a ballot. I'll bet the electronic vote is called the ballot. Also note increasing use of the term receipts in news stories coming out about voter concerns. I find that a bit curious, since most people think of ballots)
That receipt does NOT stay at the polling place, it goes with the voter and the voter is supposed to verify, by looking at some list or screen display, that their vote was correctly recorded.

By virture of that paper receipt going away, there is no way to conduct a recount or audit of an election using that supposed, verified medium. This is the same problem with the current systems that leave no voter verified paper trial, you cannot conduct a recount or audit of an ELECTION. Remember the bill, HR2289, I think, that was introduced and used the term, "individual audit." That's the sell job perpetuated by the VoteHere system. We'll tell you you can audit your vote, but we won't mention there can be no hard copy audit of an election.

2) These so called receipts still require translation or interpretation. You have to decode them. What is so wrong with just printing out, in english or english and foreign language, what your selections are? Why is that simple solution avoided in any way possible? And if you're going to print a receipt anyway, therefore, dealing with that evil paper again, why not print it so it can be easily counted?

3) Since the voter takes the receipt with them, why is it that the much used claim of "Vote Buying" that we hear with voter-verified paper ballots is not being yelled to the high heavens in this case? Hello, hey, just take your vote buyer with you when you go to confirm your vote. And if what is seen can't be used for vote buying purposes, then it sure can't be used to tell if your vote was recorded correctly.

4) All the old possibilities of separate "books" in the system emerge here. There is no guarantee that what the voter sees when they make their verification is what is recorded in the system and used for tallying the votes. It's all too easy to just set up a second system to placate the masses while vote fraud the electronic way continues on. There are no guarantees the computer system is counting the vote accurately.

THERE IS NO TRANSPARANCEY TO THE PROCESS. Same old same old, hidden in that box so no one can see. Cryptography is just another way of saying, "Hidden vote count."

5) A system audit will take a technologist or computer scientist. Those are hanging around every precinct or county, I'm sure. Democracy is a people process and any citizen should be able to conduct a recount. The more people involved, the less likely that they all could be bought.

6) Any program, whether it relies on cryptography or not, is subject to hacking and inside fraud. Even the SERVE project team admitted that. It's impossible to protect against and hackers have a static target to aim at. THAT'S WHAT THE VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT IS FOR. Can you stuff a ballot box? Sure, it's happened. Can you manipulate votes that way on the level possible with computer fraud? NO. When you have a security problem, you figure out how to diminish it. Paper ballots diminish this problem in a big way.


The potential for a virtually fraud proof system exists. It combines old tech with new tech. Most voter verified paper ballot systems I have inquired about print a code on the ballot that corresponds to the code for that ballot in the computer. (Random number assigned to the ballot) By running a check of paper ballots against the computer ballots, matching up the code numbers, you can pretty much eliminate ballot box stuffing. Anything that didn't have that code would be out. And if there were more votes in the computer than in the ballot box, those votes would be out, too. You just let the public know that if they take a ballot out of the precint, they just lost their vote. That would pretty much make vote buying futile.

We ask for a voter verified paper ballot that the voter can verify, on the spot, and that can be easily read for recount purposes without the need to be decoded, that is put in a secure ballot box and used as the legal ballot for recounts and system audits.

I think what some people are wondering is why you would even give the space to any other solution, since those solutions cannot, for one, conduct an audit of an entire election with hard copy evidence, can be used in vote-selling schemes, and still conduct an election count in secret?

[Eloriel]

46. Indeed, and well said

I think what some people are wondering is why you would even give the space to any other solution, since those solutions cannot, for one, conduct an audit of an entire election with hard copy evidence, can be used in vote-selling schemes, and still conduct an election count in secret?

AFAIC, there's no justification, no excuse. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. Nor has anyone offered ANY explanation, let alone a good one.

Eloriel

[Eloriel]

47. I actually want answers to these questions

Mine and RedEagle's.

Are you listening, Dr. Dill?

:kick:

Eloriel

[DEMActivist]

44. What have I done about the ACLU?

Let me give you a list:

1. I've arranged and conducted meetings with the LEADERS of this organization. Have you?

2. I have taken the REAL problems with this electronic voting systems to them. I've shown, discussed and proven the problems with them face to face. Have you?

I haven't made any of my actions public for fear that you will, once again, step in and try to damage or stop the meetings necessary to make headway with these organizations.

We must work in secret to stop people like you from damaging our efforts as you have done in the past.

And, you must forgive us for the suspicion about your web site which YOU ALONE CREATED.

Don't blame people for understanding the illegitimacy you created.

Don't try to punish people for understanding your motivations and behaviors.

[Eloriel]

20. You'd BETTER write to Republicans

They can be pressured and shamed into paying attention, you know.

Also -- sign up for the Election Reform MeetUps on Oct. 8
http://electionreform.meetup.com/

Eloriel

[IkeWarnedUs]

29. Better yet - do both

I just posted an e-mail I am sending to all the local (Chicago) groups involved in voting and elections, inviting them to the October Meet-Up to discuss BBV.

Link to DU thread with my e-mail:

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=412946

Why not send invites to elected officials? I don't expect the officials themselves to come (well, maybe some locals) but they may send some staff to find out what this is all about.

[juajen]

36. I disagree with you about writing to pugs about this issue.

The truth is, if they can steal the votes, so can we. I'm sure this will bother some pugs who are not on the neocon team, and it should bother the neocons. We have some smart techies in the democratic party and we are also capable of causing some voting destruction; in fact, there is some indication that vote fraud has not been limited only to the last two elections. The machines previously and still being used, also Diebold machines and others, could also have been manipulated. So, if you have a republican senator or congressman, indeed, do write them, and stress that manipulation could be done on both sides of the political spectrum. Can't hurt!

[Seneca]

45. bump

eom