Grassroots? Is there a way WE can draft vote reform with grassroots effort

[BamaBecky]

What about a new Constitutional Amendment.....the hard way....because our representatives are in the corporate hip pockets?

[crispini]

1. Howzabout a bill in your state?

we've got one cooking already. If I can't get no federal law I'll take what I can get.

[BamaBecky]

2. Your state? Bill Name and purpose?

[crispini]

4. Paper trail for BBV in Texas.

I don't like it yet because it explicitly says it's not a ballot. so how can you recount it if it's not a ballot? I don't think you can....

But now, post Jan. 6, it's time to start rallying our troops, get them some feedback, get it changed, and get it passed. I've already started talking to some local organizations about it.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/79R/billtext/HB00166I.HTM

Edit: Did you notice the date it takes effect and the 'audio' portion of it? It would effectively get rid of all DREs in Texas for the 2006 election even if it passed just as it is... because there is not a single one, I don't think, that could meet the "audio" requirement.

Heh heh heh.

Thoughts?

[punpirate]

5. Actually, the technology is there...

... to produce audio output (one manufacturer may already have it), and it's not that expensive (although Diebold and ES&S will charge Texas dearly for it). Basically, optical scan-to-text and then text-to-speech.

Other manufacturers are trying get the states to buy contracts for the manufacturers to produce cued audio (done in a studio, based on each precinct ballot) with the touch screen results cuing the audio, sort of in the same way electronic phone directory assistance works now. That's how manufacturers are currently meeting HAVA.

Without the paper copy being called the ballot, it has no legal standing. In any recount, because the bill specifies that the electronic input is the ballot, the electronic tally has to be accepted legally as valid over any recount of paper. Period. This is window dressing to make Texans think they're getting honest elections. It's a sham. The best it can do in the case of an election audit is indicate a discrepancy, in which case, the electronic results must be taken over the paper trail.

Whoever sold you on this one should be selling bridges in Brooklyn.

Cheers.

[crispini]

6. Did you even *read* my post?

I said, I'm not happy with it yet, and we're going to work to get it revised.... it's DRAFT. It's not even IN committee yet, and the reps are listening to us activists. But it's a place to start!

Sheesh, talk about negativity right out of the box! This bill is not even two months old, and was proposed before the lege session even BEGAN. I'm proud that one of our Dem guys had the initiative to stand up and toss it out there, even if it's not quite right yet.

I challenge you to find one other state that's even got a post-Nov. 2 bill floating around out there right now concerned with DREs. Please post the link, thanks, I'd be intererested to see what language they are using in their bill.

[punpirate]

9. Of course I read your post.

If it's just a draft, which your reps wrote and it still contains the language that the paper record "is not a ballot," then you and your boys have already given up. That's just what the Repugs will want. There will be no discussion of it--it will sail right through as is, and will get you nowhere.

Who currently runs the Texas legislature? The Democrats? Not the last time I looked.

Sorry to seem negative, but you go in with your best case and fight for that, not hand the opposition exactly what they want.

Besides, the audio is immaterial--HAVA exceeds state law in authority, and those standards are already in place. You've also given the state the option to set seemingly higher standards by the NIST. The NIST is taking its cue from the IEEE, and the IEEE board covering voting standards is overloaded with manufacturer's representatives. The guy lobbying for the electronics manufacturers is looking to essentially take over the IEEE voting machine standards board. All that's been known for at least eighteen months. Ask plan9_pub about him sitting in on the manufacturer's meeting....

Let me be plain about this. If your reps wrote this, they don't understand the central problem with electronic voting machines. It's time to educate them. The only way for this legislation to be effective is for it to clearly state that the paper record, as viewed and approved by the voter, is the ballot. Without that, it's pointless.

Cheers.

[crispini]

10. Yep, I agree with you.

They don't get it yet, and we're gonna edumacate them. This pretty much came out of no-where, they did it on their own without any input from activists, I believe. But it's a nice place to start.

I was pleased that they demonstrated even this basic level of initiative and awareness, honestly. (Sorry, that's probably why I got shirty, I'm a glass half full kind of girl.)

Thanks for the info about the NIST standards, that's good to know. What else would you change, besides the "paper trail is not a ballot" bits?

Edit: and yeah, who's to say we'll get it passed, but it'll be a fun fight!

[punpirate]

11. HAVA is a good part of this...

... everyone thinks, well, computerized voting will be so much better than hanging chads--that's the myth being perpetrated. Tell your reps to look at the results that MIT did on comparative error rate (you'll have to Google for that--I don't have it handy). Plain paper ballots, marked by hand, had a lower spoilage rate than electronic machines.

Despite everything that's been said about spoilage, the driving impetus behind electronic tallying is to get the info to the networks quickly so they can compete with each other to call states first, and frankly, to encourage fraud.

That sounds tinfoil-hattish, but if you'd looked into the background of the equipment and software certifiers and their go-between, The Election Center, as I have, you'd have plenty of reason to worry.

The ostensible reason for HAVA was to enable the handicapped to vote without any assistance at all--that virtually required some sort of electronic means to do so, especially for the blind (and the advocates for the blind were very active in lobbying for HAVA). Unfortunately, there's a possibility that one of the major advocates has been receiving grant money from one or more of the manufacturers, and is convinced that fighting for machines with real paper ballots is a way to delay the blind their rights. This fellow, Jim Dickson, has been openly hostile to even the mention of paper ballots.

I don't have a good feeling about how technologically savvy this guy is, but he's very effective and convincing in hearings, being blind himself, and he's willing to go anywhere to testify, so your legislators need to know that, too.

What is troublesome about HAVA is not the concept, which is good, but the details. Some people found in the various drafts of the bill a change introduced by Sen. Ensign and modified by Sen. McConnell which effectively made the electronic printout produced by a master precinct machine at the end of voting the official auditable record (which was required in HAVA). That's part of the reason why Rush Holt introduced his bill to clarify that the auditable record should be a piece of paper reviewed by the voter.

Even that has a problem, because if it's not called a ballot, it isn't legally a ballot. It has to be the ballot. Otherwise, as I've mentioned, it has no legal standing in a recount. It's forever a receipt. Any judge would look at the law and say, "the law says the ballot is in the electronic machine. Those votes must be recounted, not the receipts, because they are not ballots."

There's an exceedingly short background on the history, now for suggestions: My strategy would be to lard up the bill with lots of additional technical requirements, so that they could be bargained away, keeping a few essentials, including these: that the voter-verified slip of paper be the ballot of record, that the machines used to tally votes at the precinct level and at the county level operate exclusively on open source code, and that a mirror image of that software be made immediately before voting and immediately after voting ceases. The latter requirement is technically pretty easy, but people will scream bloody murder about it. Still, it's the only way to trap last-minute changes to the software that have escaped the certification process. A last requirement I would like to see would be that technicians working on or around voting equipment be sworn in the same fashion as other election officials, even if they are contractors or manufacturers' reps. That would make them culpable under law in the same way as election officials, so they could not make the excuse that they were just assigned to a task.

One of the problems in this approach which you are likely to encounter is that many states have codicils in their legislation which impinge on the relationship of state law to federal law (this is common in environmental law, for example) where state law can be as stringent, but no more stringent than federal law. You need to have your reps look at state law carefully for such in two places in the Texas code--general provisions applying to all law, and specific provisions in the section of the code pertaining to voting. If they aren't there, or don't apply to voting law, build a very heavy bill to bargain with, winnowing down to the essentials I mention above.

Oh, on the audio--the preferable means of determining audio output would be from the paper ballot, not input to the electronic voting machine--if the sighted person can view the ballot, that maintains equality of usefulness for the disabled, something that is very important to that community. They want to be able to use the equipment in the same manner as the non-disabled, and there have been complaints under ADA in some areas for what is perceived as differential treatment.

Hope that helps.

Cheers.

[crispini]

12. Wow, thanks!

That will be very very helpful!

I have a feeling I'm in for a real education, above and beyond what I've learned so far. This is the first time I'm getting involved with the lege, so should be fun.

Fortunately we have a local former State Rep who is really interested in election reform. She's got a lot of heart and a lot of pull. So hopefully we'll be able to rally around her and get the techie folks involved too and have ourselves some grade-A legislation.

Or at least, entertainment. :evilgrin:

[BamaBecky]

15. http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/index.html Is this it? n/t

[punpirate]

46. The March 2001 report...

... is the one I was thinking of.

Thanks.

[mollyd]

18. Mirroring is good

But keeping the tabulating machines PRINTING a continuous log is even better.

[crispini]

20. They're two different things, aren't they?

Is this what you're referring to?

"and that a mirror image of that software be made immediately before voting and immediately after voting ceases"

what I got out of this is that we should require them to do some kind of backup of the computer (a la Ghost or other copying software) both before and after it is used.

This is different from printing a continuous log paper of the vote tally. Maybe both should be done.

[punpirate]

45. Yes, sort of...

... but you can hide operations from printing to a log, and you can do things in the background while printing something else to a log. Making mirror images of the software ensures that what is used on election day is what was certified. You can't get that from a server log.

Cheers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. The only way we even have a chance to get election reform

will be on the state level.

[GuvWurld]

7. Learn about the No Confidence Movement

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/no-confidence-movement-primer.html

[BamaBecky]

14. This is what we need and we need to take it Nationally.

I want it taken Nationally, because we need all the states to be in conformity for National Elections. Every single state matters. We just can't tolerate some states doing it right and others left to the whims of special interests. IMHO:bounce:

[crispini]

17. Yeah, but everything that gets taken nationally

is done one town and state at a time.

GuvWorld's website says:

"The success of the No Confidence Movement will require a "think global, act local" approach. Your city councilmembers will be more responsive to you than your Senator."

AMEN, GuvWorld.

If every single activist on DU did stuff in their town then we would be unstoppable. Think global, act local.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Local is not only A way, it's the best way...

We can get local (i.e., state) improvements much quicker than through Congress.

Past history teaches us: Bush's Congress, now stronger than before, DOES NOT WANT DEMOCRATS' VOTES TO BE COUNTED. Now that they have control of our voting system, they will obstruct any change. Democrats do not have the strength to overcome (unless they were to become real radical). AND, any new legislation the Dems could get would likely have poison pills in it, like taking away states' rights.

So, the BEST way to get the changes right now, is local, where individuals and local groups have more influence, and where your work is closer to real people. Real people almost always support transparent elections.

A Constitutional amendment is a long haul project--or at least it has been in the past. Very hard to do. We can get transparency (if not guarantees against biased officials) much quicker by amending state election rules.

[Goldeneye]

13. Would petitions do any good?

[crispini]

16. Working together at the state level.

I really think it's important that those of us who want to do something at the state level get in touch with local organizations who may already be doing this stuff. In my town there is an organization called Citizens for Equality that put 1000 pollwatchers in place for the election. I'm starting with them. I mean, I don't know crap about my state legislative process, but I'm gonna learn.

League of Women Voters might also be another good place to start. They struck me as very knowledgeable when I attended a post-election meeting.

Networking at the local Democratic clubs and asking around would help too. Chances are very good that most areas already have an organization that is interested in working on this and we just need to find them.

[emcguffie]

31. Democracy for America -- the Dean people

are working on this too. At least, in my meet-up, election reform is a big deal. They are having a rally in Trenton on Monday. Of course, I can't go to that, boo hoo. But it's something we are definitely focusing on.

In the other thread, on informing elected officials, I asked if we could talk about "reframing" the debate, a la George Lakoff and his book Don't Think of an Elephant -- something about how progressives can win.... We are doing meet-ups/workshops on that. Such as, we should talk about taxes as investments, to erase the idea that the right has established that everybody needs tax relief. So everybody thinks they will get relief by voting for the right, even though the facts tell another story. He says, once you have framed it, nobody hears the facts anymore, and I think he's hit the nail on the head.

[crispini]

42. Ya know, it's funny, my DFA meetup is not all that interested

in election reform. We met last Wednesday.

I don't mind, much, because we have city council elections coming up in May, which is what my DFA meetup seems really interested in. And I know who I need to work with on the election reform issue, so I'm OK with that. Send us more progressive city council and school board candidates and we will eventually take over the world. :D

Yeah, Lakoff's great. Been pushing him since back before the election; I'm glad to see that the word has finally gotten out.

[mollyd]

19. Grassroots legislation

is made impossible because we are set up as a REPUBLIC, not a direct Democracy.

[crispini]

22. What's your definition of "grassroots?"

IMO, individual activists working to get legislation passed at the state level sounds pretty grassroots to me.

And, hey, if you live in a state with I&R, why not take a pop at a referendum? That'd be entertaining.

[BamaBecky]

33. there could be a local grassroots effort, but I want to see a national

grassroots effort for vote reform. We need all the states election process reformed.......not just Arkansas and North Dakota and a splattering of others.....we need all the states reformed for elections....

have a national bipartisan effort

a central website for a petition to make congress act!

state chair-people who can get county chair-people who can get neighborhood chair-people to go door to door to obtain millions of signatures for the petition to make congress act

posters up everywhere educating - get the schools involved
get college students involved

brochures, booklets to educate the masses

to me that's grassroots

[crispini]

43. So, I'm curious, Bama Becky,

You just described an enormous real world effort.

What part of that effort are you prepared to sign up for?

[12345]

21. REPUBLICANS CONTROL...

the house, the senate, the presidency, and the voting machines. To change control of the voting machines, you have to be able to change your elected officials which you can't do if the controlling (possibly corrupt) party controls the voting machines...

[crispini]

24. Oh, bushwah.

Work towards a referendum in your state, if you have I&R. Keep the pressure on, keep fighting. Pass a state law. Get involved in your local process, be an election judge or clerk and get involved in the system up close and personal.

Oh, and :hi: Welcome to DU! Don't wanna be harsh, but there is plenty that we can do as individuals. No need to be negative! :D

[BamaBecky]

34. that's why you have to go to the people - to embarrass them into doing

the right thing

[seabeyond]

23. gotta do gotta do

been thinking about it. a couple things. internet is the new media. when television came, we had reporting a sense of free media then it was corrupted. our new media is going to have to be internet. the interesting with this, it creates the grssroots in communication

working here in creation, lol

one important factor yesterday was media and how they simply could not give democrats the simple respect of what they were saying. because what they were saying, is what we are saying. so media, dismissed us. the very person it is talking to the very person it works for


gotta go, but i am beginning to see what is being created for us

i said after bush got in in 2000, this is the time for dems to work on group, dean helped us a little a couplke years ago, adn the election, we the people helped us in the campaigning. we were listened to. we are listened to. another gift from yesterday, why i dont like bashing it. we saw the senators started listening to us about 48 hours prior to. adn we went at it. adn we got something big. again, they fuckin dont get it, cause they arent in it, but we yelled and they listened.

it is like being with two year old. mamas help me show how sometimes our world regresses to two

[insane_cratic_gal]

26. There is one good thing Tucker

Carlson got signed to another network

20 bucks says it fox!

You won't have to see his smug face on Cross fire again

[crispini]

27. Nope, it's MSNBC, I hear.

He is rumored to have the show after Olbermann.

Watch how fast I flip the channel. :puke:

[seabeyond]

28. i am off news, well hey it isnt news

not off news, i go out looking for news on the net. and the news i listen to is us, we the people. all across the world. we are the news. dont we know. the "news" seems to not know or they hide and dont tell it. we tell it

[insane_cratic_gal]

29. LOL are you kidding!

Ughhh.. are they taking scarborough slime bags of the air then?

[seabeyond]

32. probably in place of norville

feeling scarsborough feels secure

[insane_cratic_gal]

25. I think National level

Is what we should be looking at drafting.

Uniformed system. Either paper ballots or like CA the choice of paper ballots over the DRE machines.

We at least need Paper ballots before 2006! It's the first thing I fret about now. CA has it// you can opt to choose old fashion paper ballots over E-voting. You have a trail. (most of the time if they allow you to re-count lol) there is no damn hole some retarded machine can't read.

It's something I'm going to push here in PA. We do have punch cards, but I don't trust the machines. And I just now called my BOE to find out what sort of tabulator we have. BRC.. further investigation.. Election Services Division which is owned by ES&S.

I asked do we have the right to vote or request a paper ballot. "No you don't"

We need to do something even if it's small, before 2006. Keep working for the bigger goal to be 2008

[BamaBecky]

35. I agree, except let's go NATIONAL?

[garybeck]

30. state referendums - the only way n/t

[BamaBecky]

36. Please help me understand why that's the ONLY WAY???????

[crispini]

38. I don't wanna be rude, but:

What part of "The Republicans have a majority in the Senate and the House" don't you understand? Really! They're not gonna pass sh*t for us at the federal level. Trying to do something nationally is completely pointless. (We should encourage our senators and reps to TRY, don't get me wrong, but we can email the hell out of them and ALSO work on local grassroots stuff ourselves.)

That's why we have to turn to local and state initiatives, and Initiatve and Referendum.

[insane_cratic_gal]

39. How about compromise?

We can try for National Hillary said it, Harkin brought it up, Lautenberg mentioned removing all partsian from over seeing elections Like Blackwell(being head of the bush party for Oh)

There were mentions of National levels brought up yesterday. If we don't get something done in 2006 congress is not going to change. It will be hiijacked again. Can we get something accomplished state by state by 2006? We have to get a dem congress in order to get election reform? that's just wrong. Shame the hell out of them.

Who's term is up in 2006

I know that Santorum, Rick is up .. I plan to vote against him.

[crispini]

40. Well, like I said, I'm all in favor of staying informed.

Let's see what the Senate and House Dems come up with, and continue to keep the pressure on them (and the Rethugs) to actually DO something about it.

But there is only so much that I, as an individual citizen, can do to affect what the Senate and House do. Activists have much more impact on a state and local level because it is smaller. That is why local, grassroots activism is so important.

If every dedicated poster on DU got out and started attended local Democratic Party meetings, and became a precinct chair, and found a local organization involved in election reform, and lobbied their state legislatures to get a BBV bill through -- then we would be a power to be reckoned with.

(Yeah, a lot of people do get out there and do stuff. But, a lot of people don't.)

[BamaBecky]

48. Well, I think things are going to SWING AROUND when all the scandals

surface. Thanks for not being rude. I get my feelings hurt easy.:hi:

[snot]

37. Con. amdt v. difficult

But the Congressional Dems seem to hope we can get other legislation done.

So long as we're doing everyone else's job for them . . .

I think it's a great idea to write our own proposed reform law.

It's one way to help ensure there's a decent starting point for discussion. We shd of course incorporate advice from computer experts and other pros, among other things.

We shd then market the critical aspects of our proposal like crazy to media and the public. Do like the drug cos. do and sell it to the consumer first, so they'll ask for it.

Even if we don't get every wished-for bit of it, maybe there will be better awareness of was asked for and, perhaps, more accountability for those who oppose it.

[anaxarchos]

44. This thread makes a lot of sense.

The idea of working statewide referendum type initiatives is a natural. Working it at a national level is as Crispini wrote. Constitutional Amendments are very hard. But digging in through 50 state legislatures is even harder and the hardest ones will be the ones that matter the most (battleground, border states, etc.). And BBV legislation is far too small (and too technical) by now.

Is it possible (practical?) to combine them in some way and hurt the Republicans in the near term? What if you propose a comprehensive Constitutional Voting Rights Ammendment along the lines of what Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is proposing. What if you add to it a national standard for voting (BBV legislation, etc.) and something to really hurt the Republican fake majority in the near term (something democratic - universal registration / universal obligation to vote). What if you then referendem state conformance to a national VRA before any such VRA has any chance of passing. You are essentially passing on a national standard one state at a time.

This is not a proposal; just a question.

There has got to be a way to combine local and national, hurt the bastards in the near term, and not dig in for 20 years to see any results.

[Bill Bored]

41. SEE THIS THREAD!

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x264034>

[mordarlar]

47. We have started a thread to try and get all calls for action...

in one spot. : )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=262387&mesg_id=262387

Please join us.