NJ passes and Gov. signs VVPR law

[FogerRox]

Advocates cheer voting reform
But Jersey law requiring paper receipts will not go
into effect until 2008
http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-0/112097207143380.xml
Sunday, July 10, 2005
BY JONATHAN CASIANO
Star-Ledger Staff

A new law signed by acting Gov. Richard Codey last
week mandates that all electronic voting machines must
print paper receipts for each vote cast, allowing
voters to confirm their choice on a paper printout
before casting their final ballot.

>snip<

"I'm so relieved," said Patricia Kenschaft, a
mathematics professor at Montclair State University.
"This is a great step forward in recognition that we
can't trust computers. It shows that citizen action
can make a difference."

Others, however, said the law is considerably weaker
than similar laws passed in other states. Roger Fox,
chairman of the New Jersey Voting Issues Project,
criticized the New Jersey for not requiring random
audits of machines to make sure the paper receipts
match the computerized tally. Without audits, Fox said
the only way fraud will be uncovered is through an
official recount.

"I think the current form of the law makes it the
weakest law of its kind in the nation," Fox said.
"It's basically a toothless, three-legged cat."

[napi21]

1. That's great news! Now I hope he's only the first of many!

PLEASE, may all states pass similar laws!

[FogerRox]

2. there is no automatic audit -- no paper will be compared to digital

ballots unless a candidate asks and pays for a recount.

[napi21]

3. That's not terrific but it's a heck of a lot better than NONE!

At this point, I think it's an acceptable compromise. Most of the time you don't need a recount because the election isn't that close. As long as the option is available, I'm happy. Not thrilled, but happy.

[FogerRox]

4. yeah it better than nothing---

but in "One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich". the gulag workers are having fish broth-- one guy gets a fish head with a fish eye. and he feels real lucky.

The fish head is still not a complete meal.
This law is not a complete meal----

[Stevepol]

6. The election will be as close as the DRE's allow it to be.

If the point at which a recount is mandated is 1.5%, then the Repub will be programmed to win by 1.6%, etc. This is really what we have in all the states that already have the optical scanners.

The real problem is the central tabulators anyway, and the only way to check on them is by a REQUIRED AUDIT (5% randomly selected would be a good figure) FOR ALL ELECTIONS WHERE THE VOTES ARE COUNTED BY ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES (OR WHERE THE FINAL RESULTS ARE POSTED BY CENTRAL TABULATORS).

It's a step in the right direction, but a baby step it seems to me.

[napi21]

7. I see your point, but doesn't every candidate have the right to

request a recount? As I understand it, most don't when the % win is hight enough because they realize it wouldn't matter, but if a vote as you described occurrs, couldn't the "losing" candidate request/demand a recount anyway? I guess it depends of what office the run was in, but I'm pretty sure the Dems would get the $$ to do it if they feel they could prove a bad count!

[FogerRox]

13. Rebeca Mercuri advocates a 10%audit

[Amaryllis]

9. Don't need a recount because the election isn't that close. Oh dear.

Don't you know that with DRE's they can make it so it's NEVER close enough to warrant a recount? Not to mention the fact that we can't get honest recounts in most states anyway, if we can get them at all! That is not the point.

[garybeck]

10. don't overblow the value of unused paper receipts

this law is better than nothing but it will not prevent election fraud. with no mandatory audits, there is nothing to ensure the votes are counted. we can't rely on recounts to save our democracy. when was the last time there was a recount in New Jersey? the answer to that question is directly related to the effectiveness of this bill.

The quote in the article, "I'm so relieved" is exactly why bills like this create a false sense of security.

Good job NJ folks, but don't stop now. Take it to the next level. Push for MMRA - Mandatory, Manual, Random Audits. It's your ticket to democracy.

peace,
gary

------------------------------------
the solar bus
ELECTION JUSTICE CENTER
your home for updated information on the fight for democracy in America
http://election.solarbus.org
------------------------------------

[AX10]

5. It's about time.

[Kip Humphrey]

8. My greatest fear realized: a FALSE Panacea to reestablish voter confidence

with NO mandatory random audits of the digital vote processing system!

A sure invitation to long-term stolen elections and permanent digital voting systems. We can only hope this doesn't spread to other states.

[garybeck]

11. Yup, it's time to start the chant again - MMRA

M andatory
M anual
R andom
A udits


VVPR + MMRA = Democracy

VVPB + MMRA = Democracy

whether it's a paper ballot or a paper record, they are useless (if not harmful) without an MMRA.

------------------------------------
the solar bus
ELECTION JUSTICE CENTER
your home for updated information on the fight for democracy in America
http://election.solarbus.org
------------------------------------

[yowzayowzayowza]

12. Indeed,

A manufacturing system CANNOT wait for failure to perform quality control. It must be built into the process. A major portion of the Industrial Engineering discipline is dedicated to QC. Funny how they ignore busyness maxims when it suits 'em.

What is an election if not the manufacture of evidence of the peoples' will?

[FogerRox]

14. Exactly

[riqster]

15. If the paper receipts are verified by the voters and kept safe

Then we can amend the law to require audits. People have to understand Gary's point-they don't help unless they are used.

Remember the flu vaccine shortage a while back? There was vaccine in warehouses, but procedures didn't allow its distribution...

[Bill Bored]

16. Let's Get Real People: Random Audits Won't Work...

...unless the fraud happens to be distributed in a such a way that these audits will:

a) detect it and

b) trigger additional audits.

There are ways to evade random audits with high probability and there are corrupt, lazy and uninformed BoE officials who will NOT order additional audits if discrepancies are found.

We are therefore left with this:

It is up to the CANDIDATES and their ELECTION LAWYERS to CONTEST any election in which the results can not be verified!

Once you get VVPATs, or VVPBs, they CAN be counted. That's a huge improvement. In some states, the machine code can even be inspected. But ONLY in the event of a Contest of Election! What would be the evidence for doing so?

1. Lack of MMRAs
2. Not enough MMRAs
3. Proprietary Source Code
4. Laws and BoE regulations that DO NOT verify the electoral outcome
5. An outcome that could be overturned mathematically, even given the auditing that may have already taken place (this is the tricky one!).

So if you want those VVPATs or VVPBs counted, you need CANDIDATES who are willing to challenge election results, and who have the money to pay for such challenges. Kerry had the money, but did not challenge.

Also, there were states in which the vote could NOT be verified, even if challenged. (Punch cards didn't have the candidates' NAMES on them so there was no way to directly prove voter intent, even though there were paper ballots and exact "chad" rules! Ohio's ballot order rotation made it possible to switch votes in large quantities without detection.)

VVPATs and VVPBs make verified voting POSSIBLE! But it's up to those with whom we entrust our vote to stand up and get those votes COUNTED. We should only be willing to support candidates who are willing to do this in states where it's possible. The rest can take their chances with the machines, or they can JOIN US. It's up to them, really -- not us.

So now that you have VVPATs, you need a law that allows your candidates to USE THEM. I believe we have this in NY, but only time will tell if it is actually used. I think that this is much more important than MMRAs, don't you???

Looking forward to discussing!

[FogerRox]

17. Supporting candidates that support your stand on voting Issues is a

great way to make this the big issue of 2005-2006.
WE have made it clear to state reps in NJ that S29 -- VVPR- was weak and we expected them to pass ammendments to make it stronger--they didnt-
GOv. Codey signed S29 last thursday at 2pm-- at 3pm our delagation met with the Gov. And expressed our regret with the weak language.

SO we have made it clear that the VVPR law in NJ is weak--and we expect to it strengthened, this year.

[garybeck]

18. "It is up to the CANDIDATES"

i couldn't agree more.

i think it should be a litmus test - are you willing to call for a recount?

can you imagine, just if Kerry would have called for a recount in Ohio and Florida?

[FogerRox]

19. DAmn straight GB

[Bill Bored]

20. And NM, NV and IA!

But some of these states would be difficult to count.

FL has too many paperless machines. They would have to play back the DRE ballot images, which if unaltered are actually voter-verified, but who's to say if they were altered? Still, they were voter-verified at the time they were voted on. That's worth more than a summary report that tells us who won according to unverified database records!

Ohio still had the punch card problem. It would have been worthwhile to recount according to Ohio law, but there was still some potential for fraud due to the ballot rotations, which IMO, provides no real benefit, except in Primaries. But that's one law they obeyed in Ohio. They rotated those ballots like a top with Bush and Kerry lining up in each others' spaces over and over again. If you wanted to stop fraud, you'd line Bush and Kerry up with Badnarik and Cobb wouldn't you? Not so in Ohio though.

I think the litmus test is a good idea. If we had VVPATs and/or VVPBs in every state, we'd have a shot at honest elections, as long as our leaders are willing to find the truth.

MMRAs do rule out certain types of fraud, e..g., switching of votes on EVERY machine, but they may not detect others. Shifting votes on a subset of machines would be hard to detect at random. The odds are actually against it. But not all fraud would be enough to affect the outcome, and that's what matters.

I think some combination of MMRAs and laws to permit full recounts could work, as long as the candidates are educated and are willing to fight. It's not an ideal solution, but it would allow for hand counted VVPATs and VVPBs when this is the only way to ensure the correct outcome. But the candidates need to be educated and to act. Perhaps this, along with fighting to get the paper to count in the first place, is the best use of our time.

[FogerRox]

21. It may be that the Digital ballot images are proprietary in nature-- since

they are part of (imbedded in)the source code of the vendors software application-- like Sequoias WinEDS.
The Deputy Attorney GEn of NJ recently agrreed with me on this issue, in NJ the AG runs elections.