HR 550 amendment to HAVA

[BeFree]

Let us open this can of worms, shall we?

As it stands 550 would seem to claim that the machines are a-ok as long as the machines have some kind of an audit. A 2% audit that someone is going to be allowed to do.

But as we have seen, the judges have the final say on audits and recounts. Gore 2000, the judges said "No Recount", Ohio judges said the BS recount there was OK. It was stolen.

What that means to me is that no matter what some law says, if the bushco appointed judges get to rule on the audits and recounts, then we are right back here, with nothing.

It seems to me 550 would be a placebo. A placebo meant to shut us up by giving us hope.

In my mind, when HAVA comes up, as it is bound to do soon enough, we should ask for HAVA to be sunseted.

Discuss.

[Stevepol]

1. I don't know BeFree. I would prefer paper all the way.

But if the right percentages are chosen for the audits, according to what I've read from the statisticians (Kathy Dopp and the NEDA people), you should be able to detect fraud if you use asliding scale for the audits, i.e., the closer the race, the higher the percentage of the precincts audited. If there's fraud and it's a big fraud, you don't need a robust number to catch the fraud. But if the fraud is only a small percentage, just a 2% tilt e.g., then you need a large percentage audit.

I doubt very seriously this will get into the system, but once there's a paper trail everywhere and if we keep howling and if the yelling and screaming increases, we should be able to get what can be like a democracy again, and once we get a democracy again, we'll get a lot of Dems elected again. The American people are generally progressive and always will be I think.

[Febble]

4. Remember it's not the percentage that matters

it's the sample size. So you need to know what your percentage is a percentage of.

But to do an audit at all you have to have something you can actually audit, which seems to me to be one very good reason to support HR550.

[Kip Humphrey]

2. Well said. Here's my 2 cent

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=441267&mesg_id=441336

[Kelvin Mace]

3. Here's what you are throwing away by opposing 550

Some folks are absolutely obsessed with the audit provision, which while not perfect is FAR better than what we currently have. Let's look at ALL the things we will lose if we don't get behind this law:

Paper required:

The voting system shall produce or require the use of an individual voter-verified paper record of the voter's vote that shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast.

Paper beats electrons:

In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic records and the individual permanent paper records, the individual permanent paper records shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast.

Audits REQUIRED:

The Election Assistance Commission shall conduct random, unannounced, hand counts of the voter-verified records required to be produced and preserved pursuant to section 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (as amended by section 2) for each general election for Federal office (and, at the option of the State or jurisdiction involved, of elections for State and local office held at the same time as such an election for Federal office) in at least 2 percent of the precincts (or equivalent locations) in each State.

Software code MUST be disclosed:

No voting system shall at any time contain or use any undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code, object code, and executable representation of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, and executable representation available for inspection upon request to any person.

No wireless devices:

No voting system shall contain, use, or be accessible by any wireless, power-line, or concealed communication device at all.

Chain of custody and who's writing the code must be disclosed:

(i) The manufacturer and the election officials shall document the chain of custody for the handling of software used in connection with voting systems.

(ii) The manufacturer of the software used in the operation of the system shall provide the Commission with updated information regarding the identification of each individual who participated in the writing of the software, including specific information regarding whether the individual has ever been convicted of a crime involving election fraud.

(iii) In the same manner and to the same extent described in paragraph (8), the manufacturer shall provide the codes used in any software used in connection with the voting system to the Commission and may not alter such codes once the election officials have certified the system unless such system is recertified by such election officials.

(iv) The manufacturer shall meet standards established by the Commission to prevent the existence or appearance of any conflict of interest with respect to candidates for public office and political parties, including standards to ensure that the manufacturer and its officers and directors do not hold positions of authority in any political party or in any partisan political campaign.

No connecting voting systems to the internet:

No component of any voting device upon which votes are cast shall be connected to the Internet.'.

No conflict of interest:

(A) IN GENERAL- A laboratory may not be accredited by the Commission for purposes of this section unless--

i) the laboratory meets the standards applicable to the manufacturers of voting systems under section 301(a)(11)(B)(iv), together with such standards as the Commission may establish to prevent the existence or appearance of any conflict of interest in the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification carried out by the laboratory under this section, including standards to ensure that the laboratory does not have a financial interest in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of voting system hardware and software, and is sufficiently independent from other persons with such an interest; and

(ii) the laboratory, upon completion of any testing, certification, decertification, and recertification carried out under this section, discloses the results to the Commission.

I am beginning to get very tired of people misrepresenting what the law does and says. This is a good law, not a perfect law. You are are highly unlikely to get a better law. Imperfections in the law may be addressed by state law.

For all you folks who oppose HR 550, please show me the text of your law and tell me who do you have who will introduce it?

Please go and READ the text of the law. Do not rely on ME or ANYONE else to inform you. Yes, it is dry reading, but thinking is hard and that is why we are better than Freepers, because we think.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.550:

[BeFree]

5. I agree with MCM

"550 is a compromise", and it is in effect playing right into the hands of the machine vendors. It establishes the machines as useful when we know that they are just trojan horses.

We have lost so much already that we can't give in anymore. We can't compromise. We have to slam the machines at every opportunity and take no less of a system than what we would be sure to get with HCPB.

Kelvin, do not give in and compromise. You know the bill could be far better than what it is. What have you got to lose? There are too many people depending on us to let Diebold continue to have their way with us.


Besides, the courts are liable to throw out any audit, kinda like they did to Gore.

NGU

[Stevepol]

6. I'm strongly for HR550. Just because 550 isn't perfect and there will

still be rigged elections doesn't mean we can't go for 550. It's just one step and it's a very good step.

Once we have 550, we can still keep on bitching because there are sure to be other "glitches" of all kinds, and if the audits are carried out fairly even in a limited number of palces there are going to be some cases where fraud is uncovered I believe. Then what will happen?

At what point will people realize that the safest, cheapest, and most secure method of voting is paper?

In any case, 550 is just a step. Anything we do is just a step.

Nothing is ever finished. Even after we get paper again, if that time ever comes, there will still be more to do.

Just because you can't get your dream home at the moment, don't pass up the nice little bungalow that will keep you cozy and comfortable until you can afford something better.

[MH1]

7. Wait...it's not a perfect law???

Well of course we can't support THAT!

:sarcasm:

Seriously, thanks for your post. No way, no how will we EVER get ANY perfect law through the current Congress - or most Congresses ever. Our system just doesn't operate that way. I keep reading people on DU and other forums and blogs bitching about bills that have crappy or insufficient provisions...yet what many seem to fail to realize is that perfect is not an option. The choice is the bill in front of you or no bill.

In the case of election reform, I doubt anything meaningful at all will be passed in this Congress anyway. The best that can be done is to raise the profile of the issue so more Americans realize there's a problem and want to see something done.

IMO. But then, what do I know.

[BeFree]

8. Not much, it seems

Have you ever followed a bill at all? I guess not.

Yeah, there is a bill, but it can get changed, it can get amended.

What the hell is wrong with working for a perfect bill? This lay down and roll over attitude sucks! They're stealing votes, damnit, and we've got to stop them. This bill as presented will not stop them. Don't settle for it, fight for something better.

Shoot for the stars, and if all you get is the moon, at least you tried!

[MH1]

9. Well, you are friendly aren't you?

Do you find that you win a lot of people over to your cause by insulting them?

I stand by my statement that you will not get a perfect bill. OF COURSE you can amend it - IF YOU CAN GET THE VOTES FOR THE AMENDMENT. Back to my point.

[BeFree]

10. Insulted?

C'mon. You think that was an insult worthy of complaint?

Have you seen all these pro machine people eating away at me? Now those are insults, but I'm not complaining, its part of heated discussions that's all.

You can stand by your position of not thinking you can get a perfect bill, whatever that means, but I will continue to go for the gold, anything less is the real insult to democracy, and is the only insult that really matters, eh?

[BeFree]

11. The lines are drawn

On one side are those who think privately owned machines can be made to produce an accurate count. The operative term is "can be made to". They think that 550 will enforce that mantra "can be made to."
------------------------

On the other side are those who think that the invisible hand of the private companies needs to be cut off completely. And that 550 tends to codify and strengthen that invisible hand.

Yes, we think the machines should be tossed into Boston Harbor. We don't trust the same bought congress who gave us HAVA to release that privatized control over how our votes are counted.
--------------------

Having said that, if there is a machine that the experts can recommend to everyone, lets hear about that machine. I have yet to hear of one vendor who has the confidence of the leaders.

Since no machine has thus far appeared, the rest of us can't accept the idea of allowing the invisible hand anymore power.

It is about whether you want more private control or more open and more public control over how the votes are counted.