HR550: Lipstick on a Pig or a Bridle on a Monster?

[Febble]

On edit:

I am concerned that there is a very important bill, HR550, gathering steam, and that there is a real division in this forum between the view that it may damage the cause of election reform, and the view that it will be a step forward. And it also seems that the debate itself has become somewhat submerged in side issues. I wanted to start a thread in which the debate itself was conducted - because I think it is a vital one. There are no doubt excellent arguments on both sides. I think they should be heard. Because if, as I believe, the bill is good, then it would be a tragedy if it were to fail because it had been misunderstood. If, equally, I, and its supporters are mistaken, then it may well be worth debating how it could be improved, if at all. Please regard it, as intended, as an earnest plea for genunine, honest, constructive, and open debate. Thanks

Lizzie


An interesting cleavage seems to have opened up on DU between the supporters of HR550 and its detractors. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say: between those who think it represents a net gain for the cause of fair elections in America, and those who think it represents a net loss.

It seems to me that this is a debate well worth having.

However, for various reasons, some good, some not so good, attitudes seem to have become entrenched along lines that seem to have more to do with distrust of the motivations of the holders of opposite views than the merits of each side of the debate. And as someone who has inspired my share of animosity on this forum, perhaps I’m not the best person to start this thread. But I’m going to have a go anyway, if only, because of my distance from America, I am in the privileged position of the naïve observer.

And it strikes me that HR550 is a useful bill. Please tell me why I am wrong.

These are my reasons:

1. Electronic voting, however secure, and however accurate (and your present electronic technologies are neither) can never be an appropriate technology for a democracy unless there is some means of independently checking that the count is accurate. And without a voter-verified permanent record, there can be no independent check.
   
   And HR550 requires a manually countable voter-verified paper record of every vote cast, nationwide. I cannot see how this is anything other than a formidable barrier oncoming tide of paperless voting machines, or even to machines that offer only a paper record that is not easily capable of being manually counted.
   
   
2. Manually recountable permanent records are of no use unless someone actually counts them. And while I’d love to see every ballot hand-counted (as they are in the UK), counting a truly random sample of them strikes me as being very much better, for good statistical reasons, than not counting them at all (and much better than an exit poll).
   
   And what HR550 mandates (unless I’ve read this wrong) is a RANDOM manual count of the votes in about 200 precincts in each state. 200 is a large sample, and if truly RANDOM (as federal law would then dictate), would, if clean, offer citizens a high degree of confidence that the remainder of the states precincts were also clean. It would offer less confidence that fraud was not concentrated in administrative units smaller than the state, but would certainly not prevent state-level legislation to mandate more rigorous auditing. Instead, what it would do, it seems to me, is ratchet progress towards a properly audited election system from which backsliding towards all non-auditable electronic voting would be extremely difficult. If you are ever going to get 100% hand counted paper ballots in America (if that is what you want) it seems that ensuring that there are 100% paper ballots to count can only be a tremendously large step in that direction.

And as a final contribution to what I hope will be a nice clean fight debate I’d say that one of the reasons I have been more vociferous than some would like in attempting to convey to you all my reasons for believing that the exit poll evidence is NOT evidence of widespread electronic vote-switching in 2004, and indeed contra-indicates vote theft on a scale of millions, is that I can see that one of the issues that for some (not all) determines whether they consider HR550 “lipstick on a pig” or, whether it is instead a “bridle on a monster” - a first step to taming the beast - is the scale on which people believe that massive electronic theft occurred in 2004.

If you believe, as I do, that most of the disenfranchisement that occurred in 2004 was due to old-fashioned methods and problems, and that although the machines are both unreliable and vulnerable to manipulation probably did not account for most of Bush’s win, then you are probably more likely to consider HR550 a healthy move (although I do know some posters who are convinced that the theft was electronic and massive, and yet nonetheless support HR550).

But regardless of what you believe happened in 2004, it is completely clear that more votes were cast for Gore in Florida in 2000, and that even before HAVA, the election system that delivered the presidency to Bush was catastrophically unjust (not least because of over-votes on punchcards).

HAVA was the wrong solution to a real problem. It strikes me that HR550 stands a chance of replacing that wrong solution with a much better one. If it's going to make it into federal law, its co-sponsors (who include John Conyers and Stephanie Tubbs Jones, heroes to all of us) are going to welcome support from activists like you guys.

Does anyone really have good reasons why they shouldn't have it? And if so, can we fix it so that they can?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. HR 550 is needed to prevent "paperless verification systems"

Right now, the voting machine industry is in control of
how we vote.

HR 550 shoots a hole in their stern, which WILL sink their boat.

Most voting machines have wireless technology,
which HR 550 bans. Yay!

Most voting machine companies would rather pull up stakes
than turn over their source code, HR 550 forces
them to turn it over. Yay!

HR 550 preserves hand counted paper ballots as a voting system,
which some counties or states may wish to use.
Yay!

HR 550 requires audits, which only 12 states currently have.

HR 550 requires voter verified paper ballots, which only 27
states have.

HR 550 would prevent the use of "independent verification systems" which are the
newer threat to democracy, to be used instead of paper.

While some people are busy fighting HR 550, companies like VoteHERE
and others that sell gizmos intended to completely replace the paper
are busy at work, lobbying our election officials and lawmakers.

You listen to Donetta Davidson and Linda Lamone, they are slobbering over
the idea of baiting and switching the paperless verification systems
to be used instead of voter verified paper ballots.

The threat is high, NC is the canary in the coal mine, there was a pilot project
passed for "independent verification systems", but luckily it didn't get
implemented.

So, please be advised, we aren't just fighting for voter verified PAPER ballots,
we are fighting against "paperless verification" and wireless technology.

Chris Dodd would have us using paperless verification, so we have to be careful,
it is in the works now.

[Febble]

2. Thanks for all that.

Yes, "paperless verificatioin" sounds like a contradiction in terms.

[Bill Bored]

16. Sure. Wireless, Internet and all the rest are just around the corner. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. Rep John Conyers supports HR 550 - and He Wrote the Book

I am willing to bet that Rep John Conyers knows more about how
to get things done, and what is possible.

He has stood up for more difficult causes in an effective
way than any congressman I know of.

Rep John Conyers is a co-sponsor of HR 550

The most extensive investigation of what happened in Ohio was conducted by Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.(52)

Frustrated by his party's failure to follow up on the widespread evidence of voter intimidation and fraud, Conyers and the committee's minority staff held public hearings in Ohio, where they looked into more than 50,000 complaints from voters.(53) In January 2005, Conyers issued a detailed report that outlined ''massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio.'' The problems, the report concludes, were ''caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.''(54)

''Blackwell made Katherine Harris look like a cupcake,'' Conyers told me. ''He saw his role as limiting the participation of Democratic voters. We had hearings in Columbus for two days. We could have stayed two weeks, the level of fury was so high. Thousands of people wanted to testify. Nothing like this had ever happened to them before.''

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

[Febble]

4. One of my concerns

regarding the audit is what the provisions are should the audit fail. If an error (or "error") is found in the 2% of audited precincts, what happens next, do you know? Is it specified? If not, should it be?

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. subsection 5(d)

Additional Audits If Cause Shown- If the Commission* finds that any of the hand counts conducted under this section show cause for concern about the accuracy of the results of an election in a State or in a jurisdiction within the State, the Commission may conduct hand counts under this section at such additional precincts (or equivalent locations) within the State or jurisdiction as the Commission considers appropriate to resolve any concerns and ensure the accuracy of the results.

*i.e., the Election Assistance Commission

Courtesy of http://thomas.loc.gov

So, it's discretionary -- and the EAC wouldn't have authority to void an election.

[Land Shark]

7. Bush v. Gore teaches that this kind of discretion is unconstitutional

gotta have "objective" rules announced in "advance"

Moreover, without "cause for concern" there's no authority to move forward with additional audits, so if the audit system initially lacks enough power to detect something, then it will never be able to provide the basis for additional audits. The subject of full-precinct audits (and the non-random requirement of one precinct per county, minimum, has been discussed elsewhere in terms of it being problematic at best)

on edit: no track record of bridles on monsters actually working. horses were never monsters.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. doubtful

The words "objective" and "advance" don't appear in Bush v. Gore, at least in the per curiam opinion. Setting that aside, the opinion argued the necessity of uniform standards for a court-ordered statewide recount. It is speculative at best whether discretion in EAC additional audits is forbidden on equal protection grounds. No one knows yet what "Bush v. Gore teaches."

I agree that if the initial audit doesn't detect evidence of miscount, there is no warrant for extending the audit under this subsection. I note that a 0% audit is guaranteed not to detect such evidence.

Actually, I am given to understand that in Orlando Furioso, the hero rides a hippogryph with the aid of a magic bridle.

[Land Shark]

24. you'll find the following holdings of the Supreme Court

cited in a case that follows Bush v Gore:

"Somewhat more recently decided is Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388 (2000), n8 which reiterated long established Equal Protection principles. Id. at 104 ("When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter."). Echoing long-revered principles, the Court emphasized that states, after granting the right to vote on equal terms, "may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Id. at 104-05 (citing Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665, 86 S. Ct. 1079, 16 L. Ed. 2d 169 (1966)). n9 That is, the right to vote encompasses "more than the initial allocation of the franchise." Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843, 859 (6th Cir. 2006)

To avoid "arbitrary and disparate treatment" which the Court saw as emanating from election judges using subjective and different standards made up after the fact, objective rules announced in advance of the election are required.

The Supreme Court had two opinions that are colloquially referred to as Bush v Gore, in addition to the concurrences, etc., and an order staying the Florida recounts with Stevens Dissent from the same.

To respond further to Kelvin Mace's argument, look what the 6th Circuit said about that language suggesting Bush v Gore wasn't good law or good precedent;

"We also note that the dissent begins by criticizing our "reliance on the Supreme Court's murky decision in Bush v. Gore ." Dis. Op. at 32. Murky, transparent, illegitimate, right, wrong, big, tall, short or small; regardless of the adjective one might use to describe the decision, the proper noun that precedes it - "Supreme Court" - carries more weight with us. Whatever else Bush v. Gore may be, it is first and foremost a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and we are bound to adhere to it. More on this later." Stewart v. Blackwell, 444 F.3d 843, 860 (6th Cir. 2006)


If this isn't enough for you, I suggest applying to a local law school, or paying for a consultation with a lawyer near you. ; )

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. can we please keep it real here?

I've read Stewart v. Blackwell, it doesn't support your conclusions about audit protocols, and at any rate it is a single ruling of a single circuit court panel that divided 2-1, now awaiting en banc review.

It's fairly appalling that you would deploy your out-of-field legal credentials to express certainty about a subject where election lawyers disagree (i.e., the general applicability of Bush v. Gore -- as to whether it would bar EAC discretion in audits, I don't think they have gotten there yet).

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Bush v. Gore teaches us nothing

since it may not be used as precedent:

"...our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities," the court explicitly limited the reach of the equal protection application to the 2000 election."

[Land Shark]

21. Jeez, Kelvin Mace, the case HAS BEEN followed by courts

the only thing they need to know is what the holding is, and whether it says "US Supreme Court" at the top. The rest is "dicta" like the stuff you quote, and is not binding on the courts below.

see, e.g., Stewart v Blackwell (6th Circuit, 2006)

[Kelvin Mace]

38. It is binding when the SCOTUS

overturn any ruling based upon it, which they must do to protect the lie that the ruling was fair.

[Bill Bored]

15. At least 2%, 1 per county and randomness are NOT mutually exclusive.

The audit has to meet 3 criteria:

1. A minimum 2% of precincts per state;
2. At least one precinct per county;
3. Uniform random selection.

There is nothing mutually exclusive about any of these criteria.

I grant you that someone might screw it up by misinterpreting the law, but as it's written, the only way to meet all 3 criteria is to select at least 2% randomly until the one per county minimum is reached, thus satisfying all 3 criteria. In fact this can only result in more than a 2% audit of precincts -- not less.

These are not the parts of the bill that worry me.

Your point about the audit initially lacking enough power is valid. This is more likely to apply to less-than statewide races, or very close statewide races which would probably be recounted anyway, except in places like Florida where it's illegal to do hand counts of machine tallied ballots. (In Florida, they'll have to take their 2% and LIKE it I guess.) Local races and US House races are still a problem with a 2% audit.

Nevertheless, the 2% and 1 per county are the minima. Once the bill becomes law, it's the statisticians' job to show how much to exceed the minimum in any particular race. It's the lawyers' job to get the recounts that the statisticians say are necessary. The law sets a floor, not a ceiling. The fact that source code would no longer be secret does nothing to ensure that the correct code is running on every machine on election day, Early Voting days, etc., or that the machines will be reliable, or that the ballot definition programming won't get screwed up, so there will still be plenty of room for lawsuits. The difference will be that under HR 550, with voter-verified paper records, it might actually be possible to win some! (Not that there aren't other possibilities, but if we want to find out who the winner of an election is, the VVPARs would allow us to do that.)

[Febble]

39. You are right that if all those conditions are met

then 2% is a minimum. I am slightly worried from the wording that it may relax the requirement for equal chance of being selected in favour of at least one per county. If I had to choose, I'd go for the equal chance of being selected. But if all three have to be enforced, it's a very powerful requirement.

I just experimented. Assume that 200 precincts are sampled in a state with 10,000 precincts and there was a 10,000 vote margin. The most "silent" fraud that could overturn that margin would be an additional 1 vote added to each precinct, making the count 1 vote higher than the paper ballot count. And let's say the hand-count tends to vary from the machine count by plus or minus 4, even in the absence of fraud. In other words, the fraud is within the tolerance of the two counting systems.

Well, I just simulated that, and using a one-sample t test, was able to detect the additional votes with a confidence of 1 in about 27 million. In other words, 200 precincts is easily enough to detect fraud even when it is sliced so thin that it is only 1 extra vote per precinct even when that is within the tolerance of the vote counting systems.

At the other extreme, you could divi up your 10,000 vote theft between far fewer precincts, let's say 1% of precincts - that would mean an average of 100 extra votes in 100 precincts, state wide. That would be harder to pick up on a 2% audit, but the chances would still be pretty good, and it would, of course, be dead obvious when you found it. And in fact, concentrated that much, it's going to start to look seriously anomalous when compared to previous vote-returns from that precinct (i.e. it's going to show up as anomalous "swing").

So I'd say the HR550 requirement was pretty damn good for state-wide races. We need to work on the others, but it looks to me like an excellent start.

[Febble]

18. Well, you are the metaphor expert, Land Shark

What's the track record for sharks on land?

(Actually I toyed with mustangs, but then realised that I was writing for Americans, and I should probably have said bolas anyway....)

No matter. The question that I set up for the thread to address is simply: is the bill a net gain or a net loss for the cause?

So to apply that criterion to your post: I don't understand your second sentence. The bill may not provide authority to move forward with additional audits. But does your second clause really follow from your first? I don't see that it does. The power of the audit system to raise "cause for concern" doesn't depend on whether it provides "authority to move forward with additional audits". It depends on the the randomness of the sample and the sample size, both of which seem well specified, to me, at least for the presidential race. So yes, where the statistical power is adequate, it would "provide the basis for additional audits".

OK - that's got us further - a critical issue would seem to be statistical power (now I'm on home territory). So can we unpack that? I'd certainly like the statistical power to detect anomalies in more local races to be beefed up.

I think I agree about the one-per-county requirement, though not because it makes it non-random. Random is vital, and a one-per-country system would still be random. And could you recap on what you see as the problem with full precinct audits?

So what you seem to be saying is that the bill doesn't provide enough statistical power to detect corruption. I am not sure, that even if that were true, it would mean the bill will do net harm. But it seems to me not to be true (at state level anyway), which is one of the reasons I see the bill as an important net gain.

So let's discuss statistical power, as that seems the crux here.

[Bill Bored]

22. Did you mean?

"So yes, where the statistical power is adequate, it would 'provide the basis for additional audits'."

Didn't you mean where it's NOT adequate as in the HR 550 audit not being adequate would provide the basis for additional audits? Because that's what I think.

[Febble]

29. Sorry, wasn't clear

What I meant was, in races where the statistical power is adequate, it would have the power to flag up cases where additional audits were required.

In races where the statistical power is not adequate, it wouldn't. That's presumably the problem we agree on.

[Bill Bored]

67. Right. My point is that if the power is inadequate, it can be used

to get more audits. A clever land shark could go to court and say, "See, this audit only had a 20% chance of finding a problem, so we need to hand count more VVPRs because even though the software isn't secret, we don't know if the machines were reliable, if the software was CORRECT on every machine, etc." But all this is a matter of voter and candidate education.

It doesn't help to have folks running around saying that the software is secret, as if that's the only problem with the system. The problem is also software authentication -- not just trade secrecy. Holt does nothing to authenticate software so there's always a case to be made doing more auditing.

At least the bill sets a ceiling on the amount of theft that can occur by setting a floor on the checks and balances.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. Bill, are we clear about the sort of "basis" meant here?

I think it's all in the context of subsection 5(d) -- where hand counts "show cause for concern" and the EAC therefore conducts additional audits.

So, if the initial audit doesn't find a problem, there is no basis for additional audits under this subsection.

However, the initial audit could be larger (e.g. the 2%/1-per-county issue), or states could mandate their own larger initial audits.

By the way, we're speaking a bit freehand about 'not enough power' here. It's possible for an audit that we deem underpowered nonetheless to find fraud -- or, less likely, for an audit that has adequate power not to find consequential fraud. An underpowered audit might have 'only' a 70% probability of finding consequential fraud, which would still be a huge improvement over 0%. (Not that I think you need to have that pointed out to you, I just thought I should put it out there.)

Of course in a House race with something like 500 precincts total, a 2% audit of 10 precincts is pretty iffy. Even then, if someone has engineered 20% net fraud in 10% of precincts (swinging 2% of the net vote), an appropriately randomized 10-precinct audit (with tight chain-of-custody controls) should have about a 65% probability of detecting fraud. I'm not saying that's good enough; I just wish people would think about it.

[Bill Bored]

70. Here's something to think about...

A state has 88 counties and about 10,000 precincts, or whatever the actual number is for Ohio. Anyway, given the 2% statewide minimum, what is the real percentage likely to be if there also had to be at least 1 precinct in every county selected randomly from the statewide pool?

Given the fact that there are some counties with relatively FEW precincts, I'd think the statewide percentage would get somewhat above 2% by the time that EVERY county had one randomly selected precinct from the statewide pool of 10,000.

Care to do a back-of-the envelope calculation? We might be pleasantly surprised. (I wonder if Holt is aware of this.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. umm...

Can't spend much time on this because I have to hack through a paper someone sent me, but it seems to me it all depends on the implementation. If they randomly sample 2% of precincts (about 230), let's say (just for kicks) that that picks up anywhere between 50 and 80 of the 88 counties. Filling in one precinct per county not sampled isn't going to have a huge impact on the total sample size.

I could sim it and find out, if you are curious enough. Or maybe you have a different implementation in mind -- like, keep sampling randomly until you happen to have 'hit' all the counties. That could be considerably larger, although I don't think it is the most obvious approach.

[Peace Patriot]

6. It doesn't matter what's in HR 550, because it's never going to be passed,

as is, by the Diebold Congress, which is packed with Bush "pod people" and Democratic colluders. I suspect the bill is mostly for show. The Democrats could have had a transparent, verifiable election system--one NOT run by Bushite corporations using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls--long ago, if they'd really wanted one. They don't. They like the Bush junta dragging us into WW III in the Middle East, without having to take command responsibility for it. All they would have had to do was cry foul. But their silence has been deafening. Pardon me if I question their sincerity now.

If the Bushites pass a bill, you can be sure it will not contain a ban on the "trade secret" code. That will be the first to go. They will slash and weaken the audit provisions, and the Dems will wring their hands, and some will even get huffy and puffy, but in the end they will compromise; the bill will be worthless; and then they will go out and sell themselves to the voters as election reformers.

Please remember that almost all of these people were (s)elected by Diebold/ES&S, not by us. Some are genuine representatives of the people (would have been elected anyway), many are not. It's not easy to know. In fact, it's impossible to know--except by how well what they say and do fits with the opinions of the majority of the people. For instance: A recent poll posted here at DU revealed that EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the American people oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war. Yet we're headed right for it. And we will surely be in it before the November elections. It's part of the post-election narrative that will "explain" the Bushites miraculous comeback. How many Democratic leaders have spoken out against the obvious use of Israel as a proxy in the Bushite/NeoCon "Project for a New American Century"'s agenda of invading first Iraq, then Syria and Iran? Two or three, maybe. This is the Diebold Congress. This is what the electronic voting scam was and is all about. Overriding American opinion on the war.

The other thing going on with the Democrats is the DNC/Common Cause effort to save corporate control, and "trade secret" programming--as well as big money electronics contracts in government--by pushing optiscans, which are not as bad as touchscreens, but are nevertheless run on "trade secret" code, and feed into central tabulators also run on secret code, owned and controlled by Bushite Corporations. With an optiscan you vote on a paper ballot, and your "vote" gets scanned into the rigged electronic system. It becomes a collection of easily manipulable electrons. Your actual ballot gets dumped into a box and never seen again, if your state/county has zero auditing, and it has, at best, a 1% chance of being seen again, if there is some kind of audit. And recounts are extremely rare, very expensive, limited in scope and subject to corrupt manipulation. This is the problem: In electronic voting of any kind--as currently designed in the U.S.--the vote gets separated from the tangible evidence of the vote (the ballot), and what is now the "vote" is EASILY and UNDETECTABLY changeable by people who don't have your best interests at heart. HR 550 mandates better auditing, but it will never pass with those provisions in tact. And "better auditing" is not good enough. The PAPER BALLOTS need to be HAND-COUNTED, in full public view, and their totals made public, BEFORE any electronics run on secret code are employed. That is the ONLY guarantee of an honest count.

Finally, this electronic system is so filthy, so corrupt, and was so ill-intentioned, that we are not just dealing with logical problems, we are dealing with very corrupt PEOPLE, who have been bribed with lavish lobbying and the heady power of big money electronics contracts, into a culture of secrecy, and of plain hostility to the voters. These corrupt election officials are working hand in glove with corporations who have lied, time and again, about the security of their machines, and who have sold the unwary a truly shoddy bill of goods.

And we're going to reward these people with MORE big contracts, and entrust our election system to them?

That's the DNC/Common Cause position. We can fix it. Trust Corporate America. Just give us a chance.

Well, as we head into WW III--against the will of most of the American people--we cannot afford to trust those who have fucked us over so completely. We have to throw this entire rigged electronic corporate voting system into 'Boston Harbor" NOW!

How do we do that?

I think we can bring the whole system down, very quickly, by Absentee Ballot voting. AB votes are not "safe" (most are just scanned right into the rigged electronics). But AB voting IS non-cooperation with these election theft machines. We vote--which we MUST do--but we WON'T VOTE ON THESE RIGGED MACHINES. We BOYCOTT the machines. All these expensive, shiny, new, election theft machines sit idle, gathering dust--and embarrassing their corrupt purchasers. We send the election officials MOUNTAINS and MOUNTAINS of paper ballots (AB votes) and force them to deal with it. We give them a great big citizen rebellion--a "Vote of No Confidence" in the rigged system. And if enough people do it (and many are--it's up to 50% in Los Angeles), we will create the CONDITIONS for reform. Nobody will use the machines! The people demanding transparent, verifiable elections. We might also gain the clout to demand hand-counting of the AB votes BEFORE electronics are used, in THIS election, and that would nearly reform the system right on the spot.

In any case, time spent trying to foment citizen rebellion against this rigged voting system is better than fussing over a bill that the Diebold Congress will never pass. You think they're going to give us back our right to vote--when it's so lucrative to them for us not to have it any more?

Ha!

We have to TAKE IT BACK! And this is the most peaceful, lawful means I can think of for doing that. It's the Montgomery bus boycott, Gandhi's salt tax protest and the Boston Tea Party all rolled into one. But perfectly legal. And it's easy. Everybody can do it.

------------------------------------

BUST THE MACHINES--VOTE ABSENTEE!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

9. absentee voting does not escape computers counting the vote

Absentee ballots are counted by machine, and the voter
isn't there to correct the ballot if undervoted or overvoted.

Absentee ballots have extra hurdles to overcome as well.

Have you ever been to a canvassing meeting to see
how absentee ballots are approved/disapproved?

If you flood the offices with absentee ballots, then the
central tabulators will have capacity issues, since the
systems are not meant to handle that size of votes.

Federal regulations don't currently address capacity of tabulators,
or of the voting machines.

In Gaston County, the tabulator could not handle all of the absentee ballots,
and around 14,000 votes were not tabulated for almost a week.

In Guilford NC, when a larger than usual number of absentee
ballots were loaded, the computer began subtracting after it
reached 32767.

This meant that Guilford's unofficial results for President were
off by 22,000 votes.

I realize that people mean well, but you can't get hand counted paper ballots
until you outlaw paperless voting.

Election officials will lobby hard against you.

Now that we have a large amount of support in congress for a ban
on paperless voting, even Diebold can't stop that.

The Congressmen do not vote anonymously, so we can account for their
vote on this issue.

I wish voting absentee would solve the problem, but in many parts of the country,
this is far more vulnerable than other methods.

[Peace Patriot]

36. The AB protest is NOT aimed at an accurate count in November. That is

NOT possible--due to the speed with which this corrupt system was entrenched, thanks to the collusion of the Democratic Party.

It is aimed at FORCING change.

Massive citizen "Vote of No Confidence" in the election system.

Panic in the election theft industry. Mountains of paper to deal with. Shiny new rigged machines gathering dust.

BOYCOTT the machines. Let them sit idle. The billions of dollars that have poured through everyone's hands, exposed for what it is.

CREATE the conditions for change.

It's the next best thing to a sit-in. We vote, but we DO NOT COOPERATE with this rigged system in any way. And we force them to the table NOW.

[Kelvin Mace]

13. What color is the sky on your planet?

[Peace Patriot]

34. Dark. It's a dark sky. Dark with ash, all over the planet. Cold and

dark. Nothing will grow. Within months, all animals and people are starving. And this is what will occur with even a limited nuclear exchange anywhere on the planet--according to Carl Sagan's analysis in his book, "The Cold and the Dark." And it is being made more possible and more likely every day in the Middle East.

A somewhat slower death of the planet is already in progress, by means of massive pollution of the air and the water, with the US contributing 25% of it and doing absolutely nothing to curtail it, and, instead, slaughtering people in the Middle East for their oil, and contributing yet more pollution, with horrid munitions and oil-fueled military hardware of every kind. I don't know what color the sky will be in this slower death, likely sizzling blue to orange in some places, as people and all living things fry, and dark gray in others with wild hurricanes and nonstop rain.

We are likely the only ones who can stop these planetary death scenarios from happening--American voters--so we MUST restore our right to vote NOW.

To do that, we must precipitate a crisis in the voting system, and FORCE change.

This protest--flooding election officials with mountains of Absentee Ballot votes--is NOT aimed at getting an accurate count in November. That is NOT possible. It is aimed at FORCING change.

[Kelvin Mace]

40. Then support HR-550

If you don't believe it can be passed because the evil forces of Wingnuttia won't allow it to pass, I don't know why you are even bothering to post, since the game is already over if they won't "allow" it to be passed.

The only way the bill won't pass is because people like Bev Harris are doing their damndest to stop it for their own selfish and or misguided reasons.

[Peace Patriot]

48. Oh, come on, Kelvin! Have you been following the Bush "pod people"

Congress lately? Let's see. Keep us from flag-burning. While they incinerate the Middle East. Keep gays from marrying, while giving tax cut #4 (5? 6?) to the super-rich. And give more money to Dick Cheney's retirement fund.

Why do I post? Because I feel HR 550 is a sidetrack. I have NO REASON TO BELIEVE that the Democrats will hold firm on provisions that will make a difference (ban on secret code, auditing). They betrayed us on our right to vote long ago, and from the beginning. They're trying to SAVE the secret code and corporate control--not to ban it. Read the DNC report. Listen to Howard Dean, or any of our leaders. 'Gee, maybe we should have "more security" in our voting system.'

Why would we NEED security in our voting system--hm?--if the real terrorists, Diebold and ES&S, hadn't taken it over, with the blessing of our own party leadership?

People vote, and you count the votes in public view. It's very simple. And we have had the OPPOSITE inflicted upon us--the exact opposite, ESOTERIC OBSCURITY, with the collusion of our Democratic leadership, who now claim they want to "fix" it.

I just don't believe them. And I see the Bush junta going batshit crazy! And we don't have much time. We have to throw a monkey wrench into it NOW--a big one!

The upsurge in AB voting is coming from the people--from ordinary citizens who are trying to find a way to get their vote COUNTED. They think they've found a way AROUND the rigged machines. They haven't. But that's what they want: paper ballot, hand-counted. Transparency. An accurate count.

I say: GO WITH IT! Use it as THE protest we've all hoped would occur. Push it. Make it massive. It HAS the potential. It won't get us accurate counts in November. But it CAN precipitate change by creating the crisis that will get YOU and others like you sitting at the REAL table, to negotiate REAL transparency, with the power of a citizen rebellion behind you.

[kster]

17. MUST READ POST!!!!!!! Thanks, Peace Patriot....nt

[Febble]

19. Thanks, Peace Patriot.

I'm glad you are not against the bill, anyway. I find yours a coherent position (given your assumptions, which, of course, I don't share). What I wanted to know was not whether it would do any good, but why people thought it might do harm (apart, possibly, from being a waste of time).

[kster]

25. What I don't get, with your position on the ab protest

whats the difference if we go there in person and scan our ballot into the machine or if we protest with AB, and force them to have to scan it in to the machines, if thats the case what difference does it really make, as long as you are voting?

[Wilms]

26. The difference depends on the state.

In addition to being at greater risk of NOT being counted, some states that audit do not include absentee and/or early voting.

-on edit-

I think absentee and early voting are included in HR550 auditing.

Just sayin'.

[kster]

27. But they have to touchscreen (DRE) it in, or optiscan it in, either way

no matter what state you are able to vote AB in, the vote will be "supposedly" counted whether I go there in person, or I vote AB, they "supposedly" have to put it into one of their election scam machines. So what is the difference?

[kster]

31. How the hell can I be at a greater risk of "NOT being counted"

whether they touchsreen it in, and or scan it in, or if I do?

[Wilms]

85. How about if they toss it?

And I already said that Absentee votes might not be included in a states audit, if they have one.

I think 550 would solve that part, though.

[Febble]

30. Did you mean to reply to Peace Patriot?

I don't actually have a position on the AB protest. I think it might be good if it was big enough, but I'm worried it might simply do harm (jeopardize Dem votes) if it isn't. But I could be persuaded either way.

[kster]

32. You like being complicated, I was responding to you Febble...nt

[Febble]

33. No, I like being simple!

I didn't understand your post. I don't have a position on the AB protest.

[kster]

35. I know, your Country Hand Counts the Paper Ballots

HCPB what a simple way to go.

[Febble]

37. And that is why I think HR550

is a big step in the direction. It will ensure that there is something to count. The next step will be to count it!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. you have to outlaw paperless voting before HCPB will be considered

Got to make election officials deal with paper before
they are going to even consider HCPB.

Especially if they are using paperless systems, they
will make very convincing arguments in favor of computers.

Many states have had paperless electronic voting for up to 20
years, and the everyday citizen has no idea there is any problem
at all. I know plenty of democrats who don't know.

HCPB proponents might have more chance of being heard if
paper was required in the first place, then when its legal to have paperless voting.

[diva77]

11. but with high rate of failure with machines, seems that there needs to be

hcpb contingency plan in place anyway

[Wilms]

14. I agree.

You need a protocol for audits, and for recounts, if not the first count.

[Febble]

20. Definitely.

The issue I wanted to address on this thread was simply whether the bill represents a net gain or a net loss. Or, actually, simply whether it could represent a net loss or not.

In other words, should it be actively resisted, or is it, at worst, only useless and at best a gain?

I cannot (yet) see the argument that it could be worse than useless. But we certainly need contingency plans.

[autorank]

23. "You have to outlaw paperless voting before HCPB..." - WRONG

Is this some sort of national law? I had not heard about it. When was it passed, who were the sponsors.

You keep repeating this and it makes no sense AND it's wrong.

For example, any state can go to hand counted ballots whenever the state chooses to do so. There may be some fascist generated law suit to preserve the ability to manipulate elections but so what, states assert themselves all the time.

So you're wrong there. States can change and by changing, by fiat, the machines are taken off the books. But the change precedes the "outlawing."

On a federal level, you can do the same thing.

You say this and imply there needs to be a two step process. You don't understand legislative processes. You simply change the law, the new law supersedes the old law and that's it. You write the new law so that the terms of the old are done.

In addition, so what if election officials resist. You really seem tied to these folks. They 're not elected, usually, they're appointed. They are the creature of the person doing the appointing. Elect a new person, reign them in, that's that.

The only way the political process moves along is to stop apologizing for these stupid machines that keep vote taking and counting secret and to stop putting information out there that is just wrong.

[Febble]

28. But are you actually opposed to this, auto?

Or you do you simply find it inadequate?

My question, in the OP is: does the bill represent a net loss or a net gain to the goals of election reform?

But I should perhaps have phrased it more simply, as in the Hippocratic oath: does it do harm?

If not, it seems that it is worth support, because whether or not it is a necessary step, it seems to me to be a potentially positive one.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. it's a political argument

WYVBC isn't claiming that it's illegal to implement HCPB directly; she's saying that in the current context, election officials are inclined to be dead set against it. In the real world, that is probably not an inconsequential problem.

Why don't you go pass HCPB in Virginia, show us all how it's done, and then get back to us?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

49. Virginia a lost cause, buying up paperless DRES, including wireless

Virginia is a really sad case.

There was a limited activist movement that started late, and meanwhile,
the county registrars were scarfing up the DREs that wouldn't pass muster
elsewhere.

I spoke with one registrar and he said his job was threatened for speaking
out against paperless voting.

He bought optical scan and the automark anyway, but he was more or less
urged to SHUT UP about the risks of paperless voting.

The registrar I spoke with said that he was asked to test the WINVote,
and he found that he could hack into it with his wireless notebook.
He didn't go into the system, but he found the door "open".

That was over a year ago.

Meanwhile, counties there bought the wirless voting machines,
the WINVote made by Advanced Voting Systems.

Can you believe that Virginia didn't decertify the WINVote
after the election debacle in 2003 that it caused?
Where it was clearly seen that it switched votes from the GOP
candidate to the DEM candidate right before their eyes.
The number of votes changed from one to the other as the day went on.
Machines failed all over the place. Hearings were held.
GOP lawmakers drafted VVPB legislation.

And it went no where.

Virginia is buying machines certified to the 1990 standards,
although I admit the 2002 aren't much.

This state is pretty much getting rid of the paper across the board.

Our best computer scientist from NC, Dr. Justin Moore testified to the
VA legislature, and showed the undervotes caused by the DREs,
and one of my other colleagues testifed as well.

Linda Lamone went to the VA legislature at one of the other hearings,
to do a little paperless rescue.

Virginia is a real black hole when it comes to turning things around
from paperless to anything with paper.

IF a state won't allow paper on voting machines, then you can be sure
they aren't going to allow hand counted paper ballots and NO MACHINES.

They don't want to deal with the paper. Period.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. yes, VA sounds grim

Maybe even worst-case, not quite fair to autorank's case, such as it is.

I just don't have much patience for his view, or insinuation, or whatever that if activists would just "stop apologizing for" machines, they would all Go Away.

[Kelvin Mace]

56. And just who is

"apologizing" for the machines anyway.

We didn't apologize for them, we grabbed the vendor's nuts and put them on the chopping block. Any funny stuff and the axe falls.

[Kelvin Mace]

44. 550 mandates paper,

which means paperless voting is no longer permitted.

Any state can go to HCPB is they wish, and 550 does not change that. Good luck getting any state doing just that. Good luck getting any county with more than 100,000 voters to do that.

Again, Joyce actively campaigned for a law in our state, fought for it, and got it passed. She just didn't sit around and bloviate about things that are never going to happen.

Do drop us a line when you or anyone else around here screaming for 100% HCPB gets a law passed even at the county level that is half as tough as the one Joyce got passed.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

50. I don't understand the legislative process?

I don't understand the legislative process.

:rofl:

www.ncvoter.net

[autorank]

54. Well if you do, you certainly don't represent it.

The rolling, laughing little smilie is about as good a commentary on your points as I can see.

Why are you so insulting?

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. LOL

You keep repeating this and it makes no sense AND it's wrong....

In addition, so what if election officials resist. You really seem tied to these folks....

Why are you so insulting?

"Oh, would some power the giftie give us,
to see ourselves as others see us.
It would from many a blunder free us,
and foolish notion."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

62. Im sorry, let me try again

You are right, I shouldn't be snarky about it, I apologize.

Autorank - paperless voting has to be banned.

Until we take paperless off of the table, it is a preferred option.

For hand counted paper ballots to be an option,
we have to make sure that paperless is NOT a Choice.

Right now, to many or most - this isn't even on their radar.

I am all for hand counted paper ballots and I believe with
enough people and good chain of custody it is doable.

These groups influence the status quo

-Election officials have tremendous clout on this issue.
-County Commissioners have tremendous clout on this issue.
-Politicians are scared to death of the idea of hand counted paper ballots.
-Political hacks want everything automated so that they can keep track of voter turnout etc.
-Lawmakers believe that computers are more efficient

We have to make sure that no matter what voting "system", election officials
don't have a choice of paperless.

I am sorry I was snarky in my other message, maybe my blood sugar was low.

In NC, we

-got our county political parties to endorse resolutions in favor of VVPB
-worked out county political parties to nominate only VVPB Board of Elections Members this resulted in a purge of BOE members across our state.
-we had to lobby our county commissioners so that they would not approve purchases of DRES.
-we did panel presentations with real computer scientists and activists across the state.
-we did letter to the editor campaigns
-we did op/ed campaigns, even synchronized ones in the largest NC papers.
-we had public rallies


Even after our law was passed we had to defend it from -

-Diebold
-The County Commissioners Association and
- The NC Association of Election Directors

All of whom employ lobbyiests.

Mind you, we are a completely unfunded organization, and we had to battle
high paid lobbyists from the beginning and ever after the law passed.

I had to write and write and send my pieces all over the state to
condemn Diebold, the county commissioners association, etc.

We have worked this issue for 3 years in NC, and found that if
the machines have to have a paper ballot, most counties won't choose the
DRES.

I don't see a thoroughly worked out strategy for HCPB, but if there was
one, I would include passing HR 550 as part of it.

IF the HCPB people will get the financial data and voter registration data
that I talked about, I will do a cost study for them that compares
HCPB to optical scan and DRES.

I believe that in large communities, HCPB will be cheaper.

But we have to take paperless off of the table.

IN closing, I apologize to you again Autorank, I was rude and that
wasn't right.

[Peace Patriot]

42. My point is we can't outlaw ANYTHING or mandate ANYTHING. We have

no power! Our right to vote is GONE.

So discussions of how to "reform" this entirely rigged election system are ACADEMIC.

How do we get our POWER back? --that essential mechanism, our vote, by which we, the people, run things.

Congress ain't gonna do it. They're the ones who TOOK AWAY our right to vote! And they are all now beholden to the corporations they gave it to! And corrupt state/local election officials, sipping wine at the Beverly Hilton with Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, ain't gonna do it--unless we FORCE them to.

We have to FORCE the issue.

In Montgomery, Alabama, how they did it was BOYCOTTING the bus service that required black citizens to sit at the back of the bus. Hit 'em in their infrastructure. Hit 'em in their MONEY. In India, it was the British monopoly on salt, which Indians could just go down to the beach and gather for free. Which they did! In Bolivia, recently, it was the WATER. Bechtel bought up the water rights in one Bolivian city, and jacked up the prices to the poor--even trying to charge poor peasants for rainwater! And the Bolivians said, "Fuck that, this is OUR water," and threw Bechtel out of the country. In Argentina, also recently, they did it with little hammers, which an alliance of poor and middle class protesters against the World Bank/IMF draconian debt policy, used to break every ATM display window in Buenos Aires. And in Boston, it was the tea tax.

In all of these cases, TIMELY citizen REBELLION against SPECIFIC oppressive targets--symbolic and ACTUAL--CREATED the conditions for change. They did not wait for their oppressors to change things. They TOOK ACTION. They boycotted the buses. They went down to the sea and got their own goddamned salt. They SEIZED BACK their own water rights. They broke ATM machines. They dumped the tea into the harbor.

None of these actions remedied anything directly or immediately. In Bolivia, massive protests against the water scam eventually prompted Bechtel to withdraw--AND paved the way for the election of the first indigenous president of Bolivia, socialist Evo Morales. In all cases, the highlight on a specific, resonant grievance--segregated buses, the price of salt, banking policy and the British tea tax--laid the GROUNDWORK for revolutionary change, most of it non-violent.

In our case, our right to vote has been hijacked by SECRET PROGRAMMING in the new ELECTRONIC voting systems. Secrecy in vote counting IS NOT OKAY. It is the height of fascism. It MUST be overturned.

How do we overturn it? NOT by some minor fixes to a system that will CONTINUE to have SECRET vote tabulation programming. NOT by MORE complication, requiring MORE "experts," in a system that is so obscure and esoteric already, that almost nobody understands it, and only private corporate personnel are permitted to SEE its moving parts.

HR 550 bans secret code in the "voting machines" (and is vague about the central tabulators). The bill will NEVER BE PASSED with that ban in tact, because it will mean the END of corporate profiteering in our election system, and the END of their ability to control the results. "Trade secret" programming is what it's all about. The ban on it is the most important provision in the bill. But it is only there for show. The Democrats KNOW it can't be passed--and they don't want it to be! They are FOR corporate control of our elections!

Anything short of a total ban on secret code CANNOT produce secure results. You cannot have secure results with corporations with very close ties to the Bush regime, who have ALREADY repeatedly lied about the security of their machines, in secret control of ANY part of the vote tabulation system. They are furthermore aided and abetted by the officials they have corrupted. So they WILL find a way to fiddle the results in their interest. And they are meanwhile laughing all the way to the bank.

Recently, in Ohio, they flipped the results of several ELECTION REFORM ballot initiatives, from 60/40 predicted wins, into 60/40 election day LOSSES. They are experimenting with massive, audacious reversals. And we are going to trust these people FURTHER with our election system? And give them MORE fat contracts, to find OTHER ways to steal elections?

No!

We need to clean house. And we need to do it quickly. The Bushites will be bombing Syria, if not Iran, by October. The only way to stop it is to bring this rigged election system to its knees NOW! This November. Before too many people are dead. Before we are fully committed to WW III.

And the only way I can see of doing it is by massive Absentee Ballot voting. Such a protest, if it is big enough, will, among other things, throw serious doubt on the LEGITIMACY of this regime. It will be a citizen "Vote of No Confidence" in how they obtained power.

And this, Febble, is where you go wrong--very wrong. You are part of the Dem/Common Cause crowd--the electronic manipulation crowd, including the exit poll manipulation crowd--who say that elections COULD BE STOLEN by this system, but fail to ask: WHY, then, was this system permitted to be put in place by Democrats and Common Cause AND EDISON-MITOFSKY*, without cries of foul play BACK THEN, when it was all being lavishly lobbied upon the states?

THAT is the question. And that is what is going on now, with HR 550. They KNOW the tough provisions will never pass in a Diebold Congress. It's BULLSHIT. It's a FUNDRAISING SPEECH!

And our country is sick unto death of it!

Our right to vote is GONE. And the only way to get it back is to BOYCOTT THE MACHINES and bring this system DOWN. To throw it into grave doubt. To DE-LEGITIMIZE it. To NOT COOPERATE with it. To PANIC it. And FORCE change.

Even then, we are going to have one hell of time stopping the war. Because that's the OTHER thing the Democrats have colluded on. And we have NO CHOICE OF and NO CHANCE OF an antiwar Congress. But at least, if we can get rid of these machines, we will have the BEGINNINGS of ACCOUNTABILITY, the threat of further citizen revolts if they don't listen to the OVERWHELMING ANTIWAR MAJORITY in this country, and more assurance of accurate vote counts in '08, including in the PRIMARIES (who our candidates will be).

We'll be two years into WW III by then. It may too late. And who knows if humanity will still have a reasonable chance at a future, by then. But we MUST TRY. We MUST TRY to get our government back under our control NOW.

I have lived a long and politically active life, and I have lived through many a difficult time, including the Vietnam War. And I have NEVER seen anything like this--our government run amok, with the American people stripped of all power to influence or control it.

And you want to namby-mamby around about audits and paper trails, which the Bushites will strip right out of the bill, and the Democrats will wring their hands about (smiling slyly), and that both of them will then call "Helping America Vote"?

Congressional bills have influence, whether they pass or not. This draft bill may be making a few corrupt election officials a little nervous--although most of them probably know it's a "wink and a nod." If it at all helps grass roots activists in THEIR struggles at the state/local level, fine. I am not opposed to it--except in so far as the stripped version will be sold as "election reform" (if the thing gets anywhere at all).

Significant change NEVER happens this way, from the top down. It always happens from the bottom up. And that's what I'm calling for. REBELLION at the bottom. PROVOKE a crisis in this rigged system. FORCE the change NOW.



----------



*(Why didn't E-M object, hm? Why didn't THEY say that riggable electronics controlled by Bushite corporations is NOT OKAY, and we will NOT participate in a scam to confirm its "trade secret" results? Too much money involved, that's why!)

[Kelvin Mace]

46. Our right to vote is NOT gone

this is base histrionics and it serves absolutely no purpose except to make members of this movement look like crackpots.

If you choose to believe that their is a secret cabal who have deleted, or chnaged your vote,m you go right ahead, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

You claim that 550 will NEVER pass because Diebold, et al, won't allow it. Yet a similar law passed in NC UNANIMOUSLY and ES&S complied with it while Diebold chose to leave the state.

So what happened in NC? Wait, let me guess, they "let" us win so as to create the illusion of freedom.

Jeezus on a pogo stick.

Are you supporting HR-550 or not?

If you want people to cast AB, great, more power to you. I heartily endorse your view. But cut out all this nonsense about our vote being taken away, since you are defeating your own purpose. If Diebold took away my vote, then it is pointless to vote and apathy is one thing we cannot have in the coming election. Apathy will hand BushCo a victory.

[Peace Patriot]

52. My dear, I DON'T KNOW if they stole my vote. And THAT is the problem.

And wouldn't you say they had every reason to? And wouldn't you say that's WHY they set up a system of Bushite-corporate controlled TRADE SECRET vote tabulation?

Back up, Kelvin. Back up. How did this system get put into place, and by whom? The chief architects were the two biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney! And every godamned one of the Democratic Senators went right along with it (with two fascinating exceptions--the only "no" votes were Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer! Go figure.)

THAT history INFORMS the present. The far rightwing, off-the-cliff-of-fascism position is touchscreen voting with no paper trail, no auditing and no recount possible. The BACKUP semi-fascist position is optiscans run on corporate TRADE SECRET CODE feeding into central tabulators with TRADE SECRET CODE, with minimal audits that are manipulable by the already bought-and-paid-for election officials. A LITTLE MORE transparency. A SHOW of transparency. But no real transparency.

This is not people voting, and their votes being counted in public view. This is a MINOR, cosmetic fix-it, in which the totals are still manipulable and the manipulations can only be caught, a) if the audit in this new, highly corrupt "culture of secrecy" is honest; or b) in the case of extremely rare recount (also highly manipulable).

Back way up, and think of this: Say YOU were designing an electronic voting system. Wouldn't the FIRST THING you would require, in TESTING OUT this system, is a 100% handcount in the first go-rounds, to make sure it works properly?

They rammed this system into place, on a fast track, FOR A REASON. The REASON was the war.

And they are not about to risk letting the EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of the American people who oppose this war REGAIN control of our government!

I see these two things--rigged electronic voting and the war we are having shoved down our throats--as two sides of the same coin. How do you shove an unwanted war down the throats of the American people? You take away their right to vote!

Although there is a mountain of evidence that supports a rigged election in 2004, the DELIBERATE installation of TRADE SECRET vote tabulation makes definite proof impossible--at it was INTENDED TO.

I can only infer, from what this regime and its Democratic colluders have done since, that the war is why they put TRADE SECRET code in place. It is the very definition of fascist control of elections. SECRECY! Behind closed doors vote counting.

Now, I agree, there are vestiges of democracy still in operation. This is one of them--the internet. This is one of my reasons for hope. Also, though, these fascists have so far wanted to maintain an appearance of democracy, so they only rig it just enough to keep the Bush junta in power, and a Bushite majority in Congress. We see a lot of 51%/49% elections. There still have to be campaigns, and big, big donations, and all that. And lots of advertising dollars to the corporate news monopolies. It all has a semblance of reality. But when it comes down to it, they can now EASILY put a "thumb on the scales" of whatever percentage they need, to keep control. With paperless touchscreens, it's a piece of cake. With optiscans and a paper trail and some minor auditing in some places, it's a little more difficult, but still doable. Meanwhile, the illegitimate president is grabbing all the power he can gather into his hands--putting signing statements on Congressional bills, defying Congress on torture and spying, and finding a way to segue into the widened Mideast war, in truth a corporate oil war. And by the time the people catch up with paperless touchscreens, the junta is so powerful that it may be dislodgeable--or it may retire in favor of War Democrats who will continue the war, and start taking the blame for all the carnage and cost--and for the Great Depression that may be on the horizon--and they can come back later, via Diebold and E&S, in a more Hitlerian vein.

The Bush defiance of Congress on torture and spying, the widened war, and all the rest, are ALL OF A PIECE with rigged elections. And they are NOT going to let go of any essential component of that power.

Can't you see it, Kelvin? The trade secret, paperless electronics WAS the coup. Our Democratic leadership caved to it. We still have some vestiges of democracy, so they have to LOOK LIKE they care. And once people like you and me got onto that absurd system (trade secret, paperless electronics), they've now come up with the slightly less fascist version, the optiscan backup plan. LESS fascist--i.e. LESS obscure--vote counting IS better than totally obscure vote counting. It gives some of us a chance, in some instances, to catch the fraud--although our remedies are extremely limited by money, Bushite courts and other corrupt policy. It's better, yes. But is NOT fully transparent. Why should we have anything less than full transparency? HR 550 would make it almost viable, if it could be passed in tact. It will never be. But it might help with local fights. That's definitely a plus--because that's where our democracy is going to be decided, in the local/state jurisdictions.

There is an even worse thing that can happen with HR 550, and that is, that it will gutted, and transformed into something else--a mandate for federal takeover of the election system, REMOVING state/local power over these election system decisions--so that we can't even get at them. How long do you think we will HAVE any paper ballot options, like AB voting, in that case?

I think we should use it while we have it (AB voting) to bring the whole system down, if we can--not to monkey-wrench the election, but to get rid of the machines. And THAT will HELP turnout! To non-voters, who say "it's all rigged," we can say, "But this is a PROTEST, aimed at UN-rigging the system!" See their eyes light up THEN (many of them). It is a NEW REASON to vote! And for despairing voters, who keep voting and see no change, it's a reason to vote with renewed interest and passion. A real protest against "things as they are." Feel the pulse of things. TWO MILLION people in Mexico City protesting rigged elections. The Revolution is getting closer. A peaceful, democratic, leftist (majorityist) revolution. And it's all about TRANSPARENT elections.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. Well, now you are changing your statement

Your first statement was:

Our right to vote is GONE

Now you say:

I DON'T KNOW if they stole my vote.

These are two completely different statements. If the first is true, then the second is irrelevant.

Back up, Kelvin. Back up. How did this system get put into place, and by whom? The chief architects were the two biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney! And every godamned one of the Democratic Senators went right along with it (with two fascinating exceptions--the only "no" votes were Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer! Go figure.)

Which system are you referring to? Machine voting? That was in place long before Delay came along, and the purpose of turning to machines was a (naive) attempt to make elections more honest. If you are referring to HAVA, the chief sponsor was Steny Hoyer (D-MD), not Delay or Ney.

THAT history INFORMS the present. The far rightwing, off-the-cliff-of-fascism position is touchscreen voting with no paper trail, no auditing and no recount possible. The BACKUP semi-fascist position is optiscans run on corporate TRADE SECRET CODE feeding into central tabulators with TRADE SECRET CODE, with minimal audits that are manipulable by the already bought-and-paid-for election officials. A LITTLE MORE transparency. A SHOW of transparency. But no real transparency.

So, again, I ask, do you support HR-550 which would destroy all these circumstances you fear and will you work with me and others to get it passed?

Back way up, and think of this: Say YOU were designing an electronic voting system. Wouldn't the FIRST THING you would require, in TESTING OUT this system, is a 100% handcount in the first go-rounds, to make sure it works properly?

They rammed this system into place, on a fast track, FOR A REASON. The REASON was the war.

Sorry, you are making leaps of logic not supported by the evidence. Never ascribe to treachery that which is better explained by stupidity and/or greed. I've seen the code, and if I was intent on stealing elections, I sure as Hell would have hired better programmers.

Since there were virtually NO standards for the software when the code was written, it was written in the cheapest way possible, and we got what we paid for.

However, the kind of accusations your are making that this was all deliberate, destroys our credibility.

We have easily provable, unassailable facts:

The software is shoddy, unreliable and insecure. We can put hundreds of experts on the stand who will attest to this.

As soon as you start going off and trying to ascribe a motive to this state of things, you move from hard fact to conjecture and speculation. Your message (I want an honest, reliable, and accurate voting system) gets lost in your desire to make a statement about American politics. Which is more important, your mission or your statement?

Re-reading your comments I can see your sincere desire to make our elections honest and fair, and I certainly appreciate the sentiment. I agree that if you wish to mount a campaign for AB, that is great. But I would love to see that passion and fervor directed toward getting 550 passed and helping us guard it through the legislative process and keep it from being watered down.

To do that, we must work with the few truly honest politicians on we can't do that if we are accusing them of committing crimes we CANNOT prove.

[autorank]

68. Here's a good set of reasons for hand counted paper ballots NOW

The Voter Confidence Resolution is one of the clearest statements on the issue of elections I've read. It makes the clear arguments leading to the conclusion and ongoing assumption that if the "rulers" can't demonstrate that they were indeed elected, then there is no legitimacy and no consent due from the governed. Secret voting and counting is a strong basis for doubting their legitimacy, as the resolution so clearly states.

When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted.

The Voter Confidence Resolution
by Dave Berman (GuvWurld)

Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people; and

Whereas each voter is entitled to cast a single ballot to record his or her preferences for representation; and

Whereas the records of individual votes are the basis for counting and potentially re-counting a collective total and declaring a winner; and

Whereas an election's outcome is a matter of public record, based on a finite collection of immutable smaller records; and

Whereas a properly functioning election system should produce unanimous agreement about the results indicated by a fixed set of unchanging records; and

Whereas recent U.S. federal elections have been conducted under conditions that have not produced unanimous agreement about the outcome; and

Whereas future U.S. federal elections cannot possibly produce unanimous agreement as long as any condition permits an inconclusive count or re-count of votes; and

Whereas inconclusive counts and re-counts have occurred during recent U.S. federal elections due in part to electronic voting devices that do not produce a paper record of votes to be re -counted if necessary; and

Whereas inconclusive results have also been caused by election machines losing data, producing negative vote totals, showing more votes than there are registered voters, and persistently and automatically swapping a voter's vote from his or her chosen candidate to an opponent; and

Whereas inconclusive results make it impossible to measure the will of the people in their preferences for representation; and

Whereas the Declaration of Independence refers to the Consent of the Governed as the self-evident truth from which Government derives "just Power";

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections; and

Be it also resolved:

The following is a comprehensive election reform platform likely to ensure conclusive election results and create a basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections:

1) voting processes owned and operated entirely in the public domain, and
2) clean money laws to keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast and additional uniform standards determined by a non-partisan nationally recognized commission, and
4) declaring election day a national holiday, and
5) counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions to be restored by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates containing a minimum of three candidates, run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
8) preferential voting and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections;

Be it further resolved:

When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted.

[Febble]

58. Well, let me take the point you address to me, Peace Patriot

And this, Febble, is where you go wrong--very wrong. You are part of the Dem/Common Cause crowd--the electronic manipulation crowd, including the exit poll manipulation crowd--who say that elections COULD BE STOLEN by this system, but fail to ask: WHY, then, was this system permitted to be put in place by Democrats and Common Cause AND EDISON-MITOFSKY*, without cries of foul play BACK THEN, when it was all being lavishly lobbied upon the states?

First of all, I'm not part of a crowd, particularly, although it is true that there are people whose views I tend to share, and there are people who hold views with which I tend to disagree. But I firmly reject your characterisation of those with whom I agree as any kind of "manipulation" crowd, and I'm not quite sure what you mean. I certainly agree with those who say that elections could be stolen. The reason I am posting here today, and the reason I care passionately about American elections is precisely because of the possibility that the government of the worlds's most powerful nation could be elected by fraud.

But your claim is that I fail to ask "why was this system to be put in place by Democrats and Common Cause and EDISON-MITOFSKY, without cries of foul play....". Well, one of the reasons I fail to ask that question is that it is a begged question. I don't think that it is likely that "Democrats and Common Cause and EDISON-MITOFSKY" got together in a smoke-filled room and put a system in place, and failed to cry foul. I think the reasons America ended up with a system that is as corruptible as your present one is are probably multiple. And I don't expect Democrats, or Common Cause or Edison-Mitofsky had much to do with it, except that like many other groups of people that one could name, they probably didn't cry foul because foul didn't occur to them as something that needed to be cried.

While I respect your view, Peace Patriot, I simply don't hold it. I don't think it is a particularly parsimonious reading of the evidence. What I do think is that, like many evils in the world, a monster was unleashed (to mix my own metaphor) because too many people were asleep at their posts, and too many other people took advantage of that fact, either to make easy money or for more malicious ends. And that monster needs to be checked. Which is why I support of HR550 - because it will make illegal much of what makes the monster monstrous.

And I think you are wrong when you describe this as a "top down" solution. It seems to me that HR550 has been the work of a great many activists from the bottom up. And it has reached a place where it actually stands a chance of being law. It looks to me like a good law, one that will ensure that not only states with good election activists get something like the democracy they deserve, but more benighted states will also be assured a decent minimum standard of transparency and accountability.

Of course more is required. And your AB protest may prove effective. But I am concerned when these strategies are seen as alternatives rather than as complementary. If you are right that that the bill will not be passed, then I believe that will be a tragedy. I think it would be a tragedy of Greek proportions if it failed to come into being not because the "Bushite corporations" gutted it, but because it was not supported by those who want to see it strengthened.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. 550 is step one in making everyone's vote count

It establishes broad standards to rein in the abuses in current voting machines and installs safeguards to keep the system clean and to check the system as we go.

The next law must be to standardize the ballot nationwide, a move that will greatly enhance the accuracy of the OpScan technology. This doesn't affect TS systems, but I hope that by the time we start looking at this law, TS systems will have discredited themselves with their high cost and failure rates.

After that we must address voter purges, dirty tricks and gerrymandering.

[autorank]

57. Interesting note.

From my readings "not logged in" I've noticed that the anti-exit poll faction on DU Elections is not the anti Hand Counted Paper Ballot faction, even though one of those anti exit poll faction members extolled the virtues of the English system of paper ballots and public counts by volunteers in public locations. I guess there is some truth to the old saying, "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

Why are people so adamant about keeping electronic voting?

Don't they know that as long as there is computer mediation, involvement there is the potential for manipulation by the "rulers," on either side of the equation?

Don't they know that the potential for manipulation creates an irresistible temptation?

Don't they know that this temptation and any advantage taken saps the public confidence in the election process?

Don't they know that this suppresses votes and turnout and decreases the legitimacy of those who rule?

Don't they know that it takes about 3 weeks to return to paper balloting?

What is the source of the alliance between anti-exit poll "activists" and anti hand counted paper ballot activists?

What is the motivation for the strange allegiance to voting machines, electronic tabulation (and tabulation rarely gets talked about by the "fix the machine" faction)?

There is no nefarious motivation implied here, just political ignorance and naivete, a lack of awareness that the low turn out rate is partially due to lack of confidence in the system and an ignorance of how quickly things could change if there were a full focus on the political process rather than advancing a position used by politicians to avoid ending "secret" voting and counting.

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. responding to the substantive part of this

autorank's evidence that the absence of hand counts suppresses turnout appears to be, well...

on further review, maybe there isn't a substantive part to respond to.

People devote entire careers to studying sources of political apathy, distrust, disengagement, &c. I can't think of any who cite the absence of HCPB as a crucial one. They could all be wrong, but it would be nice to see an actual argument -- not just polemical handwaving about bedfellows.

EDIT TO ADD: Of course, absent an actual argument against 550, the entire post is just off-topic.

[Febble]

61. I'm not quite clear if you are actually able to read this post

autorank, but on the offchance that you are, let me try and make sense of yours.

You seem to be (I am assuming) referring to me as an "anti exit poll faction" member (although I'd point out I'm a Scot, not an Englishwoman, and that the UK election system applies to the entire United Kingdom, with some regional variants - for more details see here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/20/6453/39287

But I'm not particularly anti exit polls. I think they are useful things. I think they can tell us a lot. But I will admit to being of the view that they do not indicate that millions of votes were electronically switched (as I state in the OP), and indeed, contra-indicate it. I certainly don't think they rule out vote-switching in 2004, and they have nothing to say about voter suppression, for which there is all too excellent evidence.

And I'm certainly not anti-hand-counted paper ballots, as you know, although I think that importing the British system to America would present difficulties, given some very great differences in the way our democracies are constituted (see link).

But I cannot see that HR550 is anything other than a step in that direction. It may not be a big enough step for some, but it seems a powerful brake on the slide in the opposite direction. Perhaps "bridle on a monster" was a poor metaphor. What HR550 could do, if passed, it seems to me, is to arrest the momentum of electronic voting systems and actually send it back in the opposite direction - towards a system in which a voter-verified paper record is regarded as sacrosanct.

And so I'd like to see it supported. It's already supported by people whom I know both you and I admire - including John Conyers, no less. I think it will be difficult to get it passed, as Peace Patriot fears, precisely because it is potentially an extremely powerful bill.

But I'd certainly sleep easier in a world knowing that future American elections were conducted in its wake.

[autorank]

71. More of my interior dialectic on this alliance...

Exit polls = a method of catching fraud.

Hand counted paper ballots = a method of catching fraud

(with proper witnessing, 'chain of custody' assurances,
recounts & public inspection of ballots, it's virtually
fool proof at fraud prevention).

What's wrong with any of that? Nothing that I can see.

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. so, the inference is obvious:

(1) Anyone who doubts that the 2004 exit polls prove election theft (including practically every political scientist and survey researcher in the United States AFAICT) is "anti-exit poll," and therefore opposed to a method of catching fraud. (Even if s/he expressly does not oppose exit polls, the inference is obvious!)

(2) Anyone who doubts that it is practical (and/or possible) to mandate hand-counted paper ballots nationwide is "anti-HCPB" and therefore opposed to a method of catching fraud. (Even if s/he expressly does not oppose HCPB, the inference is obvious!)

(3) Anyone opposed to a method of catching fraud is opposed to catching fraud. (Sort of like anyone who opposes torture is soft on terrorism.) The inference is obvious!

But, of course, "(t)here is no nefarious motivation implied here, just political ignorance and naivete." And, golly gee, it sure is a shame how much guilt by association happens on the ER board.

Oh-kay.

We now return to our regularly scheduled reality, already in progress.

[Febble]

80. Well, neither of them are fool-proof

we have fraud in our electoral HCPB system, although it's minimal. Ballot theft is a problem. It's the oversight that protects us, not the hand-counting per se.

And yes, you can use exit polls to detect fraud, but they aren't very sensitive, and they are prone to bias, so not very reliable either. Nonetheless they are worth using, as long as they are used with care. Analysis of historic voting patterns is probably better.

However, what you really need is random audits. Which is what HR550 mandates.

And even in a hand-counted system, some kind of audit is worth doing.

[garybeck]

59. I would vote for HR550

if I were an elected official, I would vote for HR550. It is pretty much a no brainer for me and to be honest I am confused by much of the opposition.

Currently there are no mandated audits. HR550 would institute some audits. They might not be the type of audit, or big enough, as I would like, but it is still better than nothing.

HR550 also calls for open software code on the machines. This also might not be the best plan for implementing open code, but it also is better than nothing.

Right now we have no way to even try to catch fraud. HR550 would provide a means, although not perfect, some would argue not very good, but it is still better than nothing.

For all you HCPB folks, consider this... if there are audits, you will probably catch some problems from time to time, whether fraud or computer error. Every time we find a problem with an audit, it's another argument to get rid of the computers completely. We can't jump to the final goal overnight. this is a step in the right direction, and if the audits catch problems, then we start talking about dumping the machines. I've talked to enough election officials to know that we just are not going to dump them any time soon. having audits will bring it sooner. I completely disagree with the tact to only accept HCPB and to oppose bills like HR550.

One more thing, I've heard people say that HR550 should be opposed because it causes a false sense of security. I also reject that idea completely. We already have a false sense of security created by HAVA. We shouldn't let worries about false security stop us from taking positive steps, even though they are not perfect or the ultimate goal.

ONe more thing... Many people have said that their main problem with HR550 is the 2% audit is too small. Rush Holt has responded to this concern, inviting people to organize and ask for the 2% to be raised to a higher level, while the bill is in committe. I think we should take his invitation. While many have been spewing negativity about this bill, has anyone started a petition to raise the audit to a higher level? Has anyone set up a web page where people can send a note to their legislators asking them to support HR550 but to call for an increase in the 2% audit? I agree 2% is low but I am not going to oppose the bill just because of that, and I think we should take Holt's invitation seriously and call for it to be raised.

I would vote for HR550 and I will ask my elected officials to do so.

[Febble]

63. Excellent

I think there is confusion over the 2%, though.

The percentage itself is not the crucial issue. What matters, in general, is the size of the sample from the administrative unit you want to audit. For a state, 2% of precincts would give you a sample size of around 200, which is excellent. But if your concern is at county level, 2% will net a much smaller sample, and is likely to be inadequate.

There are real issues of the appropriate unit-of-audit here, and the appropriate percentage for each unit. In any case, it is only for very small units that percentage is relevant anyway. For larger units, sample size is what matters.

These are answerable questions, though. But I certainly wouldn't fault HR550 for its mandated 2%. What I'd like to see is more detail about how one would audit, say, a suspicious county, for which you would need a much higher percentage in order to net an adequate sample size.

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. quibble, Febble...

"For a state, 2% of precincts would give you a sample size of around 200, which is excellent."

True for Ohio -- surely not for Vermont.

[Febble]

65. Yes indeed.

which is, of course, why it's a shame that the bill mandates a percentage not a sample size.

Also not sure about New Hampshire where the precincts are so huge.

[garybeck]

69. what if

the percentage was on the population, not the number of precincts?

for example "enough precincts are randomly chosen to ensure that a minimum of X% of each state's popluation is audited."

as i've said a bazillion times, i'm not a statistician. but this seems like a fairly easy exercise for a statisitician - to come up with a forumla that works, and ensures a 95% confidence that fraud or error would be caught. I think there are a lot of computer security experts involved in this but perhaps not enough statisticians. This report is one of the first I've seen to address the issue.

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Paper_Audits.pdf

but... it's besides the point in the context of this discussion. I would still support HR550 even if it's only 1%. Let's work to improve HR550, before, after, or during it's going through the legislative process. Let's not throw it out altogether because it's not good enough.

gb

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. yeah, it seems like a great case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good"

or even the "somewhat better than nothing," as the case may be.

Agreeing that it is off-topic*, a quick reaction from my end: Yes, I think it ideally makes sense to ensure that the sample incorporates X% of the voters or registered voters, not just X% of the precincts. In Ohio it seems that it would not matter very much, but in other states it might matter a great deal.

At the same time, Febble and I both have tried to convey the idea that actually the appropriate percentage depends on the size of the state, also. 2% is better in Ohio than it is in Vermont, because sheer raw sample size is so important. Not to belabor that point, although it's something I really want people to have some sense of. Otherwise we are liable to have small-state activists and big-state activists throwing pots at each other without understanding that they actually are dealing with somewhat different problems -- or we will have some false consensus on a Magic Number that works in some places and not in others, which potentially could be a very bad thing.

* It isn't entirely off-topic, if we can think of ways to write improvements into the bill.

[garybeck]

77. one way to deal with this

is to raise the % up high enough so that it resolves most of the issues. if they said 5% or 10% of the population for all states, would that draw the line in a better place and make it work for both small and large states. i really don't know and to tell you the truth, i am not a statisitician and i'll tell you right now I don't want to have to take a course on statistics to be an election advocate. I think we need an independent commission with respected statisticians to come up with a plan. i could be wrong but it's my understanding that Holt did not adequately get feedback from statisticians and that's why we ended up with 2% of precincts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. yes, that's one way

The reason I don't endorse (nor oppose) a "5-10% solution" outright is that it wouldn't be worth (hypothetically) losing crucial big-state support in pursuit of a standard that is only important in small states. If we can get a tough one-size-fits-all solution, great. I just want people to understand why 2% could be fine in one state and terrible in another. Certainly a bigger % is better in all states as long as it doesn't compromise anything else.

Sure, I don't think we all should become statisticians, or computer scientists, or anything else -- and it isn't going to happen anyway. At the same time, you don't want to just put your faith in an independent commission (you know how it goes with independent commissions!) -- there ought to be some dialogue across types of expertise. These are political debates, not scientific ones, although the science really matters. Of course I study environmental politics, so that is pretty much what I think about everything. ;)

[eomer]

81. How about "2% but no less than X number of precincts"

where X is how ever many we need as a minimum in smaller states.

If we can get any improvement through, that is.

[Febble]

82. Sounds good n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

84. I think so, although

I would actually have to look closely at some small states before I would be prepared to pound the table on that. And there are other ways to go with this -- but yours is a straightforward way to achieve a big gain with a small change.

[autorank]

66. I agree with all of that except for one key point...

It will look like a solution and let the politico's off the hook for real reform.

I think that the solution is ultimately political and that this amendment will be bypassed
by event and broader demands. If you listen to Dean pop off about the lousy machines, it sounds
like he doesn't want anything to do with them. If you watch Lou Dobbs, the spot polls are
85% plus for a return to paper.

Ultimately, it devolves to the absence of public discussion and debate on the issue. The public is
there, as they usually are, but this time they're right ahead of time. There is simply no dialogue
in public other than break through (and gratefully received) coverage by the likes of Dobbs and Crier.

It's like stolen election 2004. You ask people and a large group thinks it was stolen, this is
without any real evidence other than the very bad behavior of * and his crew.

It's all good though because there is so much activity and there are so many outrages (in addition
to an election coming up which may turn into a disaster) that something is going to break and then
we'll see how the "will" of "we the people" works out.

I see a "perfect storm" coming of truth relating to global warming (20 foot increase in sea level,
thanks AL GORE); stolen elections; and 911. They can lie and spin but they can only lie and spin so
long, particularly in the age of the internet and global communication...too late to unring that bell.

[garybeck]

83. it will "let the politico's off the hook for real reform. "

the only ones that let the politicos off the hook is US.

WE have created awareness of the problem. WE have pushed and pushed and finally got the media paying attention.

I for one will not even THINK about letting anyone off the hook if it gets passed. Will I shift focus a bit? sure. Will I pay attention very closely to how the audits are conducted and what happens? absolutely. But I will NOT let anyone off the hook. And I'm inclined to think that most of the good people here are with me on that.

like many political issues, one bill/law does not resolve the entire issue. there can be revisions, ammendments, and more bills/laws until we get it right. but I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to defeat HR550 because it's not good enough. we should take anything we can get. I don't care if it's just one single ballot that gets audited. it's still better than nothing. when it passes, we move on to getting it better. I think we've learned this is not going to be completely resolved overnight, unless there is a blockbuster lawsuit or conviction, which I'm still hoping for. but we have to fight on several fronts. and as far as legislation goes, it is a political game by nature. there are compromises. we have to take what we can get, even if it isn't the real goal.

I think we should stop worrying about people's false sense of security though. If people develop a false sense of security because of HR550, we can make them develop a sense of insecurity once again. We did it before and we'll do it again if we have to. It would be even easier the second time around. We've got our mailing lists, activist groups... We're not going to give up just because HR550 gets passed.

I still say let's try to get this passed, because it's on the plate in front of us. If there was another bill that was better I'd say let's push for it. But this one supposedly has the best chance. I'd rather have it pass than not.

[eomer]

75. Hey Gary, you just summed up how I feel about it.

In particular I agree with your point that HR550 will give additional opportunity to uncover problems and then we can use this information about those problems obtained via HR550 in our further fight. It is for this reason that I don't buy the argument that HR550 will create a false sense of security and hurt the fight for further improvements. On the contrary, the info disclosed by HR550 will provide us with a wedge we can use in that further fight.

(In the spirit that prevails here lately, let me denounce Febble's bridle metaphor in the strongest way possible and insist that my wedge metaphor is the only one that comports. But I will allow that each of you can wield the wedge against Febble's monster in whatever manner seems efficacious as long as it is tasteful. Or you can use it on the pig, with or without lipstick.)

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. can anyone find clip art for THAT?! paging Wilms... n/t

[autorank]

87. My dear friend eomer...

...you've neglected the "pig" makeover. Pigs everywhere will be disappointed having thought they'd finally gained a degree of respectability with my analogy (which apparently is big in the stockyards).

The question we have to ask ourselves is what do we put our energy into, what really counts, and how did we get it?

I believe that the hand counted position is one that requires some real pressure now in anticipate of more of the same in election fraud or "anomalies" in 2006. The solution to this paper and it can be implemented without a lot of trouble. Long ballots are no different on paper than "the machines" unless you simply assert that (maybe they're easier for some).

HAVA was a contrivance to solve "the problems" of Florida 2000 and make voting more available to
Americans with handicapping conditions. Since the many handicapped people prefer voting absentee,
it's not meeting a need there. The problems of Florida began with deliberate disenfranchisement before, during, and after the election. The chads etc. were a problem but HAVA does nothing to address those problems.

Conceived out of election fraud in full form, embraced as one with the rogue right wing Republican, this technology was certified for us by a a few greedy Republicans and slumbering Democratic Party. Nothing good can come of it, in my opinion. We will quickly see the death of democracy if the machines are not removed from the political scene and experience the harsh judgment of history.*

You're analogy is probably superior, but I think the easier way to look at it by thinking of the spirit of Thanksgiving. Now that's dead on target.


*Sorry for the stilted prose here. Just checking to see
if one of my secret fans is still paying attention;)

[Kurovski]

88. Are you talking about that US Supreme Court guy

who thinks you're super cool?

There are so many fan club chapters now, it's almost impossible to keep track of the celebrity admirers. :hi:

[autorank]

90. Well, I do find the new Chief Justice and his pal Alito just to much.

Getting that top dog position on the court out of nowhere was quite an accomplishment and as for his pal, how cool is that, having your wife cry on cue. Amazing, these people are so talented.

They would do what their 2000 version did, hand the election to a Republican again, whatever the logic or legal rationale required. It's a rigged game, that's why we need the lowest tech out there.

:hi:

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Thank you!

A cogent argument all around.

[bleever]

86. Two scenarios: Either improved verifiability, or HAVA redux.

Either:

A. HR550 increases transparency and verifiability in a significant way, resulting in BOTH more reliable, less corruptible elections AND greater redress (both through the law, and greater public access to data and possible indicators of discrepancies), or:

B. HAVA redux, meaning a "solution" that creates a system that is inherently less transparent and more corruptible.


I think there's a great likelihood that, given the nature of the legislative process, autorank's fear of lawmakers gravitating towards a fix that they don't really understand will come to pass once again. And the danger in that is that creating the momentum for yet another overhaul will be too long in coming, and any nefarious activity will have a free reign for the interim.

So to my mind, the question is whether these safeguards constitute genuine safeguards or false ones. Medical testing with a high rate of "false negatives" means that some people come away from a test thinking that they're fine, when in fact they may have a life-threatening condition. The test in this case does more harm than good, by delaying necessary treatment.

Will the auditing requirements in HR550 trigger the kind of scrutiny necessary to eliminate electoral fraud? Or will they create the sense of false security that we got with HAVA, and the catastrophic results that ensued?


My money is still on the notion that whatever the system, the cheaters will find and create whatever loopholes they can, and that the system envisioned under HR550 affords ample opportunity for them to do so. I will continue to vote absentee ballot, prefer that all ballots be hand counted (even if it takes a couple weeks; what's the hurry?), and to resist machine voting until they function like ATMs in the respect that if I have doubts, I can verify the recording of the information, and walk in with my receipt and demand correction if it isn't right.

Is that too much to ask? Not in a democracy.

[Peace Patriot]

89. The Unitary Executive is IN PLACE! That WAS the coup. The only thing

that will now be permitted by this ELECTION THEFT SYSTEM is a War Democrat to continue that "great work": get a military Draft, slaughter more Arabs/Islamics (many more), occupy the entire Middle East, put down the food riots, and the Social Security riots, and the veterans protests and all the other civil unrest at home from the coming Great Depression (the Great Looting), and possibly pave the way for Hitler II (hard to see as far as '12).

"Naive" it wasn't.

It was a COMBINATION of conspiracy and corruption. On the Republican side, it was mostly conspiracy. (Tom Delay DID NOT PERMIT a paper trail--let alone a real paper ballot--out of committee in the Anthrax Congress!! That was a NO-BRAINER! It was NOT PERMITTED! TWO corporations with very close ties to the Bush regime and to far, FAR rightwing causes were waiting in the wings to BENEFIT from the $4 billion, but most of all, to TAKE CONTROL of our election system. Their shoddy, insider-hackable machines were NO MISTAKE!)

On the Democratic side, it was mostly corruption (corporatism--which we know they are guilty of--big electronics contracts in government and fuck the voters. They DIDN'T WANT TO WIN. They HATED the huge, grass roots, leftist, antiwar movement that DID WIN--that blew the Bushites away in new voter registration in 2004--nearly 60/40!--and that EASILY overcame Karl Rove's phantom "invisible" GOTV. Did you hear that AFTER the (s)election? That was their "explanation" of how they "won"--their "invisible" GOTV effort--for which there is NO EVIDENCE! The Democrats are PASSIVE WARMONGERS--and they wanted to keep it that way! The jerks! And if you need any more evidence of what jerks they are, consider the actions of the Democratic Party in California, when the "swiftboat" team went after Kevin Shelley! Jerks! Colluders! Corrupt, latte-drinking, Vichy, PASSIVE WARMONGERS!)

The only chance we have of restoring our right to vote is at the state/local level, which is closer to the people--and THOSE officials need to be PRESSURED; they need to be FORCED to reform, by citizen-inspired CRISIS in the election theft system: MOUNTAINS and MOUNTAINS of Absentee Ballot votes, by people who want a PAPER BALLOT, HAND-COUNTED.

Congress is a LOST CAUSE. Virtually all of Congress--Republicans AND Democrats--was (s)elected by the far rightwing election theft corporations that THEY gave our election system TO. And they are:

DIEBOLD: Until recently, headed by CEO Wally O'Dell, a Bush/Cheney campaign chair and major donor (a "Bush Pioneer" right up there with Ken Lay), who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush/Cheney in 2004"; and

ES&S: A spinoff of Diebold (similar computer architecture), initially funded by rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson who also gave one million dollars to the far rightwing 'christian' Chalcedon Foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals (among other things). Diebold and ES&S have an incestuous relationship--they are run by two brothers, Todd and Bob Urosevich.

These are the people who "tabulated" 80% of the nation's votes in 2004 under a veil of corporate secrecy.

And y'all don't think the Democratic leadership KNEW *WHO* they were SELLING our right to vote TO! Kelvin? You don't think they KNEW?!

"Naivete" my ass.

I am not against HR 550. It can help local efforts. It shows that YOUR pressure--and that of other devoted election reformists/lobbyists, and that of the people at large--has FORCED the Democratic Party to LOOK LIKE they're doing something. And that is helpful in pressuring local officials.

But we CANNOT EXPECT Congress to give us back our right to vote. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. You have only to look at the HISTORY to know that. The effort to get HR 550 written is bottom-up pressure, but it asks for CONGRESS to be the mechanism of change. Top-down. I repeat: It ain't gonna happen!

WHY are we talking about "more security" in our election system? **WHY?** It's Alice in Wonderland! It's upside down, backwards and inside out! WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE!

And that, and the "Unitary Executive," and THE WAR, have got me to thinking we MUST DO SOMETHING *NOW*! Local/state efforts are TOO SLOW. Other major efforts like RFK Jr's lawsuit are not going bear fruit in time. And Congress will NEVER pass HR 550 in tact.

WHAT do we do? HOW do we prevent WW III? How so we stop endless war--and what some think will be FINAL war, the end of humanity AND the planet? How do we un-rig this system FAST--so that American public opinion can start having an EFFECT?

Americans are so frelling demoralized, disempowered, and--most important--DISENFRANCHISED--that they are not likely to pour into the streets, as the Mexicans are doing--or as the Ukrainians did. (We also got SMASHED by Edison-Mitofksy's doctoring of the exit polls--which denied the American people immediate knowledge of election fraud evidence--and by other lapdogs of the Corporate War State, the entirety of American corporate journalism, which is now colluding on PNAC-Plan B for WW III in the Middle East: get Israel to do it.)

So-o-o-o-o, HOW to activate the American people (EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of whom oppose U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war)?

I think the Absentee Ballot protest is the way. It's easy. Everybody can do it. And if somebody can get some publicity going--"If you oppose Bush and his war, vote Absentee!"; "Bust the Machines--Vote Absentee"--we might have something--a full scale rebellion. It's individualistic (so American!--individual action(. Ordinary citizens are ALREADY requesting Absentee Ballots because they don't trust the machines. They're not getting a "safe" vote--but they are TRYING TO. It's the MOTIVATION that's important, in this already in-progress protest.

And we do NON-COOPERATION! Yeah, they scan the AB votes into the rigged electronics--but we DON'T COOPERATE. And we flood them with MOUNTAINS of paper and force them to deal with it.

This protest is NOT aimed accurate counts in November. People keep responding to it as if it was. Accurate counts are NOT possible. It is instead aimed at: 1) Creating a crisis in the election theft system, and FORCING change; and, 2) Expression of a larger discontent and rebellion against Bush and the war.

Finally, it solves the problem of voter turnout. The way the war profiteering corporate news monopolies have conducted a slow leaking out of election fraud information is designed to suppress the vote--to create cynics, who say "it's all rigged," and refuse to vote. An AB voting protest can DEFEAT that. It's the only thing that can, at this point. It gives people a REASON to vote, despite their distrust and cynicism. It ENERGIZES the vote. It turns it into a PROTEST--a positive act, aimed at un-rigging the system.

It is an uphill campaign. I think AB voting is at about 20% nationwide (on average--it's bigger in some places). But it's been on the rise, and has seen dramatic jumps recently. It used to be a Republican thing (AB voting). It is not any more. It's now an expression of distrust. As such, it is a PRECIOUS RESOURCE for election reformists. These are the people--the voters--who know something about the system and DISTRUST it. These are the ones who are getting the message--even if it's an incomplete message. They have sought a way AROUND the rigged system. And they have friends and family and co-workers. It could snowball very quickly.

I think some of us have become too steeped in the technology of elections. We are not seeing the forest for the trees. The American people are extremely unhappy. This discussion EXCLUDES them. They don't know diddle about the electronics, and statistics, and this alphabet soup of voting machine systems. They are waitresses and steel workers and garbage collectors, and extremely busy nurses and teachers and other professionals, as well as the downtrodden poor. But isn't this about THEM--about re-enfranchising THEM? It's not about Russ Holt. It's not about Russ Holt who REQUIRES *US* TO SEND HIM A PETITION to put a decent audit in his bill!!! Go with the PEOPLE! Ignite the people! Give them a way to protest this rigged system--and they WILL! CALL for a protest! Nationwide! Everybody who wants change, VOTE ABSENTEE!

THEN we will see what they do with 50 million Absentee Ballots. And THEN you, KELVIN, will be TELLING Russ Holt what to put in his bill, not ASKING him!

As for states with no AB voting--it can't be helped. We go with the states that do. Most of them have some form of it.

Bust the Machines! Bust Bush! Bust his War! Bust the rigged voting system! VOTE ABSENTEE!