Can Congress Dictate the Circumstances of their Own Elections??

[Land Shark]

In this poll, I am not intending to assess the question of whether Congress could or does have the power to ignore the will of the people, I'm talking about political damage. I contend that Congress can not support a method for electing and re-electing itself that features electronic voting and reduced or nonexistitent public supervision of elections without politically shooting itself in the foot, IF THIS ARGUMENT IS FORCEFULLY MADE. Of course, it may never be made, no one may like it. But, for this poll, the hypothetical assumes that a whole bunch of people are very vocally identifying the conflict of interest that Congresspeople have in voting on the technology of their own elections, and pointing out the problem with voting for a system that continues a lack of public supervision over elections that was recently created by HAVA.

Won't Congress be "shamed" or thereby "encouraged" to remember how important full transparency is when we continually remind that it is THEIR OWN elections they are allowing to remain secretive and invisible?? Just asking. What do you think?

Survey says!

[Land Shark]

1. HINT: If you don't like the way I framed the voting process, YOU AGREE WITH ME then

so thank you very much for agreeing on the importance that the process of voting be fair.

[kpete]

2. an embarrassment?

"The state of election administration in this country has been an embarrassment."

-- FEC Chairman Michael Toner, quoted by Hotline On Call.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/11/interlude_toner.html

[Land Shark]

3. Election admin has been an embarrassment but they will still dictate election policy to us?

[IndyOp]

4. Define, please "electronic voting"...

Electronic voting without voter-verified paper ballots and automatic random audits is a shame.

Congress should be encouraged to immediately vote for a plan (like an improved HR550) that provides for VVPBs and ARAs. Congress should be encouraged to vote for optical scan ballots, precinct-counted, with extensive automatic random audits - an electronic voting system that allows for maximal openness and transparency including 100% hand counts of the paper ballots.

Political damage of e-voting without paper -> Major.

Political damage of failing to improve openness and transparency. -> Significant.

Political damage of optical scan system with automatic random audits -> None, IMHO.

Thanks for the ongoing debate - it is helping me frame a letter to my State Legislators that is more complete that it would have been regarding the major issues we need to address in new state laws:

1. Optical scan ballot systems with substantial automatic random audits. Votes must be capable of being captured and counted without electronics, although electronic counting can be utilized provided there are substantial automatic random audits.

2. Improved openness and transparency. Meaningful participation of citizens.

3. Decreasing the role of partisan election officials (this is really nasty in my state).

4. Getting the vendors OUT of the process - any failures belong on the shoulders of local elections officials.


Hope you are feeling better Landshark -> :hi:

[Land Shark]

8. Thanks for the well wishes IndyOp, but i gotta get an answer to my poll

which is a simple question before I answer your somewhat more complicated questions. Deal? ALthough the force may be diminished somewhat with opscans relative to DREs, opscans still have trade secret software and other public supervision problems, so it is still possible to answer the poll question about whether congress can dictate that, or not

[Peace Patriot]

5. Oo-oo-oo-oo, nice one, LS! I hadn't thought of it that way. It's kind of like

them raising their own salaries and giving themselves full medical benefits. But worse.

Okay, I DO get your point. And I'm as worried about secret vote counting by Congressional fiat as you are--especially with Diane ("You too can learn to love the Corporate Rulers") Feinstein heading the Senate committee on elections--and with what appears to be the passable bill, HR 550--in the House anyway--rewarding these criminal corporations with MORE multi-million dollar contracts, now for printers, now for upgrades, now for replacing all those bad touchscreens, now for this, now for that. And with its several loopholes big enough to drive more stolen elections through.

I DO get it.

But what do you say to those of us who are rather deeply attached to the Voting Rights Act of 1965--that things are so bad that federal intervention is needed? We have a third of the country voting with no paper trail at all--and many states with no audit at all?

I'm with you--I HATE having a gravely compromised STANDARD being voted into law--when they SHOULD BE repealing HAVA altogether, and burning these corporate logos in effigy on the capitol steps!

And I have a plan myself--a strategy--for achieving transparent vote counting at the LOCAL/STATE level--involving mobilizing the clout of that huge group of voters who voted by Absentee Ballot this time, to start creating a paper ballot system BY DEFAULT, by getting the AB votes handcounted and the results posted BEFORE any electronics are used--which I think will snowball. This strategy also avoids a headon collision with the vast corruption among election officials and legislators, wrought by the HAVA billions--the chief obstacle to reform, in my opinion. They can keep their crapass new machines, for the time being--and use them merely to double-check the handcount, and for storage/reporting of data. But, if we can get the AB and other paper ballots counted, and then the optiscan voters want their ballots counted, too, etc. then the corporate lock on the vote totals will be broken.

However, this strategy may be slow, and has many pitfalls--and, currently, only 30 states permit AB voting. So, LS, what to do? What do you say, for instance, about the states with paperless voting and/or no audit at all? They are in critical condition.

What about a two-pronged strategy? Work to amend HR 550, as well as it can be amended by a Congress elected by Diebold/ES&S (for all its Democratic coloration), to get some bottom-line relief for the really bad state situations, AND work from the bottom to make the machines obsolete (by everybody voting by AB and demanding handcounts/immediate posting of results)?

We have to figure that a really good bill cannot happen in this Congress. Even it it happens in the House--a stretch--the Senate will gut it or kill it. That's a fair prognosis. It's possible that the Corporate Rulers will have squeezed us all so dry by the end of the Bush Junta that they won't bother with continuing to fix our elections. So we might be surprised. But, how things look now, we're going to have Congress giving lots more money to these corporations; and we'll probably end up still with secret code at least in the central tabulators, but with enough of an audit trail that we might be able to catch them some of the time, if we work really hard at it.

Why fight it--except to get it amended, if possible (say, with a stiffer audit), and to build support for real reform?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Imagine a world in spring '08 with no HR 550 (and nothing better in its place). Would we be better off with no HR 550 (as written)? Is it possible that a grass roots AB strategy could work by that time? Is it possible to get HR 550 amended--and through the Senate--in a way that WOULD considerably improve transparency?

For instance, leave HR 550 exactly as it is, except for, say, a 50% audit requirement. (I would like 100%, but 50% would be pretty damned good. These machines should never, never, NEVER have been put in place WITHOUT a 100% audit--at least the first time around, in a national election! It's nuts that they were!)

Leave the contracts in place. Don't threaten the HAVA billions. Just AUDIT it. (And the People will take it from there...).

???

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

As for Congress setting the rules for their own elections--and opting for "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by Bushite corporations--it's in the mind-boggling category. But that's what these bastards did in 2002. Now they say they're going to patch it up and fix all the boo-boo's and kiss our wittle knees. Right.

But state legislators did the same--letting these bad actor corporations re-write our election laws. I would like to reverse this picture, and invest local boards of elections with the SOLE power to choose voting systems. I believe in the People. The closer to the People, the better. We can get on boards of elections--people who live right down the street from us. Except for situations like we had in the 1950s-1960s, where local boards/states were just outright denying voting rights to blacks, maybe the Feds ought to butt out.

But we don't have that now. We have elected (or should I say (s)elected?) LEGISLATORS writing the laws. When they write really, really bad election laws--like they did in this disaster--it smells to high heaven. But what would you suggest? If the HAVA billions were not a factor, we could get some real simple legislation out of Congress (like handcount every federal election vote, in a certain size precinct, and post the results in that precinct--and whatever else you do is local business). It would still be Congress critters setting the rules for their own elections, but the rules would be benign.

But we DO have HAVA billions stinking up the works. What do we do in THIS situation?

[Land Shark]

9. Now that i've litigated paper trails/audits through the summer &fall of 2006

I don't think that those states "without paper trails or audits" are in a much worse condition. To add VVPAT and audits is to add nothing for many reasons, the main one is that in a disputed election you'll not get at the paper in a timely manner, much less get a properly done audit and/or a TIMELY audit, because the best defense strategy in election cases is to deliberately run out the clock, then claim all is moot or nothing can be done.

Read up on San Diego OR talk to the activists there. You'll not find a single fan of paper trails who thinks they are one whit better off with VVPAT and a state mandated audit. While it is "only" 1%, the problems with it go far beyond the percentage and have to do with the willingness of the officials to allow a meaningful audit -- and it's very hard to legislate that.

[Bill Bored]

17. The Brennan Center and ACCURATE have some ideas on how to legislate

meaningful audits, aside from the percentages which also must be meaningful.

Have you read any of them?

[galloglas]

6. This is where the light needs to shine...

Roaches and rats scurry for cover when the lights are shown brightly.

It is the duty of the citizenry to raise their voices and shout "Look at Toto! Look behind the curtain!", and continue that shouting until everyone has heard it. Until either action to eliminate this secrecy is taken, or until it is obvious that the citizens of this nation are too lazy or complacent to take action. In that case, they will have proven themselves unworthy of the democratic franchise to vote... and I, for one, do not believe that they citizenry will prove unworthy.

I believe that once the people of this nation are aware of the very real problem that you have articulated, that one and all, from the bluest of the Blues to the reddest of the Reds, will demand action.

Each end of the spectrum of our body politic, regardless of their own certitude about their own values, and vision, for these United States, believe that once their own values and vision are stated clearly, that those values and visions will be validated by the majority of their fellow citizens.

Though, obviously, one end of the spectrum will be wrong, both ends of that spectrum believe that the method for validation is the free and honest votes of their fellows.

That forum on visions and values is the transparent electoral process to weigh those varying, and disparate, values and visions held at each end of the spectrum.

The ends of the spectrum may vary in their philosophies but, the method by which they decide them has always been, in the heart of true Americans, the free and open vote on the questions at hand.

We must assure that they understand what is at stake.

[Melissa G]

7. Sure Congress can dictate the circumstances of their election

Who else makes the rules?
The question is Are they reasonable rules, where we can have confidence about the outcomes being reflective of the voter's intent.

The answer to that question is NO, there is NO Basis for confidence in our elections.
We have NO reason to trust that they reflect the voter's intent and we have No way to reliably audit the elections after the fact in most cases.

There is NO Basis For Confidence in Our elections.

We call ourselves a democracy... and There is No Basis for Confidence in our Elections.
Over and over, they keep playing that "I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free" song on the radio.
Free is where I know my vote counts...Free is not some voting company deciding who runs my country. Free is KNOWING My vote... And My neighbors votes... and my adversaries votes are all being counted and free is especially knowing that those votes being counted are being counted regardless of the color of my skin. That is Free. That is a democracy.

[Land Shark]

10. I think you misunderstood the question as presented, which is

Can the Congress CREDIBLY in the minds of the regular citizen and therefore WITHOUT PAYING A SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL PRICE, dictate that we will simply have to accept secret vote counting and no public supervision of the congressperson's own elections, because the congress tells us that nothing else is "realistic" because the congress will, in effect, accept no supervision, they want their secret vote counting, period.

[Melissa G]

19. Hi LS, I don't actually misunderstand what you are trying to say..

I just think that it can also be answered as I did.
Most of us here are political wonks. We have way more info than the general public will ever bother with..
Thanks to us wonks making racket however, the general public has finally gotten around to distrusting black boxes run by faceless corporations with their own agendas as a good way to cast their vote..Took 'em long enough...and oh yeah,...Yea, Us!

I don't think that Congress in general believes that they want secret vote counting or that they would admit to it even if they did. Since they are the ones that I want to change the rules I am happy to make bad corporations the villains that Congress needs to protect us from.

For me, at the moment, emphasis on No Basis for Confidence in the legitimacy of the election and by extension the Elected, is a more easy to expound upon focus.

But I do take your point...
Best,
Melissa

[Land Shark]

11. "Free" also means being able to oppose your government without fear

Now in the good old USA, if you want to oppose the regime you've got to consider your risk of being an "unlawful enemy combatant" in the sheer discretion of the administration, where no court can hear your case that yoru combatant status is a complete joke, and in fact the administration need not acknowledge that you even exist in their secret prisons. Is that freedom from fear?

Scalia himself said that freedom from the fear of indefinite detention at the mere will of the Executive is the CORE of liberty. Sheesh. even scalia gets that.

[bleever]

12. Liberty

is the lamb that resists not only the tyranny of the majority (especially when wolves are in the majority, or sharp teeth are considered "free speech"), but beyond that the determination of what a majority is.

So, yes. Congress voting themselves pay raises is surpassed in corruption by Congress deciding whether or not the voters can choose to fire them or not. Brilliantly framed, sir.

[Land Shark]

13. So far, it's unanimous, not even a real 'write in' vote n/t

[Land Shark]

14. In a true act of pique, an anonymous person just voted that "congressman for life"

is perfectly ok. It's funny how there are an extremely small number of people who go way out of their way to try to contradict what I'm saying. It's mature and responsible behavior I'm sure.

[Febble]

15. Well, let me contradict you

but I will try to remain mature and responsible.

I didn't vote in your poll, because I'm not an American, but I don't think there is an obvious answer to your question (and certainly none of the poll answers you give are adequate answers).

In a democracy we elect our legislators. Elections are governed by legislation. And you are asking, I think: "is it right that elected legislators should legislate on elections?"

And it sounds like the kind of question to which the answer should be no.

But I think this is an artefact of the framing. Democracy, even with uncorruptible voting systems, is not a perfect system. First-past-the-post elections can easily result in large majorities for parties or presidents who have only slight, or negative, popular "mandate", while proportional representation systems seem to breed corrupt back-room deals with extreme minority parties. And governing parties can all too easily gerrymander or otherwise steal their way into remaining in power.

But I'd like to make two points:

The first is that if elected legislators are not to be the legislators of their own elections, who is? "We the People" is not an answer, unless you have a better system than Democracy, for all its flaws, for enacting the will of We the People. Perhaps you might do it by a federal referendum? That might be interesting - put a question to a national vote. I'd probably support that idea, if it's what you are suggesting. But you can't legislate elections by means of a Zogby poll.

The second is that the two party system, for all its faults, means that while all elected legislators may have a vested interest in the circumstances of their own election, they don't have the same vested interest. It is not, for example, in the interest of Democratic legislators to have election laws that allow for the systematic disenfranchisement of Democratic voters. And it is not in every elected legislator's interest to have non-transparent elections. The only legislators with an interest in non-transparent elections are those who are beneficiaries of corruption. Every elected legislator runs the risk of losing their own seat to fraud unless fraud is made extremely difficult.

So for those reasons, I find your question meaningless. The people with a vested interest in non-transparent elections are the beneficiaries of fraud, and that group is not co-terminous with "elected legislators". Legislation that would mandate manually countable voter-verified paper records that have the status of a ballot in the event of a conflict between a manual count and an electronic count, and, moreover, mandates random audits, may not be a large enough step in the direction of transparency for you. But it is certainly a step in the direction of transparency, which is probably why it has been so well supported by Democrats, and not, by and large by Republicans (although things may change now....)

I do not say that HR 550 cannot be improved, or even replaced by a better bill. But I cannot understand your apparent point that election legislation involves an inherent conflict of interest.

And I also cannot see that mandatory paper ballots and random audits could be anything other than an important wedge in the crack that will eventually destroy paperless non-transparent voting systems.

Not that it will help with one of the biggest causes of Democratic disenfranchisement - voter suppression - and nor will it prevent election fraud. It is perfectly possible to steal elections with transparently counted paper ballots. You just fake or destroy the ballots.

[Bill Bored]

16. Congress has not dictated anything.

Nothing in HAVA or any other federal law mandates electronic vote counting, secret vote counting, or any other form of vote counting.

There is a mandate to make vote casting accessible to voters with disabilities, but that's about it.

It is therefore a waste of time to pin the blame on Congress, except to say that they have allocated money in an irresponsible manner by not requiring proper voting system standards as a condition for the expenditure of those funds and by imposing arbitrary deadlines for spending them (use it or lose it).

HAVA has been deliberately misread by most states, election officials and of course the vendors who stand to benefit from such misreading. It's also being misread by some election integrity activists who favor certain vote counting systems in preference to others as a means of HAVA "compliance."

New York has chosen to ignore those deadlines and NOT spend any of its HAVA money to replace its non-electronic vote counting systems so far, and so far, there have been no adverse consequences whatsoever. So how can we blame Congress?

It's also true that some courts and some but not all members of the Election Assistance Commission have misinterpreted the law and for that, it would seem that appeals are in order.

The point is that there's much more blame to go around than just that aimed at the Congress.

That said, I voted No.

[Land Shark]

18. If HAVA does not in any way authorize electronic voting, that sounds like a good claim legally

it does require disabled voting standards, then says that one DRE per polling place will satisfy those standards. I suppose you wouldn't call this "mandating" DREs, but it does indicate that they comply with key provisions of HAVA doesn't it?

[Bill Bored]

20. If by authorize, you mean require, I agree.

Yup key provisions:
Statewide voter registration lists;
First-time voter ID requirements;
One accessible system per polling place (but NOT every precinct).
(I know you know they don't have to be DREs.) That's about it.

Also, note the HAVA definition of the voting system. It's NOT a voting machine -- it's a whole system, including poll workers and documentation and all kinds of stuff. It doesn't even require a printer, so the audit trail can be anything as long as it's paper. Unfortunately it doesn't have to be voter-verified, which is the great loophole, but that could also be interpreted as grandfathering lever machines.

I agree that HAVA invites the perception that there are mandates, especially when you have free money and vendor hype to go along with it, but heck, it doesn't even ban the dreaded punch cards which were the cause of the FL 2000 hanging chad debacle, overvotes, etc. And the Title I money to replace levers and punch cards can be returned ($4,000 per precinct -- just give it back).

I think that when it comes to political considerations, the fact that local officials feel compelled to spend every cent of federal money that's ever allocated to them is a big factor, even though they may have known there were major flaws in what they were buying. True conservatives can sometimes be helpful in resisting that temptation.

There are always people in NY criticizing the legislature and the SBoE for NOT spending every red cent of our HAVA money, for "risking millions of dollars in federal funds", for "dithering", etc. But not so much lately now that they see the downside. Personally, I think they're showing some backbone, esp. the Dems., but even some of the Repubs at times.

[Morgana LaFey]

21. AFAIC, "riggable/hackable" is far more potent than secretive. nt

[Cocoa]

22. has anyone been voted out of Congress over HAVA?

has HAVA been a factor in any election since it was enacted?

We don't need the hypothetical, we have a record to look at.

[Land Shark]

23. the american people then approved torture and suspending habeas corpus

because no politicians decided to make it issue #1 in their campaigns? i don't think so. politicians are looking for simple issues they don't ave to educate on, like hava would require education to some extent

[Land Shark]

24. can someone explain their vote for "congressman for life"??

[kster]

25. Three Reluctant Responders how can this be explained? nt

[Land Shark]

26. just scan the list of replies to the thread and three rBr's can plausibly be

identified. It's a theory with more support in actual fact and circumstance than the rBr theory.