|
I think Michael has covered my own concerns most thoroughly. And, in each instance where the two of you esteemed writers have a difference of opinion, I find myself coming down in favor of Michael's view.
Though you and Michael show the utmost respect for each other, and each other's work and contributions to the cause, as evidenced (in this thread, and others that are current) by some of the most elegant verbal bowing and scraping that I ever witnessed, sans plumed hats, you do differ on points.
So permit me, if you will, to dissect the tail end of Emlev's missive, on your behalf, in order to thus insert my own tuppence worth, in my own terms.
To wit:
For a start, our letter says in the very first paragraph, in regard to the panoply of issues that must be dealt with in any upcoming legislation,
"While there are many areas of concern for any such legislation, none is more essential to the accuracy of our elections and the confidence among our electorate than for there to be a paper ballot for every vote cast. Not a paper "trail" or a paper "record," but a paper ballot."
Perhaps the very words "paper ballot", as (appropriately) differentiated from the problematic phrases "paper trail" and "paper record" leads you to inadvertently err when you say, in reference to any upcoming legislation, that "(nothing) is more essential to the accuracy of our elections and the confidence among our electorate than for there to be a paper ballot for every vote cast."
And, in that limited context, I might tend to agree.
OTOH, the "paper ballot" is essential to an entire process which you refer to as "the accuracy of our elections and the confidence among our electorate".
Consequently, the "the accuracy of our elections and the confidence among our electorate" becomes the supreme goal, instead of the "paper ballot" upon which the entire process hinges.
That said, even granting the necessity of"a paper ballot for every vote cast.", it is insufficient to assure "the accuracy of our elections and the confidence among our electorate" that you have predicated as the supreme goal.
That is simple reality. A chair cannot stand on one leg alone, any more than an entire electoral process can stand on one leg, even if that leg is "a paper ballot for every vote cast."
But add to the mandate, "a paper ballot for every vote cast", the other elements of stability and you might find a chair that will stand, a cooking pot that hangs from a tripod, a camera that sits atop a tripod, or (fill in your own metaphor for stabilty).
In this case, "a tripod" would necessitate adding (at the least) to the paper ballots, both public control (including the public's decision as to what manner should be used to count them) and oversight, coupled with complete transparency from the start of balloting to the finish.
From the first vote cast until the last precinct-counted vote is nailed to the precinct door. This transparency must include the observing eyes of any interested peoples, and the lenses, cameras or other recording devices of any interested persons.
Once these supporting devices are incorporated into the system, and the Broth of Democracy is firmly secured, and made safe from the accidental, or "unintended", upending of our Sacred Brew, only then we may safely proceed with the equally important endeavor of enlarging, and permanently securing, the voting franchise for all those of legal age to vote.
I do not speak for the entire coalition, but I'm rather confident that all current members of the group realize that this aspect of reform -- the requirement for a paper BALLOT for every vote cast -- is but one of many needed requirements. The statement points out that we feel none, however, is more important than ensuring we actually have that paper BALLOT.
OTOH, none of the other legs of the tripod can possibly be any less important. It takes ALL of these elements, simultaneously, to support this Cauldron of our Democracy.
Staking our Democracy on only one element, while hoping that we can somehow grab the other necessary components (transparency, and citizen oversight and control) from reluctant legislators, in time to slip them securely under the bubbling cauldron, before the whole kit and kaboodle goes arse over appetite, is simply irresponsible, IMHO.
So before anyone risks spilling everyone's Democracy Soup into the sand and soil, irretrievably,(as even now it teeters precariously), we should be responsible enough to know exactly how we will get from where we ARE to where we SHOULD be: I.E., safely in the bosom of Democracy.
And when anyone holds democracy in their hands, they hold it for ALL of us.
So, when the Coalition made its demand (appeal?) to the Powers that Be for "a paper ballot for every vote cast", but cannot state exactly HOW we will move from where we ARE to where we SHOULD be, it risks Democracy for all of us.
And, personally, I will not concede that power to anyone who cannot, or will not, state unequivocally how they will move this Democracy to where it SHOULD be. And further, to guarantee it!
At the minimum, at least from the dangers that lie within, as opposed to outside, our nation.
The coalition is broad in that some might be okay with optically-scanned paper ballots while others would prefer (or demand) hand-counted paper ballots.
And some, myself included, would demand the same thing that you (Brad) have, in fact, predicated as the supreme goal. To assure "the accuracy of our elections and the confidence among our electorate". However you do it . Not just propose to do it, but guarantee to accomplish it.
But I believe nobody in the coaltion is unaware of the dangers presented by the unchecked, secret software used in optical scanners to count those ballots.
I hope not. To believe otherwise would defy the definition of "coalition".
While nobody has yet seen the revised version of Holt's bill, to be presented in the new Congress, you'll note that even the previous version required publicly disclosed source code for such voting equipment,
Which, BTW, raises this question. What good is that?
As so many reports have shown (many in your own blog, I think), the source codes can be altered (undetected), the substituted code run, and then the original publicly disclosed source code replaced. With no one the wiser (unless someone bungles it, and is caught red-handed).
Properly executed exploits always go undetected. So why the mention of it?
and mandatory random audits to work go with any such optically-counted ballots (as inadequate as I personally found the protocols for that audit to be in the previous version. I have reason, however, to believe such protocols will be greatly improved in the upcoming version.)
You end your answer to Michael on this note. Consequently, I assume you find this significant?
If so, after all the very hard work you have put in, after all the attention you have brought to the movement, after all of the hard hours you have put in, after all of the tremendously fine snags of blazing and lying line drives from Congressmen, after all the bad-hop BS grounders you have grabbed and fired to first base for the "outs" (some of those outs made with assists by EI activists posting to DU), why would you leave us with, "I have reason, however, to believe such protocols will be greatly improved in the upcoming version."
If you know something, can you not share it? Is it a "smoked-filled room" secret? And, given our own hard efforts, do we not have a place at this table?
Unless you can satisfy my need for a guarantee that someone will not "inadvertently" spill the Democracy Soup Kettle, it sounds all too much like the "Trust Us!" that we have heard since HAVA.
Have we all not the right to fight this battle on our own? Do we not all share information? Do we all not think independently, yet work co-operatively?
If so, after all you have done in this effort, can you not share with us why we should accept this one-legged chair?
Or, if the chair is not one-legged, can you not give us those assurances? If you do, you would have our support, certainly.
Can you change, with full disclosure, "I have reason to believe" to a more comforting "We have reason to believe"?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
Remember California 50 and the Speaker Denny swearing in. 
