Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains-Diebold & ESS to Survive!!!

[kpete]

Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0612/S00267.htm

Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains

Monday, 18 December 2006, 10:01 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins

ACTIVIST COALITION CALL FOR PAPER BALLOTS
Leaves optical scans in place / Diebold, ESS, & Sequoia to survive

Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC

An impressive coalition of election fraud-election integrity groups signed an open letter to the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives calling for paper ballots as the only standard for voting in the United States.

Paper trails and paper records are not sufficient to safeguard elections and restore confidence among the electorate. Unless there is a paper ballot for every vote cast, three fundamental principles of democratic elections are violated: 1. Observable tallies. 2. Equal Access. 3. Accurate Results. Open Letter 12.14.0

The letter states clearly:

…we now hold that a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand, is the minimum requirement for any Election Reform legislation in which voters may have confidence. (Emphasis mine, Ed.)
Open Letter 12.14.0

The signatories include VoterAction.org; VotersUnite.org; VelvetRevolution.us; the National Voting Rights Institute; Demos; TrueMajorityAction; and the Dolores Huerta Foundation. The additional signers consist of organizations from across the country including California and Florida plus the Election Defense Alliance, perhaps the major election fraud research organizations in the country right now.

Notably absent is the national VerifiedVoting.org and VoteTrustUSA.org. Nevertheless, the group represents 34 of the most active members of the newest element of the voting rights movement, which is primarily concerned with voting technologies and resulting problems. Some of these organizations supported voter verifiable paper ballots in the past but now tell us that solution is not sufficient.

Foxes Still in the Henhouse: Diebold, ESS, & Sequoia Will Survive

This open letter is encouraging on a number of levels but it leaves the door open for election fraud by allowing optical scan voting machines to stay in place. Referring to “a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand…” does not address the numerous problems associated with optical scan systems. In a case of collective amnesia, the organizations have erased any problems associated with optical scan voting machines or the vendors that sell and service them.

Preserving optical scan machines has the practical impact of guaranteeing the survival of the Republican-friendly voting machine vendors, all of whom sell optical scan readers. Are these last in class technology companies with heavy Republican ties (in the case of Diebold or ESS) going to suddenly reform their ways and become model corporate citizens eschewing any political activity? Will they confess their sins of the past and repent, and promise to count votes fairly? Perhaps, they will apologize for eight years of the Bush administration, while they’re at it. The obvious answer leads to the obvious shortfall of this open letter. It continues computerized voting and preserves the business viability of questionable vendors able to engage in future questionable activity.

R.I.P Voter Verified Paper Ballots (VVPB) - a time consuming failure.

This letter represents a major shift in positions and is a clear abandonment of verified voter paper ballots for touch screens. These ephemeral receipts were to solve the problems created by touch screen voting devices. Simple logic and experience took the signatories from this illusion to reality – paper receipts can tell a voter she/he cast a ballot for Kerry and then produce a vote in the machine for Bush. Imagine that - those pesky computers. They must have a mind of their own.

www.VerifiedVoting.org – Verified Voting Foundation

Here is how these verified ballots worked in 2006? Please note the dark green states. These all have both required voter verified paper ballots (VVPB) plus required manual audits (map from VerifiedVoting.org-Verified Voting Foundation). In controversial elections in any of those states, the solution sold as the gold standard worked, right? Apparently not if you live in New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District or any other congressional or other district in those states where you wanted a fair and objective recount. If you live in any of the gold standard states, all you have to do is ask and you can examine those VVPBs right? Wrong! You have no rights unless your state has open inspection of election ballots and records. The light green states have required VVPB but lack required audits. If you were in the Ohio Congressional Districts which had those small margin, last minute Republican wins, you had a shot at recounting the VVPBs there right? Or at least reviewing them? Wrong!

VVPBs are not a real solution unless there is appropriate law attached (and much more). That’s the point now and it’s been the point all along, as argued articulately by election law attorney Paul Lehto and New Hampshire activist Nancy Tobi The means of voting and verifying are irrelevant as long as there is no legislation attached that allows public examination of ballots, public review of that voting counting process, reasonable standards for invoking an official recount, and the use of the VVPBs as the ballot of record. There is little if anything to show for all the effort devoted to verified voter paper ballots over the past years. They had a negligible impact on election 2006.

Implications for Federal legislation, e.g., Holt’s H.R. 550

As recently as this year, election integrity organizations form across the country met in Washington, DC for Lobby Days sponsored by VoteTrustUSA.org. The main purpose of this event was to support House Resolution 550 sponsored by US Representative Rush Holt, D, NJ. That legislation alters the 2002 Help America Vote Act by, among other things, defining audit requirements for voting machines in the case of tight elections.

Will the organizations continue to support Holts H.R. 550? The bill presupposes the existence of the very voting systems the organizations oppose, touch screens. Fixing touch screen voting devices (DRE’s) is not an option. They may not use this author’s terminology for Holt, Lipstick on a Pig, but they should certainly show an aversion to any more wasted time on this type of solution.

The Conclusion at this Point

The open letter is an achievement on one level. It represents coalition building in a movement that has been fragmented. On a broader level, the letter fails in two important ways. While it seeks nothing less than ensuring the protection of our democratic system, it fails to mention the worst elements of our voting system – voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement aimed at minorities; a glaring omission. From the standpoint of internal consistency, the letter argues for a position that perpetuates many of the problems these organizations have identified with computerized voting in general. Optical scan tabulators count as computerized voting, yet these devices are somehow now viewed as a reliable technology. Optical scan vendors with their deplorable record remain as well.

What’s the point?

The Big Picture – Time to recognize that We’re Part of a Broader Movement

When the coalition members are through taking politically unsophisticated half measures like the one described, they would do well to recognize that they are part of a larger movement – the voting rights movement.

[kster]

1. K&R...nt

[autorank]

2. Well, hit me with our analysis.

:shrug:

[kster]

3. You get an automatic R, have to read in detail, Let me ask you a question

Lets say, we get rid of the paperless voting machines and the whole country has switched to op-scan paper ballots, Do you think, Providing it is done within a reasonable time frame, with observers from both parties and cameras trained on them ballots, that concerned citizens should be able to hand count ALL of them op-scan ballots, just to make sure that the machine counted correct? In other words, two seperate mandatory and automatic vote counts after each election, machine for speed, hand count for sanity / accuracy.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

[autorank]

4. Why have the machine count in the first place?

There's no reason for it and it requires computer security expertise FOR EACH MACHINE if we're really serious. Paper has no such problems.

I can't for the life of me understand how years have been spent campaigning against computerized voting, which was highly appropriate, and then computerized voting is accepted by those who questioned it.

Diebold, ESS, and Sequoia now have a "hedge position" - DRE's no, but those OP scans, lets see what we can add...get the premium, specialty pricing working...all so they can cong tribute to Republican candidates...PRICELESS.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. No reason. No good reason. The machines are redundant. End of story,

If it were a sane one, anyway.

1. The machines are redundant;
2. the are open to fraud, because policing the machines properly would be impracticable in the eyes of the desperados - who seem to have an inordinate influence on the officials who buy the machines, against the will of the public they are commissioned and paid to serve;
3. they reward criminals;
4. massively.

The whole concept/system of machine use, in the teeth of the widespread opposition of the voters, is an illicit, top-down, hierarchical, indeed monarchical, imposition - when, above all else, an election process should reflect democracy at its very purest.

After that, our democracies will inevitably be diluted and polluted by those who govern or determine to govern by any means they can, lawful or unlawful. But at least let the process, itself, be purely and honestly democratic. No parties should profit from the process other than the people, the voters.

Ironically, that all sounds very doctrinaire, but in fact, it's the only practical way to go, if you want honest elections. Keep them as simple as possible, to achieve an honest outcome.

Of course, proportional representation would have saved both our countries from the rabid rapine of the far right, but hey, one step at a time in that direction would be good, wouldn't it?

[liberaldemocrat7]

70. We need vote by mail with paper ballots counted by civil servants.

We need civil servants to register voters and maintain voter rolls.


The 2000 election got decided before election day by KKKatherine Harris and Jeb Bush who enlisted Choicepoint to remove tens of thousands of Gore voters from the voter rolls before the election of 2000.


Go to my website http://www.dmocrats.org and learn how we can pressure congress and the pResident to get this enacted.

[Joe Chi Minh]

71. Wow. Impressive blog! Another great Dem Activist (Activist - i.e. with a capital P).

[BradBlog]

21. Several (potential) reasons...

AutoRank - See my full reply to the article above, but to your specific shorter question here: Very few folks are in favor of "the machines in the first place". (Even if a legitimate argument CAN be made that machine PRINTED paper ballots, to be scanned or hand-counted separately, are actually harder to game and safer than hand-marked paper ballots -- not saying I feel that way at this time, but just that such an argument can be made, and a fairly good one at that.)

The fight to get rid of ALL machines can, of course continue. Both with the current legislation, if you like, or in future legislation. What CAN'T be done is the requirement for paper BALLOTS once DRE's are giving the Government Seal of Approval in upcoming legislation.

But with paper BALLOTS (even with op-scan allowed) there are a number of security procedures that CAN be implimented and carried off with a great deal of success (IF they are done correctly).

If your argument is that we should hold off and continue fighting for all Hand Counted Paper Ballots -- and allow Congress to approve legislation which allows for disenfranchising DRE's in the meantime -- I'd argue such a campaign would be "politically unsophisticated" (to use your words ;-), not to mention incredibly short-sighted and foolish.

[autorank]

27. Hi Brad, just got in. Dump them all and yes, that's my argument (last para)

I look forward to a dilogue on the longer post but let me start here.

1) There is a very clear reason to jettison electronic voting machines. The vendors for these machines are complicit with the manifestations of election fraud. From Wally O'Dell to the right wing ties of ESS to Sequoias very strange current status (which ends up in the Netherlands of all places the last I saw).

To preserve any voting machine is to preserve the vendors. They will move form the high priced, high margin touch screens to a broader distribution of optical scan machines with "value added" services for the boards, thus striving for the same profit. But for them, the profit motive on the machines, the HAVA money is chump change compared to the influence that they have on the worlds greatest economy and most formidable superpower. They determine who wins. Their ongoing record indicating vote switching, 'glitches, etc. all require us to believe that "the machines have a mind of their own." Computers have no intentionality other than that which they are programmed. Error by or random occurrence; programmed computers versus roulette wheels (in an honest house).

Diebold, ESS, Sequoia and their country cousins Hart and AVS. Look at the record, the ties and so forth. They have to go. Maintaining optical scans allows them to stay. I and many in this little community of activists don't trust them. The American people who want to junk the machines don't trust them.

2) "If your argument is that we should hold off and continue fighting for all Hand Counted Paper Ballots -- and allow Congress to approve legislation which allows for disenfranchising DRE's in the meantime -- I'd argue such a campaign would be "politically unsophisticated" (to use your words ;-), not to mention incredibly short-sighted and foolish."

Should we continue fighting for freedom from Great Britain or settle for a federation status?
Should we continue to allow slavery to exist or should we finally end the Civil War on terms that honor basic human dignity?
Should we end the process of private vendor dominance over the key event in our democratic processes, elections, or should we find a better way to handle elections.

Here's the better way. Set up an independent agency to conduct the vote. Have it audited by any party that wishes, but require the two political parties to audit the organization. Have the organization use the lowest tech solution starting with hand counted paper ballots. If the boards think it takes too long, too bad. We'll get new boards. Look at Great Britain for how counting is done or have a jury duty notice for citizens that they're required to honor...for just one day.

Settling for 1/2 way measures which give the illusion of relief but saddle us with computerized voting operated by Republican leaning companies is not a defense of democracy nor is it expedient. Expediency implies some gain. This would be a loss since we would be saddled with these vendors and their hackable machines for a decade. Once something looks like it's getting better, our politicians move on to the real business at hand, which is catering to business. We are not served, we ordinary citizens, we're mollified. Enough.

Put the real deal on the table and let them oppose it. Some politician will look at the Zogby Poll Paul did with co sponsorship by Nancy Tobi and myself and other polls and say - "That's my issue!" and that politician or group will have a field day.

[BradBlog]

37. Your argument is "politically unsophisticated" (just to keep rubbing that in ;-)

Michael writes:

1) There is a very clear reason to jettison electronic voting machines. The vendors for these machines are complicit with the manifestations of election fraud. From Wally O'Dell to the right wing ties of ESS to Sequoias very strange current status (which ends up in the Netherlands of all places the last I saw).

I don't disagree with your point at all. The following grafs making the case are unnecessary. I'm on your side. I believe not only should those companies go, their CEO's and board of directors should be sent to prison.

That said, it's a political reality that no matter how much you and I would like all private companies out of the business of running our elections, a path is built one stone at a time and jurisdictions (state and local) will NOT be tossing out ALL of their voting equipment right away, nor will Congress be requiring them to. As much as you and I may like that.

So what then? Assure a paper BALLOT for every vote cast, and then fight about how to ensure it's counted accurately and transparently.

Your next argument is that somehow this is a compromise. To wit, you ask:

Should we continue fighting for freedom from Great Britain or settle for a federation status?
Should we continue to allow slavery to exist or should we finally end the Civil War on terms that honor basic human dignity?
Should we end the process of private vendor dominance over the key event in our democratic processes, elections, or should we find a better way to handle elections.

I'll answer those questions one at a time:

1) If we can get King George to allow represenation before taxation, even if we need to keep fighting for complete independence, I say we do it.

2) If we can write an Emancipation Proclamation that frees all slaves (even if it only will apply to slaves in the North), until the Civil War can be won, I say we write such a proclamation.

3) If we can ensure a paper BALLOT for every vote cast, while we continue the fight for full transparency, accuracy and accountability for the criminal voting machine companies, I say we do it.

Requiring a paper BALLOT for every vote cast is not a "compromise", it's a step forward (and a huge one at that). Allowing DRE's, but with "voter verified paper audit trails"...now that is a compromise.

Not realizing the difference between the two, I would argue, is rather "politically unsophisticated".

:-)

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. My first reaction to your post was to accept it as simple unavoidable

pragmatism. It may yet be the case.

However, foolishly or not, I still wonder if you are throwing the towel in too soon; that the fight to get congressional approval for machine-free elections may not be so cut and dried.

It is certainly indisputable that the historic, the unparalleled, debacle of these neocons (masqued to a large extent, electorally speaking, by fraud) has afforded a commensurate window of opportunity, which should be fiercely siezed now - certainly struggled for to the utmost of your powers.
As Mike said, otherwise, it could be ten years before pencil and paper ballots are introduced. I think maybe longer, with the DLC water-carriers for the neocons still in your midst. Would that mean jeopardising the incremental gain you favour? I don't know. Perhaps so. But them thar's my thoughts.

[BradBlog]

55. Accept nothing, Fight for everything you feel should be fought for...

KCabotDullesMarxIII said:

However, foolishly or not, I still wonder if you are throwing the towel in too soon; that the fight to get congressional approval for machine-free elections may not be so cut and dried.

No towels have been thrown anywhere. At least not by me. I encourage all such efforts/fights for electoral integrity. Period.

It is certainly indisputable that the historic, the unparalleled, debacle of these neocons (masqued to a large extent, electorally speaking, by fraud) has afforded a commensurate window of opportunity, which should be fiercely siezed now - certainly struggled for to the utmost of your powers.

I am doing exactly that. I hope you (and everyone else reading this thread) will join that effort.

I'd also suggest everyone reading this effort, sign the letter at:
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots
... to send it immediately to their Congress Members!

[Joe Chi Minh]

56. Great stuff, Brad! As Mike said, honest input can only benefit us all.

[Joe Chi Minh]

109. So, are you're actually backtracking from your initial position, Brad?

You seemed to say that we need be satisfied with the path being built one stone at a time. But now you concede that, at worst, it should be built from either end, your one being kept in reserve, presumably, if the "all paper ballots" can't make it in time? Have I understood your disclaimer correctly?

Or are you saying, "Go for your life! It will be futile and a distraction from the only pragmatic measure, which is to accept half machine ballots?

Or just, "Heck, let's just do what we think will be best?"

[BradBlog]

113. Not that I know of...

KCabotDullesMarxIII asked:

You seemed to say that we need be satisfied with the path being built one stone at a time. But now you concede that, at worst, it should be built from either end, your one being kept in reserve, presumably, if the "all paper ballots" can't make it in time? Have I understood your disclaimer correctly?

Or are you saying, "Go for your life! It will be futile and a distraction from the only pragmatic measure, which is to accept half machine ballots?

Or just, "Heck, let's just do what we think will be best?"

I'm not sure if I had too much wine this XMas, or if you did, but I think I'm having trouble understanding the question.

To be clear, I've *never* said anyone "need be satisfied" with anything.

I did, however, say a path is built one stone at a time. Without paper BALLOTS (as opposed to "trails" or "records") there simply can be no path. Thus, the call to ensure we have them, as Congress is facing a moment when they are to choose between requiring BALLOTS or allowing DRE touch-screens instead.

I vote for BALLOTS (pun intended). And hope you'll join the call by signing the letter to Congress at http://www.VelvetREvolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots.

Beyond that, you'll need to be clearer in your question for me to give you a more specific answer. Suffice to say, however, I don't believe (in fact I know) I've not backtracked on a thing.

[Joe Chi Minh]

114. Well, I know English is your first language, so I'll leave it at that.

If I were an American, in the absence of a better prospect for electoral justice, of course I would sign the letter to Congress, but I was under the impression you were "having a go" at Autorank - even to the extent of accusing him of political naivety - for continuing to press for "pencil and paper" ballots.

If not, what was the nub of your controversy? Perhaps I did misunderstand you. Though, as for the bibulous imputation, I don't think even I would get hammered on few cholocate liqueurs! So, perhaps you should lay off the hooch for a while, Brad!

[BradBlog]

119. With complete sobriety, I say...

...Wasn't "having a go" at autorank for continuing to press for "pencil and paper" ballots (or HCPB as the Hand-Counted Paper Ballot community tends to shorthand it.) In fact, I encourage him to do so if he feels that's the best route (and I don't necessarily feel different).

Perhaps you're referring to my having "had a go" at him for his suggestion that our press for paper BALLOTS first and foremost (since without them, nothing else matters) was, in his own unfortunate choice of words, "politically unsophisticated".

To which I suggest that, ironically enough, it is autorank's (Michael Collins') original article, and follow-up since which may well define the term. Unfortunately. See the time spent on an attack (if I may call it that) on folks like me, and the others in the coalition, rather than on the real bad guys here and/or time spent working to build coalitions within Congress and a case in the general public to make HCPB as popular as the HCPB folks feel it ought to be.

Dare I say, were the HCPB crowd a bit more politically sophisticated (again, playfully borrowing from Michael's own unfortunate turn of phrase) the idea wouldn't find itself so disappointingly relegated to the political margins as it currently seems to be. That's a great shame, btw.

Hope that clarifies. Drinks are on me.

[Joe Chi Minh]

121. Thanks, Brad. It'll all come out in the wash! We'll get there, God willing.

And provided we continue to pass the ammunition!

[FogerRox]

5. kster, that would be fun

One giant parralel election. WOOpie....

Autorank... www.VerifiedVoting.org needs to change the color of NJ on that map, NJ does not have a VVPB in effect. WOnt untill 2008, and thats if NJ buys all new equipment before then.... about 11k voting machines.

co=alition building, smells good.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kster]

8. No compromise, just looking to see

what the e-counting crowds argument against this idea would be.

[autorank]

32. See you there...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2938484&mesg_id=2943703

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

23. Whoa, dude

Just asking a question. Not putting words in your mouth... just trying to figure out where you stand. After all this time, I still don't understand where you are coming from. But after that little tirade, I have a clue.

[autorank]

33. Indulge me...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2938484&mesg_id=2943703

[FogerRox]

25. You are wrong.

[autorank]

31. Meet up...

FogerRox and BeFree, you are two of my favorite people on the
information super highway. Kster, you're two of my favorite people too!(thats a joke!)

Time for a sit down and with a positive outcome.

OK, here’s the deal – we’ve been thorough a lot over the past few years, mostly
defending the same causes, occasionally differing but always together as citizens
first then affiliates of whatever groups would have us (not many in my case;).

So PEACE OUT Now…think about the important things that we agree on and kick back.


(Left to Right: BeFree, autorank, & FogerRox. Yes,
I pickedk the best looking guy for me. I'd say that
the young lady is PeacePatriot but I'd lose an easy
10 of 10 arguments with her so no go;)

Kster, you are beyond definition. This is why you get
all the action. Nobody is mad at you and you’re not
mad at any body

It’s all good and at its worst,
its all whatever…

Brothers in arms

[FogerRox]

47. I am sitting down and I am listening.

[Higans]

44. I Like that. Count by machine, Verify by hand count.

I never understood why we have to know the result by midnight on election day. It seems stupid to expect that, and even stupider not to spend a week making sure the machines got it right.

Edited to add K&R

[truedelphi]

115. I like your question - I agree with AutoR's answer

One of the things that I am learning the hard way is that EVERY single TIME you give voting officials an inch - they will take a mile.

So if you let the Registrar of Voters in MARIN COUNTY HAVE HIS WAY AND INSTALL OPTISCAN WITH PAPER BACKUP - HE OR SHE WILL MAKE IT SO EXPENSIVE TO DO EVEN THE MOST OBVIOUSLY needed recount.

Frank Egger of Fairfax California lost his mayorial election by some 600 votes. The Registrar of Voters Office was asking Frank to pay upfront $ 13,000 for just the down payment of the recount proscess - that is more than Frank spent on his whole campaign!

The state of Utah is now about to go to paper ballots - simply because they are cheaper!

Duh! Election officials shouldhave realized that from the start. Hopefully the rest of the nation will get the picture soon.

[Me.]

7. Infancy With All This

Eventually, I believe, the voices will come together, but persistence is needed. Good voice on ya Autorank.

[Peace Patriot]

9. Venezeula hand-counts FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of their ballots, cuz the

Venezuelans are smart, and don't trust the electronic voting machines.* What does that make us? DUMB!

Why WASN'T a 55% audit required in OUR electronic voting system, FROM THE BEGINNING? Hm?

Many US states have Z E R O A U D I T!!!!! The best--the best!--have 1%! Maximum opportunity for fraud--especially insider hacking.

But back to the question of WHY, in the land of the free, home of the brave, TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY vote counting, run by Bushite corporations, with NO AUDIT REQUIRED, was ever permitted in the first place?!

Answer: The biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress--Tom Delay and Bob Ney (abetted by corporatist 'Democrats' like Christopher Dodd)--DIDN'T WANT a transparent (auditable, recountable) election in 2004 (or ever again, but especially in 2004).

Trade secret vote counting controlled by major Bushites (Diebold, ES&S), with NO AUDITABILITY, was required in order to keep Bush/Cheney in office in 2004--to keep the war going for several more years, to clean up any stray US taxpayer money that might still be lying around, and to cover up a Pandora Box's of the worst crimes in American government history.

How this was accomplished (the destruction of the US election system) was by $3.9 billion in boondoggle electronic voting funds that passed through the fingers of both Dem and Repub Congress critters to both Dem and Repub local/state election officials, and thence into the pockets of major Bush/Cheney donors at Diebold/ES&S and other election theft corporations. The Democrats played dumb. Some of them were. Others were corrupt. Still others were/are corrupt not just on electronic voting but also on war profiteering and corporate rule. They like Bush's war. They knew that, put to a real vote, Bush's war would lose. So they went along with having a fake vote.

Besides the $3.9 billion, the "Help America Vote for War Act" of 2002 also permitted lavish lobbying, secret industry "testing" of the machines, and a whole slew of filthy practices that resulted in a new "culture of secrecy" in our election system--with local/state election officials, for instance, having to cover up their corrupt ties to these corporation, and acting as shills for the corporations (Connie McCormack of Los Angeles., Cathy Cox of GA, doing brochures for Diebold; Bruce McPherson of CA illegally certifying Diebold touchscreens; and Bush Cartel operatives like Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, Kenneth Blackwell, setting up laws that prevent all auditing, as well as Dems like Gov Richardson of NM blockading recounts.)

Filthy, filthy, filthy. So that's where we are.

This CORRUPTION is the chief obstacle to election reform. It got entrenched very quickly--due to the fast-tracking that was attached to the $3.9 billion. And I think we have to leave the corruption in place, for the moment--that is, let them keep their insecure, unreliable, insider hackable, EXPENSIVE, new election theft machines in place--but get around FALSE VOTE COUNTS by, a) getting a paper ballot everywhere, and b) hand-counting a substantial number of those ballots (best: 100% audit--should have been required from the beginning!)

I've been saying this for six months. We have to GET AROUND the corruption. We CANNOT remove it--not yet. Election officials are not so much attached to the hackable vote counts as they are to the MONEY and the LAVISH lobbying and the future "revolving door" JOBS in the industry. OR, they are in fear of their careers being ruined and losing their jobs--as happened to CA Sec of State Kevin Shelley who sued Diebold prior to the 2004 election.

We really need to understand this, or we are going to ultimately lose the fight for transparent elections (and thus our democracy). Corruption and fear are the obstacles. Common sense doesn't enter into it. Democratic principles, transparency, accountability--none of this matters. They KNOW the system is rigged. They defend the indefensible, time and again! Election officials defend it. Democrats defend it. How to get around this APPARENT irrationality?

My first proposal was an Absentee Ballot strategy. You see, voters are ALREADY trying to get around this rigged electronic system by voting with an Absentee Ballot, in ever increasing numbers (another big increase in the recent midterms). It is now a full scale voter revolt against the machines. A boycott! But many don't realize that they just scan your Absentee Ballot right into the riggable electronics, with no hand-counting (as a check on fraud). The proposal is to organize this big election reform constituency (the AB voters), locally, to pressure local/state officials to HAND-COUNT the AB votes, and post the results before any electronics are involved. These simple demands--the obvious desire of a big constituency of voters--are doable. And then it will snowball. Others will want their ballots hand-counted, too. We will have created a paper ballot system by default. This strategy is designed to avoid a headon collision with Diebold/ES&S, their bought and paid for election officials, and the Dark Lords behind it all. But there may be other ways to accomplish a transparent vote count, without having to first purge all the corruption.

Here is what we need:

1. Paper ballot.

2. Substantial audit.

The coalition for a paper ballot--the subject of this OP--seems to be limiting itself to the first need, in a Congressional venue. I don't know why. The letter should say: paper ballot AND 10% audit (or whatever). It may be that the groups could not agree on size of the audit, and so are going for the other bottom line need, a paper ballot.

In some states there is no paper trail of any kind. The system is wide open to fraud. A paper ballot is, without question, needed there. Next, we have to get the paper ballot counted, and maybe they think that can be accomplished locally.

This coalition has likely come up against the ugly reality that I've described: The national Democratic Party leaders who voted for the war, who have repeatedly funded the war, and who have been silent about Bushite corporate control of vote counting (and who have strongarmed others into silence) are NOT going to give the citizens of this country any substantial help on restoring transparent elections. Diane Feinstein (pro-war, pro-corporate) may be the chief problem. She is going to head the Senate committee on elections. It may not be possible to get a decent, comprehensive bill past her. That may be why the coalition is going for one simple demand: a paper ballot everywhere.

It is going to be up to all of us poor, beleaguered activists, to do that rest--locally.

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

A word about vote suppression--of poor, black and other Dem voters:

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 SHOULD cover it. We just have to get an Attorney General who is not a criminal.

The "Help America Vote for War Act" electronic voter registration provision is a particular problem. It makes purging black voters easy. But, since it also involves BIG MONEY (as do the electronic voting machines and central tabulators), we have no chance of getting rid of it, with the current crop of Dems, and in time for '08. Again, it will fall on local activists to fight purges, state by state, voter by voter.

In general, I would say that all or most of the vote suppression tactics in Ohio were preventable by enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. What was missing was political will--there was active criminality by the Republican cabal, and weak or no fight-back by the Dems. (Only the Greens and Libertarians were strong on push-back.)

What can be done between now and '08? Indict Gonzales? Pressure on state AGs? Congress can pass more laws, but are they needed? What's needed is enforcement--and also very vigilant citizen monitoring.

Non-transparent vote counting hurts black voters the most, because they vote 80% or so Democratic, and are an easily targeted progressive vote (due to real estate bigotry--concentrations of black voters in known communities). On the other hand, TRANSPARENT vote counting helps black voters the most. The more transparency, the more black votes will be counted.

So this is a point of common interest between the techie and the civil rights election reform groups. There is really no conflict between these groups. It is a matter of emphasis.

I think we may have a tech/civil rights conflict of a different kind. Most voters don't understand how computers work, and therefore cannot understand how computers count their votes. Tech illiteracy may not matter as to most uses of technology. But on voting, it is crucial--because it's not just the vote that matters, it's HOW THE VOTE IS COUNTED. Who can see it. Who can verify it. Who is adding them all up and how. The counting of the vote is as important as the casting of the vote.

You have some voters who have never used a computer. You have most voters with limited use/understanding. And a tiny elite who know how to program computers and are savvy on their inner workings.

That is not okay.

But everybody can count. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Vote counting--unlike a lot of other activities--needs to reduce to the common denominator. The 90 year old grandmother who was born in the horse and buggy age--and can barely work a TV control, or a push button phone, and certainly has no understanding of either. SHE must be able to understand and watch the vote counting. She and all others like her, who are non-tech savvy for whatever reason.

Those who are trying to SAVE this voting technology don't seem to understand this. Some are maybe just industry promoters (f.i., those who never mention the central tabulators). Others are tech snobs. They think if THEY understand it (or their experts do), it's okay. And these are often the pushers of the corporate fallback position: touchscreens, bad; optiscans, good.

But I digress. We are up against an ugly reality of corruption and collusion, with an entrenched election theft industry that has infested our election system with SECRECY. We need to achieve transparent vote counting by the '08 primaries. How to do it?

We could do it with optiscans still in place IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AUDIT. The coalition is right on the first need--a paper ballot. But what about what the paper ballot is FOR? The counting!

And only after we have a paper ballot and a substantial audit will we be able to deal with the corruption in the system related to the big bucks electronics contracts and the unnecessary and huge expenses that have been incurred by this crapass, insider hackable technology.


----------

*(Citation for Venezuela 55% hand-count: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1901 )

[autorank]

10. Amazing reply, it's an OP!! Kudos to you on being real early on absentee for 2006

I remember when you brought it up, you were alone and I didn't lend a hand because I wasn't sure where I came down. I don't know where else that idea originate with such force of logic and passion (which is your trademark). Looking at the returns from around the country, it sure seems like the idea got out there because absentee by mail seemed way up where it is allowed. That's quite a feat. Now somebody needs to go back and trace the Dem-Rep split in the absentee precincts. (We sure won't look at San Diego, will we;) That vote counting is not serious at all.)

There's so much here I have to respond in detail letter but, in general, you're right in the particular case, elections, and in terms of human nature: "We have to GET AROUND the corruption. We CANNOT remove it--not yet. " So true. There is the corruption of laziness, corruption of small favors (the national "meetings" with galas etc.), and the corruption of power, whether or not it involves a rate card and large amounts.

That's why Venezuela is interesting. They distrust period, both sides, and there is a real contest over how voting is conducted and observed. So we're down 2 to 0 with that democracy. They recount more and they also work the process harder form both sides. From what I understand, the Chavez people like voting machines, see them as a salvation of sorts because they're tech neutral. I saw a conflict here over early voting in Maryland. Proponents were made to feel as though they were idiots for considering it. Well, if your black and in Baltimore, you know that each year you'll see notices that the election is canceled, the precinct has changed, it's a national holiday and there's no voting and the election was last week sorry. Why wouldn't you want early voting. You have a chance of getting to vote! This confounded a few bits and bytes people who assumed corrupt motives on the part of Baltimore representatives in the state house. Well it's Maryland BUT just because it's Maryland doesn't mean it's corrupt.

It's not the vehicle of voting as much as it's the reliability of the system and the honesty of the operators. India has a low tech electronic voting system. Political parties can have wars when they disagree. They seem to agree that the votes are counted correctly.

So, voting system ratings, just on the basis of our dialog.

1. India (my favorite)
2. Venezuela (could be reversed)
..
...
...
n
4. USA

Unacceptable, we need to be at the top here.

Thanks for posting, quite remarkable.

[BradBlog]

22. Speaking as one member of the Coalition (and one of the drafters of the letter/statement)...

In reply to PeacePatriots comment:

The coalition for a paper ballot--the subject of this OP--seems to be limiting itself to the first need, in a Congressional venue. I don't know why. The letter should say: paper ballot AND 10% audit (or whatever). It may be that the groups could not agree on size of the audit, and so are going for the other bottom line need, a paper ballot.

Actually, we did not discuss the Audit part of the equation. As noted in a previous reply here (my long one, directly replying to the full article), the letter/statement says:

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.

...In other words, it all starts with the paper BALLOT. In addition to the audits you appropriately recommend (though a flat number such as 10% or 2% is not sufficient, it should be based on the size of the jurisdication to achieve 99% scientific certainty in the accuracy of the results), there are many other issues that are required to make certain we can have confidence in election results.

To the matter of audits specifically, however, Holt's bill (the leading bill in the House right now, and the one that Feinstein says she'll model her Senate version after) currently calls for audits, though a more reliable protocol is necessary. We'll have to wait to see what that protocol will be in the revised version of the legislation, but we're confident that part is being looked after, while the requirement for a paper BALLOT may not be looked after, and faces far greater political challenges.

In some states there is no paper trail of any kind. The system is wide open to fraud. A paper ballot is, without question, needed there. Next, we have to get the paper ballot counted, and maybe they think that can be accomplished locally.

Not necessarily. I think many in the coalition would like to see FEDERAL requirements to assure states get it right. Though that doesn't supercede the need for local jurisdications (and activists on the ground etc.) to demand that that happens.

The thrust of this thread (based on Michael's article) seems to be that since we're calling for something specific (a paper BALLOT for every vote cast), we don't care about the other items being discussed.

That's a wholly flawed premise on which to base discussion of this matter. Since there is no basis for it (and that's why I mentioned in my initial reply that it would have been helpful to all had Michael contacted either me, or someone else in the coalition before filing his op-ed based on such a flawed premise -- all of that despite my great appreciation for Michael's work in general, however.)

[autorank]

29. Flawed premise addressed. Hyper technical focus addressed.

"In other words, it all starts with the paper BALLOT. "

I thought it all started with the voter. Take the voters as a group.

Will voters have access to a free flow of information or get washed over in a Tsunami
of political B.S.?
Will voters have access to candidates who are their peers (or be able to run themselves) or
will candidates be "naturally selected" on the basis of connections, obligation, or personal wealth?
Will we EVER have the courage to implement public funding only for campaigns?

Can voters register?
Will their registrations be maintained?
Will they face harassment or other impediments
(like lousy machines or too few machines in precincts)?
Will the voting device be usable in a way that allows the voter to make the choice?

and now were about to get to the ballot.

Is the voting system one that suitable to take the vote and capable of being operated in a safe,
secure, and tractable fashion?

Elections start with the voter because elections are for the voter. They're not for the
politicians. They're not for the Boards of Elections or the vendors.

What do the voters want? An end to faithless electors and public officials...none of them
can now show that they were actually elected. This is no trivial event in our history.

Clear the path for all qualified to easily register (e.g. motor voter) and navigate access to
voting system with ease.

Open access to candidates of all socio economic levels and make information
exchange between the candidates and the people available without resort to legalized bribery,
otherwise known as campaign financing. There is no return on investment here for voters
individually or collectively.

You say: "The thrust of this thread (based on Michael's article) seems to be that since
we're calling for something specific (a paper BALLOT for every vote cast), we don't care
about the other items being discussed."

A key point of my article was that we're part of a larger voting rights community. Machine
errors are not really errors unless you believe that they occur mostly in the direction of one
party on a consistent basis. Spoiled ballots can be ascribed to one false excuse or another,
but the only empirical study, and a fine one it was b Klinckner, showed that spoiled ballots
occur in mostly minority precincts and that there is an actual formula that can be derived for
this. This was confirmed to a degree in Florida 2000 by Wakefield of the Washington Post
who did a study that confirmed the much greater likelihood of spoiled ballots being a minority
precinct phenomenon.

THAT'S A HUGE ISSUE. THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT RELATES TO THE BALLOT AS THE EXCUSE FOR FRAUD BUT
IS DIRECTLY TIED TO THOSE CONDUCTING ELECTIONS.
See Whose ballots don't count. Klinckner re Florida 2000
and Democracy Spoiled. Harvard Civil Rights Project

The emphasis of a big portion of the election integrity movement is on political neutrality and on
equipment issues of a wide variety. This is very useful. However, voting machines don't fix
elections, people fix elections and voting machines are just one of the means they use to do so.
People don't manipulate elections just by fiddling with a voting machine, they do it through a
broad array of techniques including voter suppression, felon disenfranchisement, etc. aimed at
vulnerable voters, minority voters, who vote in large numbers for one party, the Democrats.

I want to hear more about this across the board. As I pointed out, Holt as two other bills,
both related to the issues I'm concerned about. I'm not seeing a flurry of activity on those
bills. Yet they concern voter access to the polling place (voter intimidation and voter
identification). See The two other Holt bills. More than Bits and Bytes

With regard to your request that I would have contacted you prior to writing this, let me offer
the following. On a couple of occasions you came on threads where I'd offered up the OP and you
provide a correction of some sort. You didn't PM me with a heads up, you just made the correction.
That's fine and so is my ability to operate as a citizen journalist and write what strikes me as
pertinent and helpful.

[BradBlog]

40. Flawed Premise Elaborated Upon...

All of the questions you ask in your article are good ones. Though all quite far afield from the scope of the statement by the coalition calling for a paper BALLOT for every vote cast. All except for: "Is the voting system one that suitable to take the vote and capable of being operated in a safe, secure, and tractable fashion?"

To that I'd answer, the coalition statement is meant to fight for exactly that. I guarantee you, if states are allowed to use paperless OR "paper trail" touch-screen DRE's, the system will 100% certainly not be "capable of being operated in a safe, secure and tractable fashion".

If you chose the perfect, over the good (for the moment) your worst nightmares (and mine) will long continue.

As to your last graf:

With regard to your request that I would have contacted you prior to writing this, let me offer the following. On a couple of occasions you came on threads where I'd offered up the OP and you provide a correction of some sort. You didn't PM me with a heads up, you just made the correction. That's fine and so is my ability to operate as a citizen journalist and write what strikes me as pertinent and helpful.

A post on DU, which allows for comments and/or corrections from the public, is certainly different than an article published on a news website and emailed far and wide (without the simple mechanism for self-correction available here on DU) as your SCOOP article was.

If you're seriously regarding my posting a comment in reply to a post you've made here at DU (without asking you for comment about my comment first, even while YOUR point was already posted!), as the same thing then I'd have to question your seriousness in making such an assertion in the first place.

You are a good enough citizen journalist to damned well know the difference. But, of course, you may write whatever you find to be "pertinent and helpful". I'd argue that writing something accurate and true, however, would be both more pertinent and more helpful. Given the quick and easy access you have to ask me (or most others in the coalition) for comment, you'd certainly be doing both yourself and your readers a service in doing so. And frankly, I don't understand why you didn't, and why you'd even be defensive about it now. It would have been the right (and smart) thing to do. Plain and simple.

[autorank]

51. Our phone exchange.

Collins: Hi Brad. Read your position piece. Are you guys really serious about retaining optical scan voting machines?
Friedman: Yes, you can read can't you. Just kidding. We feel this is necessary due to....
Collins: OK, so I'm reading it correctly, you're in favor of leaving optical scans in place.
Friedman: As an itermim...etc.
Collins: Just checking, thought it might have been a misprint.

That's how the conversation would have gone. Optical scans...retained...formed my response.

This is a content based discussion. Process is of interest but particular to the individual.
The content of our voting system and the affiliation of right wing Republican vendors with
the very worst records possible are the issues.

[BradBlog]

54. You mean YOUR Fantasy "Phone Exchange"...The one that didn't exist and never happened...

Michael/Autorank continued to duck accountability with this phony, non-existant, imagined "phone exchange":

Collins: Hi Brad. Read your position piece. Are you guys really serious about retaining optical scan voting machines?
Friedman: Yes, you can read can't you. Just kidding. We feel this is necessary due to....
Collins: OK, so I'm reading it correctly, you're in favor of leaving optical scans in place.
Friedman: As an itermim...etc.
Collins: Just checking, thought it might have been a misprint.

That's how the conversation would have gone. Optical scans...retained...formed my response.

Wow. Now you're a clairvoyant as well! No need to ever get anybody's actual opinions or comments on anything, I guess, before writing your articles and stating the opinions of those who haven't even talked with.

Look, as journalists (citizen or otherwise) we have a responsibility to be fair (forget "balance" since that's bullshit). We also have the responsibility of admitting when we have not been. You were simply unfair in your opinion piece in that you presumed a position that doesn't actually exist.

You should either correct the original article to state that, or allow for the opportunity to post a response. I've sent my response to SCOOP (and you) but have received no reply as to whether it would be posted. As well, you emailed the article to likely hundreds of folks. Those people as well deserve to see a reply to an unfair (and, more importantly wrong) article.

This is a content based discussion.

No. Your comment is a fantasy-based discussion, based on your imagination of how such a phone call would have gone. There is nothing in *any* of my copious comments here that even remotely suggests a phone call would have gone the way you've now imagined it.

[autorank]

62. Hey brad, how about commenting on this...

From my article:

A lack of historical context and a claimed political neutrality (being nonpartisan) prevent recognizing the obvious: there are groups who use the faulty machines and many other techniques to commit election fraud. These groups exist to both keep the franchise limited and limit the impact of those enfranchised thorough those flawed voting systems subject to manipulation. If there were an equal distribution of election malfunctions, then there would be an argument for political neutrality. There is not and no one can make that claim. Every major election from 2000 on has seen major controversies – the controversy involved both keeping people from voting and countless voting anomalies which almost always seem to benefit the Republican Party.

[BradBlog]

76. Okay.,..

...Though not sure what comment you're actually looking for here. You contend, it seems, that more Dems are screwed by election problems overall than Republicans. I'd not disagree, as the bottom line is generally that anytime voters aren't allowed to vote (or their votes aren't counted correctly) it generally hurts Dems more than Repubs.

That, of course, doesn't take away from the idea that ANY voter (regardless of affiliation) gets screwed when you've got an unverifiable democracy. Nor does it take away from the fact that Santorum voters (for example) in Pennsylvania may have gotten screwed by DRE's which reportedly flipped votes from Dem to Repub. Or the voters for Republican Steve Smith during the Republican primary in Texas on March 6th, where 100,000 votes were added to totals on ES&S/Hart systems in Tarrant County. Or when he received in ZERO votes in Winkler County, which he had previously carried in '02 and '04 by %74 and %65 respectively.

I could, of course, give you many more such examples. While at the same time explaining that for any Election Reform legislation to be successful in Congress, it must receive the support of a fair measure of Repubs as well as Dems.

Your opinions, as I've stated many times in this thread, are more than welcome on any of the above or anything else. I only suggested from the beginning that those opinions might be worth a great deal more if they were better informed. And they could have been with a simple phone call or email to one or more of the folks involved in the coalition.

The opinion you express above is your opinion, and I take no particular exception to any of it, other than the lede: "A lack of historical context and a claimed political neutrality (being nonpartisan) prevent recognizing the obvious:"

With that, again, you make assumptions about members of the coalition for which there is actually no evidence. Members do claim (correctly and with evidence) "nonpartisanship". Beyond that, assumptions that any of us lack "historical context" and claim "political neutrality" (which is not the same as nonpartisanship, despite your unsupported logic leap) is again, without merit or evidence.

[bleever]

11. "Not one line of software between a citizen and his/her vote."

If the Op-scans still count in private, or tabulation is done on insecure GEMS tabulators or other easily manipulated machines, there's no verifiability.

Only with an audit procedure similar to the 55% that Venezuela uses should this even be on the table.

Superb post.

[truedelphi]

12. Reading all this,I keep thinking of my HERO for Nov 2006,

The guy who went in and bashed a the machine in the election booth in Ohio.

Why is he my hero?

Yeh, I realize - what he did wasn't legal, and gives us activists a black eye.

But until the "thought police" can enforce the "thought police" arrest maneuvers, I will continue to pretend that I am He as he bashes at the infernal thing.

Also, Mike Malloy has suggested several times that it just might come down
to us voting activists running out and buying sledge hammers and showing up at certain places.

Don't know if Malloy still "hammers" away at this point - but I get so frustrated with legislation and what not. (One step forward, two steps back)

I need to remind myself that this movement which until recently (even 12 months ago) was off in the shadows <underground> so to speak is now something mentioned by the media and it has attracted enough people that critical mass (the tipping point?) may soon bring about the PAPER BALLOT REVOLUTION that we are clamoring for.

What we have to do now, though, is GET THE LEGISLATORS! To make them believe tthat their middle name is PAPER BALLOTS.

[truedelphi]

13. Krishna Hare Krishna Nancy PAPER BALLOTS Pelosi

John PAPER BALLOTS Edwards

Hare Hare

Hillary PAPER BALLOTS Clinton

Hare Hare

John PAPER BALLOTS Kerry

Hare Hare

Howard PAPER BALLOTS Dean

Hare Hare

Ted PAPER BALLOTS Kennedy

Hare Hare

Al PAPER BALLOTS Gore

All Progressive PAPER BALLOTS Candidates

Hare Hare

All Democratic Party PAPER BALLOTS Committees

Hare Hare

[Independent_Liberal]

15. K&R!

I have two words Mike.

:yourock:

[puebloknot]

16. *No* voting machine can be trusted. Paper ballots are logical!

In New Mexico, when I registered to vote (a month before the election) I was told I'd have to trust that they had entered my registration information in their computerized system. I left with no receipt to show I had registered, but assurance that a registration would be coming through the mail.

What if it doesn't get to me in time, I asked? An annoyed clerk assured me I was "in the computer" and would just have to trust them.

The registration did get to me on time, but if it hadn't, and if there had been a glitch in the registration system, I would have been denied my vote.


I voted on an ES&S (?) system where I physically filled in bullets with a pencil on a scantron. I turned it over to the voting officials and I have *no* idea how my vote registered, no way to know if I could trust their system to count my votes properly.


In Canada, they vote with paper ballots, I'm told, and hand count them. It's quick and efficient!


I read about some "third world" country where voters drop a marble in one of two barrels, both of which are clearly marked with the candidate's name. The marbles are counted by hand, with supervision of all parties.


If I can go to the grocery store, have a computer greet me with the equivalent of "Have a nice day," scan my items as I watch them appear on the screen, tell me to bag my groceries, instruct me about how to pay, and issue a paper receipt, why can I not have the same level of assurance that my votes will be counted properly?

I have never had a failure with an ATM machine.

These kinds of transaction may be much simpler than the process of counting votes but, bottom line, *all* voting machines should be scrapped in favor of paper ballots alone, which can be hand-counted transparently, with inspectors from all sides involved. No more sleepovers, no more trusting computers because we know the will to manipulate elections exists, and we know that these companies are owned by Republicans.

Elementary, my dear voting officials in every state: Paper ballots, not just "verifiable" (if the Good Lord's willing and the creek don't rise) paper trails.

Our democracy depends on it!

[BradBlog]

17. A Reply to Michael Collins' Article...From a Member of the Coalition...

Michael -

As ever, thank you for all the great work you're doing in continuing to report on key issues related to Election Integrity in America.

Concerning your latest article in regard to the coalition formed to demand a paper BALLOT for every vote cast in America, you've made a number of points (and perhaps one error, at least in terminology) that I'd like to clear up.

Of course, as the organization I co-founded (VelvetRevolution.us) is one of the coalition members that you are critical of for this effort -- and as I was one of several folks instrumental in drafting the letter and launching the campaign -- please feel free to touch base with me any time in regard to such concerns before you run such an article as I may be able to help clear up some of your misapprehensions.

First to the mentioned "error". You refer throughout the article to Voter Verified Paper Ballots (VVPB) as having been required in several states, as well as being a part of Rep. Rush Holt's previous HR550 election reform bill. Holt has never called for Voter Verified Paper BALLOTS in either of the previous iterations of his legislation, but rather, he has called for Voter Verified Paper TRAILS (or Records). There is a notable difference, and confusing the terminology as I believe you have in your article, may lead to much confusion here.

A BALLOT is, by definition for the most part, already "voter verified". It is marked by the voter and counted by election officials. Where one exists. On the other hand, a so-called "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail" (or VVPAT, as they are frequently referred to), tends to refer to the reel-to-reel type paper strips that some touch-screen DRE systems use.

The dirty little secret is that those VVPATs are rarely, if ever, actually counted and are most decidely NOT ballots. Neither the voting machine companies, nor the Election Officials who use such faulty and dangerous equipment refer to the VVPAT as a ballot, because if they did, they likely realize they'd actually have to count them -- which they do not do, by and large, at this time.

As to your criticism that the coalition, in calling for a paper BALLOT for every vote cast is ignoring the dangers of optically scanned counted ballots, as well as other important issues in the our campaign which you describe as a "politically unsophisticated half measure", I'd argue that the campaign is anything but "politically unsophisticated".

We are aware of the many issues important to election reform, as well as the political realities currently being faced for any new election reform legislation.

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.
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.

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. 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.

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, 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.)

In other words, Election Reform certainly doesn't stop at the requirement for a paper BALLOT, though it most certainly starts there! That, despite your suggestion that the groups in the coalition have somehow failed to notice the other concerns you mention or don't care about them. That suggestion is simply without merit. I would have made that clear -- saving you the effort spent in posting a misapprehension -- had you contacted me before posting your comments.

I'm more than happy to discuss the relative merits and/or dangers of hand-counted paper BALLOTS with anyone (with or without open source software, precinct based tabulation, properly run audits, etc.). But I can assure you, without the requirement to actually have such BALLOTS to count in the first place, any such discussion will be quite moot.

As Congress moves foward with Election Reform and has, until this time, shown themselves to regard faulty, hackable, inaccurate, dangerous touch-screen DRE systems with so-called "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails", as the "solution" to our election ills (it most decidely is not) I'd suggest legislation that allows such VVPAT's and touch-screen DRE's for at least the next two years will be regarded as Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Part II, by the time 2008 rolls around.

We certainly don't need a repeat of HAVA. I fear we may get one no matter what we do, but at least we'll have a chance if we ensure a paper BALLOT for every vote cast.

Thus, I'd suggest -- as the coalition does in its letter/statement -- that with the many other concerns about our electoral system, including many of the civil rights issues you correctly point to, none for the moment is more important than ensuring we get that paper BALLOT. We must ensure that we do not forward for at least two more years, with a voting method which simply CANNOT be verified or certified as safe and simply doesn't work even as it succeeds in disenfranchising thousands or millions of Americans.

If we have a BALLOT, we can fight about how it should be counted. If we don't, we are simply screwed. Don't let Congress give the thumbs up to such un-verifiable technology as touch-screen DRE's. Please join us in encouraging every American citizen to sign the letter at http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots and send that letter to their Congress Members to demand a BALLOT NOW.

And again, thank you for your tireless efforts in continuing to move forward with such important work!

Brad Friedman
BradBlog.com, Creator/Managing Editor
VelvetRevolution.us, Co-Founder

P.S. Please feel free to circulate this reply in its entirety in the same manners in which you posted your original article if you'd be kind enough. It would be much appreciated!

[emlev]

18. Wish I could nominate this response.

[BeFree]

28. Thank you Brad

For all your hard work and effort.

We've come a long way, eh? But the road still stretches before us.

Paper ballots are a no-brainer and any one who knows anything is against paper ballots. Except for the machine heads.

Well, if we still have machines at the end of the road, we'll never be able to rest, and what I see is that the coalition is prepared to plant a machine at the end of the road.

And not just any machine, but a Diebold machine!!

Diebold has to go. ES&S too. In fact, every private company has to be removed from our road!

We have a shot to make our democracy whole again, and we should not squander this opportunity to make it whole. If we still have a machine at the end of the road, and it exists because of the coalition, then many fellow travelers will walk away from our effort and private companies will still control elections.

We must go for the gold! Grab the brass ring! Drive a stake through the heart of the vote stealing vendors!

I suggest there be no coddling of the criminals! Give them an inch and they'll steal votes again and again!

I know I'm not telling you anything new. You know all this Brad. And thanks again for all your participation, it has not been for naught.

Befree. Or suffer the consequences!

[BradBlog]

42. Thank YOU BeFree...

You wrote:

For all your hard work and effort.

We've come a long way, eh? But the road still stretches before us.

Paper ballots are a no-brainer and any one who knows anything is against paper ballots. Except for the machine heads.

...And the Congress Members who are about to pass legislation which won't require them! Hence the campaign.

Well, if we still have machines at the end of the road, we'll never be able to rest, and what I see is that the coalition is prepared to plant a machine at the end of the road.

Again, I don't speak for the entire coaltion, but I'm not sure you "see" anything. You may "fear" it. But you don't "see" it. Certainly not from the statement posted last week!

(Which is at http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots and needs to be signed by EVERYONE READING THIS and sent to every congress member! Thanks for reminding me ;-) )

Diebold has to go. ES&S too. In fact, every private company has to be removed from our road!

Sounds good to me. Get busy. I'll be right there with you!

We have a shot to make our democracy whole again, and we should not squander this opportunity to make it whole.

Where's that shot you're referring to? What I see is a new version of Holt's HR550 barreling us towards a new cliff unless it's modified. What shot are you looking at? I'll be happy to help pull the trigger!

If we still have a machine at the end of the road, and it exists because of the coalition, then many fellow travelers will walk away from our effort and private companies will still control elections.

You may see a shorter road than I do.

And if you believe I'm interested in "coddling criminals", as you later asserted, then I don't think you've been following me or my work very closely. :-)

[BeFree]

48. Here's the deal

The coalition is in favor of keeping privately owned machines counting votes. If they weren't it would be clearly stated. Since it is not clearly stated that private machine vendors are to be eliminated from counting public votes then one simply has to conclude that yall are in favor of the status quo.

Sorry, but I can not go along with that position. Yall need to go back to the drawing board and redraw the position before consensus can be established. Or maybe yall elite election protectionists don't care what I and others think? That yall will just cram this down America's throat - to hell with what is the ultimately correct position is?

[BradBlog]

53. No. HERE's the deal...

BeFree charged:

The coalition is in favor of keeping privately owned machines counting votes. If they weren't it would be clearly stated. Since it is not clearly stated that private machine vendors are to be eliminated from counting public votes then one simply has to conclude that yall are in favor of the status quo.

That's simply nonsense, and unsupported by the letter. That may be your "fear", and it may be a reality for some in the coalition (I don't speak for them and haven't polled them on that question), but there is nothing in the statement to bear out your assumption expressed above.

At least not anymore than I could assume from your note that you're in favor of counted votes by a show of hands, since you don't specify otherwise in your post.

Sorry, but I can not go along with that position. Yall need to go back to the drawing board and redraw the position before consensus can be established. Or maybe yall elite election protectionists don't care what I and others think? That yall will just cram this down America's throat - to hell with what is the ultimately correct position is?

We "elite election protectionists" have neither the interest, nor the power or ability to "cram" anything "down America's throat".

You are welcome to any position you like, and you might find that many of us support your positions and would likely be more inclined to work together with you if you didn't make unsupported claims and attacks on non-existant, strawman issues.

I hope you take it in the spirit in which its intended, when I compare such a tactic to one used frequently by the Rightwing. See any of Hannity's claims, for example, that Democrats are in favor of "cutting and running" since they haven't gone on record to say that troops should stay in Iraq until "victory" is achieved.

There are far worse "villains" to fight than those of us who are likely on your side on 99% of the Election Integrity issues.

[BeFree]

57. Thanks

For the lesson.

Look, I am against having the machines anywhere near counting my vote. The letter the coalition has presented, were I to sign on, would be like me telling folks the machines have a place in counting my vote.

That's all I am saying.

I will not sign on, or condone the letter.

[BradBlog]

77. You're welcome

...Whether or not you sign and send the letter, is, of course, up to you. And your decision to do so or not is respected either way.

You might, however, take EmLev's advice later in this thread to send the letter (since I suspect you are also in favor of Paper Ballots) and amend it to add your additional concerns.

Want a Paper BALLOT for every vote cast in America? If so, you'd do well to let your representatives in Congress know that right NOW!

http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots

...Nothing in the letter/statement keeps you from fighting for additional reform, and the online mechanism for sending it to your Congress Members, allows you to include additional statements as you see fit.

[autorank]

36. Brad, with all due respect....

...thanks for the time you’ve taken with this article. I’m a admirer of yours. You were the first person I recall who said “Be the Media,” words that accompanied me as I’ve explored and written about election fraud and voting rights issues. I have made what I think are a number of key points previously on this thread here and that I won’t repeat.

Let me begin by addressing a statement you made at the end of your piece.

You say, "Election Reform certainly doesn't stop at the requirement for a paper BALLOT, though it most certainly starts there!"

That’s not correct. It posits elections as an impersonal process rather than a highly social and political event involving people. Election reform has been a struggle since day one in our country. The struggle has taken many forms but for the most part it is a struggle over expanding or contracting the franchise. Those who want to expand it, argue for inclusive eligibility criteria for maximum participation by citizens. Opponents seek various methods to exclude voters. The famous Mississippi Constitution that followed the end of Reconstruction an exemplar of this process. A variety laws were devised to drive former slaves out of the political process. We live with direct legacy of that in the form of felon disenfranchisement; the same process of excluding former felons that was used by Florida officials in 2000 who somehow took 50,000 eligible black Floridians off the voting roles, Floridians who had no criminal record, whatsoever. It cost Gore the election.

Expanding the franchise subsumes all other issues – where they vote, how they vote, ballot media, how the votes are counted, etc. Logistic issues exist and have meaning only because we have citizens able to register and access the voting system. Election reform starts with a commitment to include all qualified voters in the process.

The felon Florida felon purge of 2000 and attempt purge in 2004 are classic pre voting concerns that are foundational – you can’t vote if you are not registered.

Definitions

With regard to how I used the term, “Voter Verified Paper Ballot”, here’s a direct quotation from David Dill, Verified Voting Foundation:

David Dill, July 20th, 2004
Fact: A voter verifiable paper trail (VVPT, otherwise known as a "voter-verified paper ballot," or VVPB) is nothing more or less than a permanent paper record of the vote that the voter can check for accuracy (by some trustworthy method, such as visual inspection) before the vote is cast. The record must be deposited in a secure ballot box for use in a manual recount or audit.

My use of the term had nothing to do with touch screens (DRE’s) nor did I conflate an internal process on those machines with VVPB’s as defined by Dill and commonly used around the country.
Utility-Futility of time spent on VVPB

My main point on VVPBs concerned the return on investment for the time spent advocating for this legislation. With a better understanding now or in the not too distant past, this organization and yours could mount a full scale offensive for what we need, in part, hand counted paper ballots. With a little extra effort at education, the movement could be expanded to a member of the larger voting rights movement by supporting Holt’s other two bills on voter intimidation and voter IDs. See The two other Holt bills. More than Bits and Bytes

In addition, HR 6200, Kucinich’s Paper for President bill mandating hand counted paper ballots in 2008 is worthy of support.. This is a golden opportunity, in my opinion, to force everybody’s hands. We’ve had two lousy elections with questionable outcomes (thefts I believe). Let’s fix things top down and make sure we can verify who our next president is. HR 6200 is a part of the answer.

Why not support that vigorously?

Optical Scans

Here is the crux of my disagreement with the open letter. In fact, were this out, I’d be doing Hill duty for your or anyone who needed help in DC.

Optical scan voting machines are computerized. We were all impressed with Haari Hursti’s hacks in Florida and his explanation. Others came forward and offered more information on Optical scan security weaknesses. We saw examples of human handling of equipment in Chicago that bothered us. There were voting irregularities with optical scan readers in 2004 and 2000 of grave concern.

The companies that dominate optical scan device sales are DIEBOLD, ESS and SEQUOIA. If the continuation of rock robbed Republican firms running our elections comforting? Do we want more Wally O’Dell’s? Who runs Diebold Corporation right now? Has ESS rejected its hard rightwing lineage? Who the heck own Sequoia? If anyone says Chavez, please! Do you think the * administration would tolerate that here for one single second?

You say, “We are aware of the many issues important to election reform, as well as the political realities currently being faced for any new election reform legislation.”

The political realities are on the street, in the suburbs, in small towns and on farms across America. People have had it with the government and inaction. They don’t care who it is, they just want politicians to start telling the truth and getting things done. They want action. That’s what the election was about. I believe Jonathan Simon and Bruce O’Dell this was a victory of epic proportions pilfered right before our eyes.

Rev Jackson educates the crowd before announcing he helped achieve a special goal. On January 6, 2005 there were no factions in the voting rights movement. People came from Ohio and around the country to make a statement…and what we thought would be impossible was achieved – Boxer challenged the Ohio Electors. -- “Patriots Day”

How sophisticated is it to ignore these manifest realities? And no matter how sophisticated the Coalition is, you’re going up against world class professionals. They’ll make you feel just great until they add that special word or phrase that negates everything you thought you’d get. I’ve been there, I’ve seen it happen again and again.

When the best you can hope for is an entirely inadequate solution, optical scans with right wing vendors and operators, what do you define as the worst outcome?

Settling for less and losing versus Fighting for a popular cause and wining

We have the best case we’ll ever have to get a clean sweep of Republican dominated vendors and computerized voting machines, all of which are subject to manipulation. There is huge public support for open elections and against computerized voting. The Zogby Poll of August 2006 makes that crystal clear. Maybe the concentration should be on political awareness:

“Congressman, have you seen this. 92% of the people want to observe vote counting, 80% want open access to voting machines, and 60% realize that just one person can steal an entire election. This is remarkable and it’s a Zogby Poll. And you know something, the people are right. It’s time to dump the whole, lousy system.”

That’s a lot more appealing than a compromise that preserves vendors who provide inferior equipment, lackluster service, and produce questionable outcomes again and again, outcomes that screw the Democrats every single time.

You say “But I believe nobody in the coalition is unaware of the dangers presented by the unchecked, secret software used in optical scanners to count those ballots.” What makes you think that substantial change will occur as long as the machines are in place, machines of any type? You start from where you are assuming you’ll end up with less. How about optical scans with no supporting legislation or legislation “that’s about to pass, just look at all those co-sponsors.”

I’m speaking to the Coalition now. We can win now. As activists, we can catch up with the public. They’re far ahead of the position the Coalition has taken. Just ask a few folks:

You have two choices:

1) Keep some computerized voting, secret vote counting and meaningless election audits, far less than Venezuelan citizens have, for example.

2) Return to hand counted paper ballots – with vote counting open to the public and ballots available for public inspection for all citizens in perpetuity; with guarantees that it’s easy to register and vote; and with assurance that there will be no discrimination against anybody period.

That is a no brainer. The public is already at #2 and you know it. Don’t give in to the political forces whose agenda is nothing like ours. Until Jennings, how many candidates have challenged an election outcome? How many other Democrats in questionable elections fought? According to the Election Defense Alliance, a member of your coalition, there was significant fraud. Will Buchanan be seated? Maybe, maybe not. The political backbone is found in the people, not the politicians. They serve us, not the other way around.

[BradBlog]

43. And with even more due respect in return...I hope you read this one...

I believe I've now addressed most of what I'd say in reply to this post in previous comments on this thread. I don't disagree with your main concerns and I urge you to continue fighting for them. I'll be right there with you.

But I can't help using one of your own "weapons" against you for the moment :-) You write:

HR 6200, Kucinich’s Paper for President bill mandating hand counted paper ballots in 2008 is worthy of support.. This is a golden opportunity, in my opinion, to force everybody’s hands. We’ve had two lousy elections with questionable outcomes (thefts I believe). Let’s fix things top down and make sure we can verify who our next president is. HR 6200 is a part of the answer.

Why not support that vigorously?

Clearly, your support of Kucinich's bill calling for hand counted ballots in Presidential races means that you, and all other supporters are allowing the criminals of Diebold and ES&S and Sequoia et al to run every other element of electoral system.

You've failed to think about civil rights issues, and your in favor of paperless DRE's counting every other election in America! How could you possibly feel that way?! It's disgraceful, and clearly shows you don't care about the votes of most Americans!

(You'll note that's a satirical reply, but I better note it here for the irony-impaired. And just so you don't worry about it, I won't run such an article at BRAD BLOG calling you and the other HR6200 supporters out for your hatred of democracy...at least not without touching base with you first to let me know if perhaps my thinking is offbase.)

[autorank]

45. Freud said embedded in every joke is a grievance....

So prove me wrong. Form vibrant alliances with civil rights and voting rights groups. Expand the BradBlog into the beacon of real progressive politics, and then send me to my room, which I'll be hitting shortly although no thanks to you;)

You want to know the truth, or I should say, "YOU CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH!!!" but I'll tell it to you anyway (you already know it, btw).

The whole legislative process right now is totally impaired and has been so for some time, like maybe decades. Nothing new, nothing new,nothing new. It's embarrassing to live in such a great country with such an unoriginal government on key issues. They lack skill at "the vision thing."

Why should you work your ass off and then have to go to these people with a compromise (:sarcasm: unless you really do hate democracy;). They should be coming to you, "How do we get out of this mess? This really sucks." And then they should hire you to help them win campaigns, serve the people and
secure their ability to get elected if they really do win. You could write lines like the classic "There are no compromises when it comes to voting rights! Don't ask and I won't tell" But the best line is "Pay Friedmans consulting bill right away!"

I wrote an article, I'm one guy. I have an opinion...and, of course, I'm right;), well maybe. It's late. Cheers.

[BradBlog]

52. In every posted comment, there is a lack of recognition of the original issue...

...That issue being, your original article was misleading and arguably inaccurate. I hope you will follow it up with another and/or ask that SCOOP publish the reply in full which I sent to them and to you and posted originally in reply in this thread.

To reply to this specific comment above:

So prove me wrong. Form vibrant alliances with civil rights and voting rights groups. Expand the BradBlog into the beacon of real progressive politics, and then send me to my room, which I'll be hitting shortly although no thanks to you ;)

I have no interest in either sending you to your room nor "proving" anything to you. I believe my work speaks for itself. Including alliances I've helped to build with civil rights groups (Rainbow/PUSH comes to mind, but there are others) and civil rights leaders. All of which, I'd love to see improved, since I too am troubled about the too-frequent segregation between folks in the voting rights/election integrity movement.

That, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that you were still horribly off-base in your initial article :-)

Why should you work your ass off and then have to go to these people with a compromise

A) I don't consider the campaign as launched to demand a paper BALLOT for every vote cast (at http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots -- thanks) to be a "compromise" of any sort. As I've mentioned previously. B) Life's not fair. All we can do is do the best we can in any fight/challenge we might take on. C) There are no silver bullets. And none of us gets to go to our rooms. Thanks!

[autorank]

64. Original issue #1: Open letter, "a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand"

You call for this.

You include "optical scan."

[autorank]

65. Optical scan problems, from the article.

Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains

Monday, 18 December 2006, 10:01 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins

This open letter is encouraging on a number of levels but it leaves the door open for election fraud by allowing optical scan voting machines to stay in place. Referring to “a paper ballot, whether counted by optical-scan system or hand…” does not address the numerous problems associated with optical scan systems. In a case of collective amnesia, the organizations have erased any problems associated with optical scan voting machines or the vendors that sell and service them.

There's more on optical scan problems, but this is what I wrote.

They'll continue in use. They should be gone.

[BradBlog]

79. RESPONSE...

Michael wrote:

There's more on optical scan problems, but this is what I wrote.

They'll continue in use. They should be gone.

I don't disagree with you. Please do all you can to make them be gone if you think they should be.

In your original article, however, as partially quoted above, you wrote this:

In a case of collective amnesia, the organizations have erased any problems associated with optical scan voting machines or the vendors that sell and service them.

That is just patently incorrect and without merit. Had you done the journalistically correct thing, and talked with any of the members of the coalition before posting your article, you'd have quickly discovered that.

I continue to suggest you simply admit your error there, instead of continuing to dig the hole deeper for yourself. Take a page from the advice I'm guessing you've given to other journalists and/or politicians when they've done the same thing: Admit your mistake, and move on. It's silly that you continue to make this worse and worse. Needlessly.

[autorank]

91. Opticla scans -

Take a look here anyone who wonders about the reliability of optical scans.

Compendium of Optical Scan Problems in 2006 (Its huge but plain test, worth reviewing)
www.flcv.com/eirsppp6.html


Compendium of Optical Scan Problems in 2004 (Its huge but plain test, worth reviewing)
www.flcv.com/summary.html

[autorank]

66. Republican controlled optical scan vendors continue.

Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains

Monday, 18 December 2006, 10:01 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins

Preserving optical scan machines has the practical impact of guaranteeing the survival of the Republican-friendly voting machine vendors, all of whom sell optical scan readers. Are these last in class technology companies with heavy Republican ties (in the case of Diebold or ESS) going to suddenly reform their ways and become model corporate citizens eschewing any political activity? Will they confess their sins of the past and repent, and promise to count votes fairly? Perhaps, they will apologize for eight years of the Bush administration, while they’re at it. The obvious answer leads to the obvious shortfall of this open letter. It continues computerized voting and preserves the business viability of questionable vendors able to engage in future questionable activity.

I think these are pretty good questoins which make a point. Meet the same boss...
Diebold and ESS continue to play an important role elections all over the country.

[BradBlog]

80. RESPONSE...

Michael wrote originally, and quoted again:

Preserving optical scan machines has the practical impact of guaranteeing the survival of the Republican-friendly voting machine vendors, all of whom sell optical scan readers. Are these last in class technology companies with heavy Republican ties (in the case of Diebold or ESS) going to suddenly reform their ways and become model corporate citizens eschewing any political activity? Will they confess their sins of the past and repent, and promise to count votes fairly? Perhaps, they will apologize for eight years of the Bush administration, while they’re at it. The obvious answer leads to the obvious shortfall of this open letter. It continues computerized voting and preserves the business viability of questionable vendors able to engage in future questionable activity.

Your faulty logic suggests that the letter, because it doesn't speak to the issue at all, "continues computerized voting and preserves the business viability of questionable vendors able to engage in future questionable activity."

With that logic, you might as well have pointed out how our letter "continues the dangerously unacceptable acceleration of Global Warming which will eventually lead to the extinction of humanity."

The letter spoke to neither issue, and your continue to dig yourself into an unnecessary hole.

Again, I urge you to simply admit your error and move on. But if you wish to keep digging, that's up to you.

[autorank]

93. Diebold & ESS Republican and Right Wing Ties (not for the weak at heart)

These are the people, Diebold and ES&S, that the open letter would perpetuate by keeping optical scan balloting in play. They're the incumbent vendors. ESS had 56% of the precincts, they claim, and Diebold is no slouch. Diebold nailed us, Democrats, in Ohio, Florida, and Georgia to be brief. ESS is responsible for the Florida 13 Congressional District race. That had touch screens but it will be the same company handling the optical scans. Oh, those convenient machine malfunctions that they turn around and blame on poll workers or voters.

I DON'T TRUST MY VOTE TO RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN VENDORS.

THOSE VENDORS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AIDED BY CONTINUING OPTICAL SCAN VOTING.

DIEBOLD POLITICS AND RIGHT WING TIES

Diebold's Political Machine

Commentary: Political insiders suggest Ohio could become as decisive this year as Florida was four years ago. Which is why the state's plan to use paperless touch-screen voting machines has so many up in arms.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

March 5, 2004

Soccer moms and NASCAR dads come and go, but swing states are always in fashion. And this year, Ohio is emerging as the most fashionable of the bunch. Asked recently about the importance of Ohio in this year's presidential campaign, one veteran of Buckeye State politics told Salon, "Ohio is the Florida of 2004."

That label sounds ominously accurate to the many who are skeptical of computerized voting. In addition to being as decisive as the 2000 polling in Florida, they worry this year's vote in Ohio could be just as flawed. Specifically, they worry that it could be rigged. And they wonder why state officials seem so unconcerned by the fact that the two companies in line to sell touch-screen voting machines to Ohio have deep and continuing ties to the Republican Party. Those companies, Ohio's own Diebold Election Systems and Election Systems & Software of Nebraska, are lobbying fiercely ahead of a public hearing on the matter in Columbus next week.

There's solid reason behind the political rhetoric tapping Ohio as a key battleground. No Republican has ever captured the White House without carrying Ohio, and only John Kennedy managed the feat for the Democrats. In 2000, George W. Bush won in the Buckeye State by a scant four percentage points. Four years earlier, Bill Clinton won in Ohio by a similar margin.

In recent years, central Ohio has been transformed from a bastion of Republicanism into a Democratic stronghold. Six of Columbus' seven city council members are Democrats, as is the city's mayor, Michael Coleman. But no Democrat has been elected to Congress from central Ohio in more than 20 years, and the area around Columbus still includes pockets where no Democrat stands a chance. One such Republican pocket is Upper Arlington, the Columbus suburb that is home to Walden "Wally" O'Dell, the chairman of the board and chief executive of Diebold. For years, O'Dell has given generously to Republican candidates. Last September, he held a packed $1,000-per-head GOP fundraiser at his 10,800-square-foot mansion. He has been feted as a guest at President Bush's Texas ranch, joining a cadre of "Pioneers and Rangers" who have pledged to raise more than $100,000 for the Bush reelection campaign. Most memorably, O'Dell last fall penned a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."

O'Dell has defended his actions, telling the Cleveland Plain Dealer "I'm not doing anything wrong or complicated." But he also promised to lower his political profile and "try to be more sensitive." But the Diebold boss' partisan cards are squarely on the table. And, when it comes to the Diebold board room, O'Dell is hardly alone in his generous support of the GOP. One of the longest-serving Diebold directors is W.R. "Tim" Timken. Like O'Dell, Timken is a Republican loyalist and a major contributor to GOP candidates. Since 1991 the Timken Company and members of the Timken family have contributed more than a million dollars to the Republican Party and to GOP presidential candidates such as George W. Bush. Between 2000 and 2002 alone, Timken's Canton-based bearing and steel company gave more than $350,000 to Republican causes, while Timken himself gave more than $120,000. This year, he is one of George W. Bush's campaign Pioneers, and has already pulled in more than $350,000 for the president's reelection bid.

Will The Next Election Be Hacked?
Fresh disasters at the polls -- and new evidence from an industry insider -- prove that electronic voting machines can't be trusted
http://tinyurl.com/g5gyh
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
Chris Hood remembers the day in July 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia. An African-American whose parents fought for voting rights in the South during the 1960s, Hood was proud to be working as a consultant for Diebold Election Systems, helping the company promote its new electronic voting machines. During the presidential election two years earlier, more than 94,000 paper ballots had gone uncounted in Georgia - almost double the national average - and Secretary of State Cathy Cox was under pressure to make sure every vote was recorded properly.

Snip

"The Diebold executives had a news conference planned on the day of the award," Hood recalls, "and we were instructed to stay in our hotel rooms until just hours before the announcement. They didn't want the competitors to know and possibly file a protest" about the lack of a fair bidding process. It certainly didn't hurt that Diebold had political clout: Cox's predecessor as secretary of state, Lewis Massey, was now a lobbyist for the company.

The problem was, Diebold had only five months to install the new machines - a "very narrow window of time to do such a big deployment," Hood notes. The old systems stored in warehouses had to be replaced with new equipment; dozens of state officials and poll workers had to be trained in how to use the touch-screen machines. "It was pretty much an impossible task," Hood recalls. There was only one way, he adds, that the job could be done in time - if "the vendor had control over the entire environment." That is precisely what happened. In late July, to speed deployment of the new machines, Cox quietly signed an agreement with Diebold that effectively privatized Georgia's entire electoral system. The company was authorized to put together ballots, program machines and train poll workers across the state - all without any official supervision. "We ran the election," says Hood. "We had 356 people that Diebold brought into the state. Diebold opened and closed the polls and tabulated the votes. Diebold convinced Cox that it would be best if the company ran everything due to the time constraints, and in the interest of a trouble-free election, she let us do it."

Then, one day in July, Hood was surprised to see the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, arrive in Georgia from his headquarters in Texas. With the primaries looming, Urosevich was personally distributing a "patch," a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program. "We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do," Hood says. "The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done."
Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself. "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level."

ES&S POLITICS - RIGHT WING TIES

ES&S Company Overview
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/about/about.html

Headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, the company has a customer base of over 1,700 jurisdictions in 46 states, Canada, and several international locations. Based on the primary voting tabulation system installed within the United States, our customers represent approximately 50 percent of the precincts and registered voters in the U.S. ES&S systems have counted approximately 56 percent of the U.S. national vote in each of the last four presidential and congressional elections, amounting to more than 100 million ballots cast in each election. In the election business for over three decades, ES&S today has over 400 employees located in eight regional U.S. offices and agents on five continents.
wo voting companies & two brothers will count 80 percent of U.S. election using both scanners & touchscreens

By Lynn Landes
Online Journal Contributing Writer
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/042804Landes/042804landes.html
So, for those states and counties who think they're dodging the bullet by not buying (or not using) the highly insecure and error-prone touchscreen voting machines (which will process 28.9 percent of all votes this year), a huge threat still remains—computerized ballot scanners. They will count 57.6 percent of all votes cast, including absentee ballots.
And don't count on recounts to save the day. In most states, recounts of paper ballots only occur if election results are close. The message to those who want to rig elections is, "rig them by a lot." In some states, like California, spot checks are conducted. But, that will not be an effective way to discover or deter vote fraud or technical failure, particularly in a national election where one vote per machine will probably be enough to swing a race.
Although touchscreens have been getting the bulk of negative publicity lately, electronic ballot scanners have a long and sordid past, as well. Electronic scanners were first introduced into U.S. elections in 1964, and ever since then a steady stream of reports of technical irregularities have caught the attention of scientists, journalists, and activists, most notably the 1988 report, Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying, by Roy G. Saltman, and the 1992 book, Votescam: The Stealing of America, by Jim and Ken Collier.
Even though there are several foreign and domestic corporations involved in the U.S. vote counting business, ES&S and Diebold clearly dominate the field. ES&S claims that they have tabulated "56 percent of the U.S. national vote for the past four presidential elections", while a Diebold spokesperson told this writer that the company processed about 35 percent of U.S. electronic vote count in 2002.

History: In 1999, American Information Systems (AIS), purchased Business Records Corp (BRC) to become ES&S
http://ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm
* American Information Systems (AIS):
o AIS (1980) was formerly Data Mark (1979), both founded by brothers Bob and Todd Urosevich. Bob is currently president of Diebold (see below). Todd Urosevich is Vice President, Aftermarket Sales of ES&S.
o AIS was primarily funded with money from Ahmanson brothers, William and Robert, of H.F. Ahmanson Co., holding company for the nation's largest savings and loan association and a group of Omaha-based insurance companies, at the time. http://www.essvote.com/index.php?section=exec&rightnav=about&f_exec_id=4
o Howard Ahmanson belongs to Council for National Policy (hard right wing organization) http://www.ifas.org/cnp/name98.html. Howard Ahmanson also helps finance The Chalcedon Institute: "Established in 1965, Chalcedon (kal-SEE-dun) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) and Christian educational organization devoted to research, publishing, and promoting Christian reconstruction in all areas of life... Our emphasis on the Cultural or Dominion Mandate (Genesis 1:28) and the necessity of a return to Biblical Law has been a a crucial factor in the challenge to Humanism by Christians in this country and elsewhere... A world that is increasingly pessimistic and disillusioned with the failure of secular Humanism is now feeling the impact of Christians who are exercising dominion and reclaiming lost spheres of authority for Christ the King." http://www.chalcedon.edu/ / critical profile: the organization's purpose is to establish Old Testament Biblical law as the standard for society. Chalcedon promotes Christian Reconstructionism -- which mandates Christ's dominion over all the world. http://www.ifas.org/fw/9501/chalcedon.html

o Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was Chairman of the Board of AIS (resigned 1995) and was also president of McCarthy & Company (resigned 1996). Michael R. McCarthy is Hagel's current campaign treasurer. source: http://www.csd.cq.com/senate_mem/s0531.html / Hagel may still be an investor in the McCarthy Group, see http://www.talion.com/Hagel.html

[BradBlog]

97. Apparently, neither are corrections and apologies from citizen journalists...

"I DON'T TRUST MY VOTE TO RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN VENDORS."

Neither do I. It's a shame you've seemingly implied that I, and the folks in the rest of the coalition do. Instead of just correcting the record and moving on.

Is it that hard?

[BradBlog]

78. RESPONSE...

That's right. There should be a paper BALLOT for every vote cast, whether or not it's counted by optical-scan or by hand. Do you disagree?

[BeFree]

88. No whether or nots!

There should be a paper BALLOT for every vote cast, whether or not it's counted by optical-scan or by hand. Do you disagree?

That's the nub. There should be a paper ballot. Indeed. But it should not be counted by a diebold, es&s, et al machine. No ifs, ands, or buts. No whether or nots, either.

That's the key. We must do all we can to get rid of diebold et al. Do you disagree?

[BradBlog]

92. If you wish to duck the question, that's up to you...

BeFree asked:

We must do all we can to get rid of diebold et al. Do you disagree?

Nope. Don't disagree in the least.

As to my question, which you didn't answer, I'll repeat it again:

There should be a paper BALLOT for every vote cast, whether or not it's counted by optical-scan or by hand. Do you disagree?

[autorank]

67. Original issue #2: The end of voter verified paper ballots for touch screens.

Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains

Monday, 18 December 2006, 10:01 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins

R.I.P Voter Verified Paper Ballots (VVPB) - a time consuming failure.

This letter represents a major shift in positions and is a clear abandonment of verified voter paper ballots for touch screens. These ephemeral receipts were to solve the problems created by touch screen voting devices. Simple logic and experience took the signatories from this illusion to reality – paper receipts can tell a voter she/he cast a ballot for Kerry and then produce a vote in the machine for Bush. Imagine that - those pesky computers. They must have a mind of their own.

You responded that I didn't know the definition of the germ verified paper ballots. I provided with Dill's definition and that cleared things up. Nevertheless, this was one of the original issues in my article. A lot of time was spent on this solution. When we had questionable elections in 2006, what result did all that effort come to? Any elections audited with these VVPB's or changed because of them? Nope. I argue nothing much will change as a result of the open letter. We'll still have optical scans and Republican vendors. We'll still have laws in 50 states that restrict access to the optical scan machines and the optical scan ballots?

The open letter represents progress, toward what? You don't get helf way to inclusive, free, fair and transparent elections. You either have them in the vast majority of precincts or you don't. With optical scans, you don't because it's computerized voting brought to you by Republican vendors.

[BradBlog]

81. RESPONSE...

Michael/Autorank insists on continuing to dig with this...

You responded that I didn't know the definition of the germ verified paper ballots.

No. I responded with this (accuracy, again, seemingly falling by the wayside in your comments, emphais added below):

You refer throughout the article to Voter Verified Paper Ballots (VVPB) as having been required in several states, as well as being a part of Rep. Rush Holt's previous HR550 election reform bill. Holt has never called for Voter Verified Paper BALLOTS in either of the previous iterations of his legislation, but rather, he has called for Voter Verified Paper TRAILS (or Records). There is a notable difference, and confusing the terminology as I believe you have in your article, may lead to much confusion here.

So I didn't say you "didn't know the definition of", I simply said the use of VVPB in your article "may lead to much confusion here". I was trying to help encourage you to do otherwise.

You then respond above by essentially saying that what you meant by VVPB's was in essence what the coalition, as well as the previous Holt bills refer to as "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails" (VVPAT) as opposed to "Voter Verified Paper Ballots" (VVPB's) saying:

I provided with Dill's definition and that cleared things up. Nevertheless, this was one of the original issues in my article. A lot of time was spent on this solution. When we had questionable elections in 2006, what result did all that effort come to? Any elections audited with these VVPB's or changed because of them? Nope. I argue nothing much will change as a result of the open letter. We'll still have optical scans and Republican vendors. We'll still have laws in 50 states that restrict access to the optical scan machines and the optical scan ballots?

Dill's own personal definition, neither withstanding, nor germane to either the discussion or the bills in question for the moment, let's presume you're speaking about VVPAT's in the above, since I believe you are.

I, and everyone else in the coalition, as witnessed by our statement in the letter, do not believe VVPAT's (or VVPB's as you and Dill seem to call them) do any good at all. That's why we're calling for an end to them.

You're welcome, of course, to argue that "nothing much will change as a result of the open letter" as that's your opinion and it may or may not be true (I vote for "may not", but that's just me). Our letter does not call for "optical scans and Republican vendors" anymore than your previously stated support for Kucinich's HR6200 "Hand Counted Paper Ballots for Presidential Elections" bill means that you are in favor of computer voting for every race other than the Presidential.

You just keep digging, when you should simply be recognizing your mistake and moving on. Have I mentioned that? ;-)

This is silly. But I'll keep responding as long as you keep digging.

[autorank]

94. Dills Definition is entirely germaine. I DO NOT say HR 550 has VVPB

This is really inside base ball at this point.

pb]1. I did not talk about Holt and Voter Verified Paper Ballots. Here is what I said about Holt. There is nothing on verified paper ballots.

Implications for Federal legislation, e.g., Holt’s H.R. 550

As recently as this year, election integrity organizations form across the country met in Washington, DC for Lobby Days sponsored by VoteTrustUSA.org. The main purpose of this event was to support House Resolution 550 sponsored by US Representative Rush Holt, D, NJ. That legislation alters the 2002 Help America Vote Act by, among other things, defining audit requirements for voting machines in the case of tight elections.

Will the organizations continue to support Holt's H.R. 550? The bill presupposes the existence of the very voting systems the organizations oppose, touch screens. Fixing touch screen voting devices (DRE’s) is not an option. They may not use this author’s terminology for Holt, Lipstick on a Pig, but they should certainly show an aversion to any more wasted time on this type of solution.


I refer to Holt in terms of audit issues. The implication here is that absent DRE's in the mix, Holt really becomes irrelevant since the coalition is clearly in favor of dumping touch screens.

Even if I had talked about VVPB and Holt, I would have been OK. Here's part of the bill. The Voter Verified Paper Record is the same thing I refer to when I discuss Voter Verified Paper Ballots as Dill Describes them (see below).

SEC. 2. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH VOTER-VERIFIED PERMANENT RECORD OR HARD COPY.

(a) Voter Verification and Audit Capacity-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

`(2) VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(A) IN GENERAL-

`(i) The voting system shall produce or require the use of an individual voter-verified paper record of the voter's vote that shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter's vote is cast. For purposes of this clause, examples of such a record include a paper ballot prepared by the voter for the purpose of being read by an optical scanner, a paper ballot prepared by the voter to be mailed to an election official (whether from a domestic or overseas location), a paper ballot created through the use of a ballot marking device, or a paper print-out of the voter's vote produced by a touch screen or other electronic voting machine, so long as in each case the record permits the voter to verify the record in accordance with this subparagraph.

`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system in the voter-verified paper record before the permanent voter-verified paper record is preserved in accordance with subparagraph (B)(i).

`(iii) The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verifiable paper records in any manner that makes it possible to associate a voter with the record of the voter's vote.

`(iv) In the case of a voting system which is purchased to meet the disability access requirements of paragraph (3) and which will be used exclusively by individuals with disabilities, the system does not need to meet the requirements of clauses (i) through (iii), but shall meet the requirements described in paragraph (3)(B)(ii).

2. Voter Verified Paper Ballots were discussed in terms of VerifiedVoting.org. They've got a national network of state chapters. They use the term as I used it, really repeated their use. The map was form VerifiedVoting.org, the claims of states having required VVPB and audits, VVPB only, etc. is noted and referenced as being from their web site. I was point out what they said is in place, and I have no reason to doubt them, and asking what difference all that made in 2006. The point is that when you get laws passed, they don't always do what you think they're supposed to do when they're supposed to do it.

[BradBlog]

98. Let me help: "I made an error in judgement..."

..."I should have spoken with someone in the coalition, before ascribing a position to them that is neither stated in their position paper/letter, nor apparently their position at all. SCOOP and Michael Collins regret the error."


P.S. Since a healthy debate on these matters is needed (and finally occurring to a certain extent) my point about the VVPB language, was that it confuses the issue. Holt's previous bill called for "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trails" (VVPAT) or "paper records", whereas the coalition letter calls for paper BALLOTS. Tossing a different term into the mix, "Voter Verified Paper Ballots" in reference to what the coalition's letter (and Holt's bill) called VVPAT, simply serves to confuse the discussion, as I said in my original response to your original article. It's confusing enough as is. I'm suggesting we try and keep things understandable and clear where possible.

[autorank]

68. Original Issue #3: Political neutrality when election fraud is clearly partisan

Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains

Monday, 18 December 2006, 10:01 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins

A lack of historical context and a claimed political neutrality (being nonpartisan) prevent recognizing the obvious: there are groups who use the faulty machines and many other techniques to commit election fraud. These groups exist to both keep the franchise limited and limit the impact of those enfranchised thorough those flawed voting systems subject to manipulation. If there were an equal distribution of election malfunctions, then there would be an argument for political neutrality. There is not and no one can make that claim. Every major election from 2000 on has seen major controversies – the controversy involved both keeping people from voting and countless voting anomalies which almost always seem to benefit the Republican Party.

Name it and claim it...the reason we care about machines and ballots is largely because we question the conduct of elections. Why? Because there are such "technical problems" or because it 2000 was stolen, 2004 sure looks like it and there are a whole host of elections that look pretty fishy. Who were the winners in those elections...Republicans.

Being non partisan does not mean having no opinion on crimes or suspected crimes. www.ElectoinArchive.org is non partisan but pursues election fraud issues and makes it clear who is the perp and who the victims.

This can't by non partisan. Al Gore, conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein, and many others on the left and the right see the current government for what it is - corrupt. They're in what party? The party that benefits from all these lousy machines, which are owned by people who support the party.

It's partisan. To say so does not make you partisan. It's simply the truth.

[BradBlog]

82. RESPONSE...

Sigh...You said:

It's partisan. To say so does not make you partisan. It's simply the truth.

So, who exactly are you "debating" here? You continue to make even more strawman arguments to (seemingly) try and defend your initial ones.

Why? I dunno. Because you simply refuse to admit your initial error and move on? That's my only guess. But if you have another, you have a swell forum here in which to express it.

[autorank]

95. Open letter = Optical Scan = Republican Vendors

It's that simple. Diebold and ESS are the overwhelming incumbents, they are demonstrably biased toward Republicans, and an outcome of retaining optical scan ballots is the retention of these vendors highly biased toward the Republican party.

Florida 13, Jennings, and the lost 13-17 thousand votes is an election conducted by ESS. Guess what? Sarasota was where the votes were lost. Sarasota is where Jennings was expected to do best. She lost her chance to do best. Who provided the voting machines - ESS. Are they going to be more competent when it comes to optical scans? FL 13 sure looks like a deliberate screw up but, if not, it was just another one of those system "failures" that generally benefits Republicans.

Voting equipment, paper ballots, and tabulation software etc. should not come from private vendors. It has to come from a non biased source.

The ultra right wing Ahamson (ESS) and the politically hyperactive Waldrin O'Dell(Diebold) are not acceptable players with huge influence over vote taking and counting.

[BradBlog]

99. Michael's article = Incorrect Information = Unhelpfully Confusing the Issues at Hand

You are concerned about Republicans controlling elections apparently. You don't seem to care if Democratic companies (or Green companies, or Hugo Chavez' company) controls elections. That's you're right.

I do care. I want all private, unaccountable companies out of the business of secretly counting the public elections in our country.

But you can keep going. It's a free(ish) country. The simpler thing, of course, would be to simply admit you were wrong in the first place.

But you are welcome to "stay the course" as long as you like.

[autorank]

69. Original Issue #4: The ability to vote - inclusiveness and access.

Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains

Monday, 18 December 2006, 10:01 pm
Opinion: Michael Collins

It’s time to recognize that keeping people away from the polls is as big an election problem as manipulating their votes when they get there.

I addressed all of these points in our exchanges, all from the op, in great detail. You may not like the answers but I've provided supporting evidence along the way as well.

There's no issue ducking here. I'll let the reader decide.

[BradBlog]

83. RESPONSE...

And now you just seem to be off in Lala land with this one:

It’s time to recognize that keeping people away from the polls is as big an election problem as manipulating their votes when they get there.

I addressed all of these points in our exchanges, all from the op, in great detail. You may not like the answers but I've provided supporting evidence along the way as well.

There's no issue ducking here. I'll let the reader decide.

1) Have you ever actually read The BRAD BLOG? Or the sites by those in the coalition? Who hasn't "recognize that keeping people away from the polls" is as big a problem as manipulating the votes??? It's another strawman argument, Michael. Why you keep making them continues to be beside me.

2) I "don't like the answers"??? To what? What "answers" have I said, or even indicated, that I "may not like"? Strawmen abound in this thread.

3) "Ducking" what issues?

You've gone from a reasonable discussion, about mistaken assumptions you made in your original article, off into a Fantasy Land of imaginary phone calls, presumptive (and incorrect) opinions of those who you (mistakenly) believe disagree with you, and up onto the mountain top with unsupported assertions like someone either "doesn't like" your "answers" or is "ducking" some issues?

Again, as I began in my original reply to your original article, you do great and important work on this issue Michael. But like all of us, when we make a mistake, it's best to simply cop to it and move on. I'm sure you well agree, at least when it comes to politicians (perhaps only Republican politicians?) that it's rarely the crime that gets 'em, it usually the cover-up.

I'd urge you to simply admit you should have asked the folks you were ascribing unsupported opinions to in your original article to give you comment before making those unsupported allegations as if they were fact. They were not and are not, and as a self-proclaimed "citizen journalist" (a group in which I proudly join you), you would be well served to admit your error, post a correction, admit regret, and move on.

[autorank]

100. Lets look at Brads message in detail.

(Brad-plain text. My comments-italics, in parentheses.)

Earlier Brad said: "Concerning your latest article in regard to the coalition formed to demand a paper BALLOT for every vote cast in America, you've made a number of points (and perhaps one error, at least in terminology) that I'd like to clear up."

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

(Since in the subsequent exchange, I've gone from a "number of points" to "clear up" and "perhaps one error" to something much more either sinister or incompetent, I've decided to dissect this last message of Brads to show what I see as very flawed rhetoric. I'd hoped that this would just stop but since it has not, I'm taking this one post to point out what I believe are arguments based on rhetorical devices that really don't carry much weight. I'm not going to comment on this again since it's all below.

I would like to thank Brad for kicking this thread and contributing so much to it allowing these opinions to receive the attention they deserve.)

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

Brads message:

And now you just seem to be off in Lala land with this one: (innuendo - "off in Lala land")

(I'm quoted by Brad)

It’s time to recognize that keeping people away from the polls is as big an election problem as manipulating their votes when they get there.

I addressed all of these points in our exchanges, all from the op, in great detail. You may not like the answers but I've provided supporting evidence along the way as well.

There's no issue ducking here. I'll let the reader decide. (end of Brad quoting me)

1) Have you ever actually read The BRAD BLOG? (Brad knows I've read it because I feature his articles in my news threads all the time and I've guest blogged there twice... Voters Question Outcome of 2004 & Why Mexico Matters") Or the sites by those in the coalition? Who hasn't "recognize that keeping people away from the polls" is as big a problem as manipulating the votes??? It's another strawman argument, Michael. Why you keep making them continues to be beside me.

2) I "don't like the answers"??? To what? What "answers" have I said, or even indicated, that I "may not like"? Strawmen abound in this thread.

3) "Ducking" what issues? (In his quote of me above, I'm clearly indicating that I'm not ducking issues. "There's no issue ducking here." Now it's not so deftly implied that I'm indicating that he's ducking issues, which is clearly not my point.)

You've gone from a reasonable discussion about mistaken assumptions you made in your original article,(See his quotation above where Brad says I made "some points" and "perhaps one error, at least in terminology") off into a Fantasy Land of imaginary phone calls ("imaginary phone calls”-after being asked umteen times why I didn't call him, I put in a clearly labeled hypothetical phone call where I showed that the minute he had said optical scans were included intentionally, the call would have ended. Brad has now twice implicated that I'm having fantasies about phone calls. This is really an unfortunate technique, particularly when the implication was made in his subject field without any clarification in the message. Look at my post, in which I say, "That's how the conversation would have gone. Optical scans...retained...formed my response." It's not imagined, it's a device to show what would have happened, yet Brad wants you to think I'm making it up. Here’s his subject field implying I’m having a fantasy about the phone call. Not nice.), presumptive (and incorrect) opinions of those who you (mistakenly) believe disagree with you, and up onto the mountain top with unsupported assertions like someone either "doesn't like" your "answers" or is "ducking" some issues?(Brad implies that I said he's ducking issues. I said no such thing. I'm indicating that I'm not ducking issues.)

Again, as I began in my original reply to your original article, you do great and important work on this issue Michael. (Right before the fusillade of insults begins.) But like all of us, when we make a mistake, it's best to simply cop to it and move on. (Condescension. Implies I've made a mistake and I'm doing something wrong by not admitting it. Since I don't think that I made a mistake, why would I apologize? Brad wants optical scans and that implies Republican vendors and computerized voting. I oppose that.) I'm sure you well agree, at least when it comes to politicians (perhaps only Republican politicians?) that it's rarely the crime that gets 'em, it usually the cover-up.(What is Brad implying here with this loaded terms "crime" and "cover up" - that the vast Michael Collins Conspiracy has something to hide. I am a Democrat and an active one. Those are my political affiliations. I don't belong to any elections organizations. I don't make any money writing these articles nor do I intend to make any money my web site www.electionfraudnews.com. When I go to conferences, I cover my own expenses entirely. That's a full disclosure. )

I'd urge you to simply admit you should have asked the folks you were ascribing unsupported opinions to in your original article to give you comment before making those unsupported allegations as if they were fact. (I didn't need to ask Brad or anybody else if they were supporting optical scans as a form of paper ballot that should be used. It was right there in the open letter.) I oppose that admit regret, and move on. (I have no requirement whatsoever to get prior approval for opposing something that is clearly stated in the open letter, the focus of my article.) They were not and are not, and as a self-proclaimed "citizen journalist" (a group in which I proudly join you), you would be well served to admit your error, post a correction, admit regret, and move on. (More condescension.)
------------------------

Brad, I only did this because your rhetoric is getting to be a bit much. In these excnahges I've provided embedded and explicit links to support my view and clarify my thinking and in return I get scolded along with associations related to a "coverup."

You have given this article the attention it richly deserves. Thank you and Happy Holidays!

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[autorank]

102. Happy Holidays Brad. Enjoy those Republican operated optical scans. n/t

[BradBlog]

104. Happy Holidays backatcha. And enjoy those Republican-style "debating" techniques! n/t

[truedelphi]

116. Autorank, Wasn't it Freud who once postulated that

Sometimes a paper ballot is simply a paper ballot?

[autorank]

117. That's correct for $800..;sometimes you just need to keep it simple.

And Freud worked in a collapsing democracy during turbulent times. It's actually a quote from one
of his unpublished monographs, Paper Envy and the Fall of the Machines.

[truedelphi]

118. The problem that I am having is this:

When is a paper ballot NOT a paper ballot?

Well, a paper ballot is NOT a paper ballot in almost any and every instance when it
is associated with an electronic computerized machine.

If you have a paper ballot and it is counted by a machine, it ceases to be a paper ballot and it
becomes merely a "paper trail"

Brad, you need to talk to people who have asked and demanded recounts - in Marin County, CA,
the Registrar of Voters insures that the machine count stays in place by demanding so much money that even the rather affluent Jonathan Frieman decided not to contest his bid for rDirector on the Health Board (A position that paid nothing but would have required him to pay $ 161,000 for recounting 101,000 votes)

Or talk to candidates in Riverside CA who demanded and received a recount for only 9,000 dollars - but the recount was simply putting the paper ballots through the same machine that had counted them to begin with.

I do think that Mike Collins was correct in saying that your position puts at risk the discussion related to the voting process. I see no reason at all to allow any one in Congress to feel that *any voting activist anywhere* will accept computerized machinery of any type.

Oregon has a paper mail-in ballot system - it works very well.

New Mexico is now going the way of paper ballots.(This due to voting activism there.) And Utah also is heading that way, though their process seems determined by financial concerns.

Congress needs to hear
1) Paper ballots - counted by handed by hand

2) The upending of HAVA - do not throw more good money after bad. Immediate moving from computerized system to a system like that in Oregon or Canada

However I don't think that you should be taken to task for not providing for all aspects of the voting process - discussing voter suppression by various means, withholding needed equipment from polling places, not counting provisional ballots etc. At this point I have such a low opinion of COngress that it may be that it is best to tackle one component at a time.

[BradBlog]

120. Let's see if I can help (or make it worse)...

truedelphi's comments are offset below...

Well, a paper ballot is NOT a paper ballot in almost any and every instance when it is associated with an electronic computerized machine.

If you have a paper ballot and it is counted by a machine, it ceases to be a paper ballot and it
becomes merely a "paper trail"

Actually, that's not the case at all. As even you (perhaps accidentally) admit in your comments below. Read on... But for the moment, suffice to say, a "paper trail" cannot be reliable counted at any time, as it cannot be trusted to be correct from the get go. Unlike a paper BALLOT.

Remember, you (meaning, literally, YOU) are able to go back and count paper BALLOTS, by hand at any time. You simply cannot do that with "paper trails" and even if you could, you would be counting something for which there can be no confidence that it actually represents the voters intent.

Brad, you need to talk to people who have asked and demanded recounts - in Marin County, CA, the Registrar of Voters insures that the machine count stays in place by demanding so much money that even the rather affluent Jonathan Frieman decided not to contest his bid for rDirector on the Health Board (A position that paid nothing but would have required him to pay $ 161,000 for recounting 101,000 votes)

Or talk to candidates in Riverside CA who demanded and received a recount for only 9,000 dollars - but the recount was simply putting the paper ballots through the same machine that had counted them to begin with.

With all due respect, I talk to those people quite frequently. The folks on the ground in Riverside in the front line of the fight for electoral integrity (the DFA-Temecula Valley/SAVE R VOTES group), I speak to with great regularly. I have been right within the fight for recounts in San Diego, Los Angeles, and elsewhere.

I spoke with New Mexico congressional candidate Patsy Madrid and her husband on the eve of her unfortunate decision to NOT ask for a recount in her race. I hear from folks on the ground all over the country, and work with them quite closely.

I say all of this only by way of giving you an idea that I'm not sure I "need" to talk to anyone, as I'm already talking to most of them. I think what needs to happen is that you may need to have a better idea of my work and/or opinions on these matters rather than relying on Michael's which was, as I've pointed out over and over again, simply wrong. And his continuing misstatement of my position has, unfortunately, given folks like you, perhaps, an inaccurate idea of that. Thus, my original critique of his article that much of this would have been avoided had he bothered to contact me or *anyone* in the original coalition before making the assumptions that he did -- as any responsible journalist should have done.

I do think that Mike Collins was correct in saying that your position puts at risk the discussion related to the voting process. I see no reason at all to allow any one in Congress to feel that *any voting activist anywhere* will accept computerized machinery of any type.

Again, I believe what you mean is "Mike Collins' characterization of my position" which, I assure you, is quite different from my actual position. Unfortunately.

To that end, of course, I have never suggested that anyone should feel they must "accept computerized machinery of any type" if they do not wish to.

Oregon has a paper mail-in ballot system - it works very well.

Actually, no. They don't. By your definition they have a computerized system, since votes are counted by op-scan, and thus, they only have "paper trails" by that same (inaccurate) definition. Further, if you talk to Election Integrity advocates on the front lines in Oregon, they will tell you that though their system works okay in general, it is in large part due to the Executive Administration of their SoS Bradbury.

Unfortunately, most of the things that keep the state out of trouble are not encoded into law, and thus, they are worried what happens when Bradbury is eventually gone and replaced by someone a bit less concerned about Electoral Integrity.

New Mexico is now going the way of paper ballots.(This due to voting activism there.) And Utah also is heading that way, though their process seems determined by financial concerns.

NM has gone towards paper BALLOTS, as you suggest, by law, but nothing in there about hand-counting such ballots. Which again, by your own definition, means they have only "paper trails". That, simply, is not true. They now require a paper BALLOT. But with that said, they've got some woeful laws in place that allowed, at least this year, for races to go un-recounted even if they fell within less than .5% different in the final reported result.

UT is simply a mess, with a crooked bunch of guys at the top (mostly in the LT. Gov's office as best as I can tell) and it's only the smaller locales, cities and such, who are going paper for their mid-year elections. Unfortunately, for the moment, UT is still Diebold country, and it's Diebold DRE's to make matters worse (and though they require VVPAT's, I don't feel that's any better than DRE's without VVPAT, infact, I could argue it's worse. But this note is already long enough.)

Congress needs to hear
1) Paper ballots - counted by handed by hand

Good! Let 'em hear it! If you sign the letter at http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots you can add anything you like to it! And ALL of your Congress Members will actually get the message! Please let 'em hear ya loud and clear!

2) The upending of HAVA - do not throw more good money after bad. Immediate moving from computerized system to a system like that in Oregon or Canada

While I'd be delighted to do away with HAVA, you'll need to review the grafs about. The system in Oregon (paper ballots, machine counted) is nothing like that in Canada (paper ballots, hand counted).

However I don't think that you should be taken to task for not providing for all aspects of the voting process - discussing voter suppression by various means, withholding needed equipment from polling places, not counting provisional ballots etc. At this point I have such a low opinion of COngress that it may be that it is best to tackle one component at a time.

While you or Michael or anyone else, of course, is welcome to take me to task at any time for anything you like, I've written some 3000 pages or so on the subject over at BradBlog.com and I'm sure you'll forgive me for not "providing for all aspects of the voting process" in a very single-focused, one page letter to Congress calling for one specific part of a multiple level Election Reform package.

If you are interested in my "providing for all aspects of the voting process" please read BradBlog.com and peruse the archives for the past several years where I cover such things as "voter suppression by various means, withholding needed equipment from polling places, not counting provisional ballots etc." and much much more in great (some would likely say excrutiating) detail.

[Land Shark]

20. K&R

I spoke with Michael Collins on the phone about this but didn't read it through in text form, which I've done now.

[me b zola]

24. k&r

[autorank]

26. Thank you!!!

:hi:

[Ellipsis]

30. kick.

R.

[autorank]

38. Long time no see...

Happy Holidays!

[Kurovski]

34. Kick.n/t

[autorank]

39. Well, you are the...

Alpha and Omega of this thread. Cheers.

[galloglas]

35. Give US !!!

SECURE Hand Counted Paper Ballots, under the control of the Citizenry, or give us a Goddamned good reason why not!!

Do the Machine-Heads claim Americans are toooooo stoopid to count high enough???

If so, then say it and be done with it!!

If not, get the hell out of the way of our democracy!!


Viva America!!!

[autorank]

41. Spoken like someone who has been in the trenches.

We've got the public on our side for a nice change.

They're fed up and they want out of the messes the * people have created. how hard is it? is the
message i get from you...Lets see, we can count, show up on time, and play by the rules; the vast majority of us. Make people show up if they fail to volunteer, treat vote counting just the same as jury duty. You get a notice. In fact, pick the pool from non voters. Good way to get them involved.

Keep up the great work!!!

[DemReadingDU]

46. morning kick!

"It’s time to recognize that keeping people away from the polls is as big an election problem as manipulating their votes when they get there."

Thanks, great article!

[autorank]

50. Good afternon to you.

Happy holidays too!!! It is always a real pleasure to see you!!!!

[emlev]

58. Trying to move us forward in a constructive way here (from another "coalition" member)

I've been quietly following this thread and trying to figure out how to be helpful. I'm a "member of the coalition" of groups that signed the letter calling on Congress to mandate a paper ballot for every vote cast (which you can read and send to your Senators and Congress member by clicking here).

I personally am no optical-scan fan. In fact, I prefer to call them by the name I think Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips first gave them, "op-scam." I do not consider the Paper Ballot Campaign (PBC) letter to be an endorsement of optical scan technology for vote counting.

One of the saddest things to me about this thread is that some very important things Autorank said are getting largely lost in the accusations flying back and forth. First and foremost, I am in complete agreement with Autorank that the election integrity movement needs to recognize that it's part of the voting rights movement and start behaving accordingly. While I see some very tiny signs that that may be beginning--among them the realization that electronic voting machines are a method of disenfranchisement because they deny people our votes--there is much, much work to do. I am very interested in being part of joining the two movements together.

I know for certain we all want an effective democracy. (I am certain about this because anyone who doesn't is specifically excluded from being part of the "we" I refer to here!) We sometimes differ in our approaches to achieving this. There are people whose opinions I respect who are adamantly "hand counted paper ballot people" and others whose opinions I also respect who are "open source software" people, for example. But this campaign focuses on something we all agree on does it not?: a paper ballot for every vote cast. So why should we be fighting about it?

The campaign could have included a list of the dozens of other very very important aspects to democracy-creating legislation (I won't say democracy-reclaiming, because I don't think we've ever had a truly functioning democracy that gives equal voice to all in this country). The letter would have been extremely long and way too complicated for average Congress members or members of the public to understand thoroughly. (And we probably would still have omitted something, because the situation is exceedingly complicated.) People would likely have argued for weeks about it--weeks that we don't have to spare. Instead the campaign has a simple message: a paper ballot for every vote cast.

I ask that if you disagree with the campaign strategy, you state your disagreement as our campaign not going far enough, rather than it being misguided, politically unsophisticated, etc. Already this thread and its twin at Scoop have the potential of leading people who would gladly have sent this letter to their representatives in D.C. (by clicking here) to say instead, "Oh, maybe this isn't a good thing. I don't know enough about this to know which side I'm on. I guess I shouldn't sign." If you think the PBC doesn't go far enough, I encourage you to email it to Congress anyway. There's an opportunity to write an accompanying note to your Senators and Representative. You can say there that you want even more, that you want the op-scans gone, the vendors out, felons re-enfranchised, proportional representation, or any of the other worthy reforms that you support.

If that's not enough for you, you can start an additional campaign calling for any or all of the needed reforms. It's likely many of the organizations that signed the PBC letter will endorse yours as well. I don't know of one election integrity organization or advocate that believes paper ballots are the only thing worth supporting. Not one.

We will have some difficult decisions coming up. There will be election reform legislation introduced in the next Congress, and it will likely not be perfect. Why? Because if it were perfect it would not pass. And if it passed it would not be signed. And we will all be called upon to figure out whether or not to support that imperfect legislation. Different organizations will likely take different positions on that. I hope that we will not publicly trash each other, because that's destructive to the cause. I hope we can discuss it here and elsewhere in ways that encourage everyone to contribute their best thinking to the conversation. Because that's what will move us ahead.

[BeFree]

59. Fair enough

But let me ask you, where is the coalition letter asking for support for HR 6200?

6200 would require a paper ballot, hand counted for presidential elections. Seems to me 6200 would get us ALL where we need to be.

Frankly, if the congress can't get it's head out of its collective ass and pass a law similar to the coalition's paper ballot measure without a bunch of hassle, there will be no changes anywhere.

What some of us are doing is pushing the envelope, and at this stage it can be very advantageous. We want the best and that is what we are going for: no more private machines counting our votes. I find it highly disturbing that some people are willing to settle for third best even at this early (in congress) stage.

Why not go for the whole enchilada? 6200 or bust, baby! It wouldn't hurt the coalition one bit to go for 6200, so why not?

[emlev]

60. hmm

How do you see 6200 as being the whole enchilada? Doesn't it address *only* the presidential race? Last time I looked in my enchilada, there was more filling than that.

I also want to point out that "the coalition" is only called "the coalition" on this thread, as far as I know. Members of a few election integrity groups drafted the letter and asked others to sign on.

As I mentioned in my previous post, if anyone in the movement wants to write a letter on any other topic related to electoral integrity and ask the same organizations--or even more--to sign it, they are of course free to do so. And I'm guessing that many would sign on to a letter endorsing 6200.

[BeFree]

61. Oh

You are so cute.

Just look at the reactions on this thread and tell me about working together. Your's included. Auto expressed a concern about what is being pushed forward and so have I. We rejected it only because we know, as you do too, that the simple paper ballot motion is NOT ENOUGH.

Why get so damned defensive? It almost looks like yall are trying to hide something! I trust yall aren't, but god damn it sure looks bad.

Ya know, there's that "...yall are free to do so...." crap again. Gawd, thank you for your permission! Geez!

[BradBlog]

84. Huh?

BeFree seemingly attacked EmLev with:

Auto expressed a concern about what is being pushed forward and so have I. We rejected it only because we know, as you do too, that the simple paper ballot motion is NOT ENOUGH.

Why get so damned defensive? It almost looks like yall are trying to hide something! I trust yall aren't, but god damn it sure looks bad.

I don't see how EmLev was defense. She answered your question about support for Kucinich's bill which you used as an example how that bill -- which ONLY calls for hand counted paper ballots in Presidential elections -- is "the whole enchilada".

It isn't. And as I pointed out earlier (in trying to make a specific point) Autorank's call for HR6200, and now yours, implying that it's "the whole enchilada", while condemning the group who called for paper ballots in *every* election, yet implying that they want computerized voting or are in favor of Republican companies is just silly. IT's as silly as implying that you want computerized voting and Republican companies to run every election other than the Presidential, simply because you support Kucinich's HR6200.

And worse: It's gone from you disagreeing with a perceived (though unsupported) opinion about those who signed the letter, to a contention that someone is now "trying to hide something"?!!!

What next? Will the "coalition" be accused of murder?! Why not?! I think we may be covering up our complicity in sinking the Lusitania as well! Good lord, people...

Am I the only one to see how silly this is becoming??

[BeFree]

89. Well, to be clear

6200 is not the whole enchilada, my bad. What was really meant was that getting rid of the machines, even if only for the presidential elections would be the 'blue plate special' which would get our foot in the door and begin to flush the machines from vote counting.

That better?

Now this nonsense from you:

....", while condemning the group who called for paper ballots in *every* election, yet implying that they ...."

We aren't condeming you or the coalition. That's bs. We are asking for mo' better.

And we don't imply they want machines, what we are saying is that your position would allow the machines to stay as a system. Yes, with better controls.... but really, isn't what you are asking for is nothing more than a speed limit? And we know how well those are enforced.

What next? Will the "coalition" be accused of murder?! Why not?! I think we may be covering up our complicity in sinking the Lusitania as well! Good lord, people...

Am I the only one to see how silly this is becoming??

Yes, I see. That was damn silly.

[BradBlog]

96. And to be clearer still...

BeFree said:

6200 is not the whole enchilada, my bad. What was really meant was that getting rid of the machines, even if only for the presidential elections would be the 'blue plate special' which would get our foot in the door and begin to flush the machines from vote counting.

That better?

Sure. So let me continue the discussion, and use your own words then and relate it to the position of the letter/statement calling for Paper BALLOTS for every vote cast in America in return then. Here goes...

The Paper Ballot Campaign is not the whole enchilada. We never said it was. In fact, we opened the letter by saying "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." What was meant, of course, was that ensuring there is a paper ballot for every vote cast, whether it is counted by op-scan or hand-counted, would be the 'blue plate special' which would get our foot in the door and begin to ensure that there will be, absolutely, and codified into federal law, a countable, durable, re-countable, paper BALLOT by which election officials and citizens alike may actually determine the voters intent and determine the results of an election.

That better? ;-)

Now you begin to get into more trouble :-) With this...

We aren't condeming you or the coalition. That's bs. We are asking for mo' better.

Not condeming ?

Let's take a look. From Michael's original article, a few select quotes:

+ "Coalition Paper Ballot Call Spares Vote Villains" (that's the headline)
+ "When the coalition members are through taking politically unsophisticated half measures like the one described" (smells like condemnation, and teen spirit, to me!)
+ "It’s time that the technologically focused faction of the voting rights movement broadens itself through an active awareness that it is part of the larger voting rights movement." (slap in the face to those of us who believe we are aware of that, and have done much to fight for such rights)

Then from YOUR posts in this thread:

+ "I suggest there be no coddling of the criminals! Give them an inch and they'll steal votes again and again!" (the coaltion is "coddling criminals?" sounds pretty condemning to me!)
+ "Since it is not clearly stated that private machine vendors are to be eliminated from counting public votes then one simply has to conclude that yall are in favor of the status quo." (We are? Dang! Condemned again!)
+ "Yall need to go back to the drawing board" (Snap!)
+ "Or maybe yall elite election protectionists don't care what I and others think?" (ouch!)
+ "yall will just cram this down America's throat - to hell with what is the ultimately correct position is?" (bam!)

There is more. From both you and Michael. But I think I've made my point :-)

Though I stand by my statement that you've "condemned the coalition", let me be clear that I don't believe you've done it out of malice or evil. Just that you've condemned the position we have taken. That is, of course, your right and I don't hold it against you. The discussion and debate is good.

Now go sign that letter! :-)
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots

[BeFree]

106. Condemned?

Ok, if you want to feel condemned that's your problem, but you do have good reason for feeling that way. The letter's premise is not complete or suitable for our needs. So in your strict interpertaion you have been condemned, but I am hesitant to use such strong language for yalls efforts. But if the shoe fits - wear it.

I've said it before here, and maybe this time you will read and reply: The allowance of the use of opscans in our election system is unacceptable without great modifications to opscan systems. I see no sense of the need for modifications of opscans in your letter.

That is why I can't consent to the proposal.
*************************


You do know that it would have been nice had you asked us at DU for some advice before yall presented the letter. By taking advantage of our knowledge, methinks the letter could have been vastly improved.

It really comes as quite a shock to see the letter being presented as it was and then this discussion to take place as it had to because of the surprise. Maybe you didn't want DU members to be a part of the coalition?

I am really having trouble figuring out the whys and wherefores of the approach the coalition has taken. If you want, you may call it condemning yall. So be it.

[BradBlog]

107. Condemn away...But please join the fight for a paper BALLOT for every vote cast...

BeFree said:

The allowance of the use of opscans in our election system is unacceptable without great modifications to opscan systems. I see no sense of the need for modifications of opscans in your letter.

That is why I can't consent to the proposal.

You also see "no sense of the need for" improved security for paper ballots, improved transparency for all aspects of elections and vote tabulation, improved registration processes, improved access to the polls (to name just one, a holiday for Election Day), the removal of private companies declared "right" to keep the process of registration and tabulation a secret from us, the requirement of appropriate audits whether votes are tabulated by hand or by any other means, etc. etc.

And yet, you seem to indicate had the letter called for paper ballots and the banning of op-scan machines you would have signed on. Surely you care about the things I mentioned above? So by your logic, you'd also not have been able to sign on to such a letter had it been written either.

I don't mean to criticize, I mean only to point out the self-defeat in the strategy of those (like yourself) who refuse to join the demand for a paper BALLOT for every vote cast from Congress. And that, on the eve of new legislation that will either require a paper BALLOT or NOT. I hope you'll join the call for a paper ballot.

*************************

You do know that it would have been nice had you asked us at DU for some advice before yall presented the letter. By taking advantage of our knowledge, methinks the letter could have been vastly improved.

While I love DU, the EI organizations who have signed on to the letter are non-partisan organizations. Further, while many folks who are members of those organizations, even those responsible for drafting the letter originally (many of them, in fact, members of DU) I've yet to find anything within this particular thread, or elsewhere on DU that members of the coalition are unaware of.

Surely you're not suggesting that anytime a number of groups work together, they should check in for approval of the DU community first, are you? Further, nothing stops YOU from creating a campaign to call for whatever you might like to see from Congress on Election Reform or anything else. In fact, I'm sure I'd be quite interested in supporting any such efforts if they are as well thought out, and as well informed and make as much sense as the Paper Ballots Campaign does.

It really comes as quite a shock to see the letter being presented as it was and then this discussion to take place as it had to because of the surprise. Maybe you didn't want DU members to be a part of the coalition?

As mentioned, the signing organizations are non-partisan organizations (which DU isn't), none the less, a number of the folks who drafted the letter, such as myself, are clearly members of DU.

I am really having trouble figuring out the whys and wherefores of the approach the coalition has taken.

I'm not sure why (and wherefore) you are. There is an enormous amount of information in this thread alone. So I'm not sure what the mystery is.

I hope you, and everyone else reading this, will join the call for a paper BALLOT -- not trail or record -- for every vote cast, by sending the letter at:

http://www.VelvetREvolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots

...to your Congress Members. Happy Holidays!

[BeFree]

108. Mele Kalikimaka to you, Brad

Too bad we couldn't work together on this letter. Maybe next year?

If there ever is an opscan that meets our requirements, it may just work out.

[BradBlog]

112. Mazeltov to you, BeFree...

BeFree said:

Too bad we couldn't work together on this letter. Maybe next year?

If there ever is an opscan that meets our requirements, it may just work out.

If there's ever an opscan that meets my requirements, I'll be right there whicha :-)

[autorank]

63. I don't want people supporting Republican vendors - optical scan vendors.

emlev,

That's the net effect of this. Rather than supporting hand counted paper ballots, supporters of this are actually advocating for a "compromise" that perpetuates Republican controlled Vendors.

I'm not writing or calling and I'm not encourageing others to do so.

Here's how I put it:

From my article:

A lack of historical context and a claimed political neutrality (being nonpartisan) prevent recognizing the obvious: there are groups who use the faulty machines and many other techniques to commit election fraud. These groups exist to both keep the franchise limited and limit the impact of those enfranchised thorough those flawed voting systems subject to manipulation. If there were an equal distribution of election malfunctions, then there would be an argument for political neutrality. There is not and no one can make that claim. Every major election from 2000 on has seen major controversies – the controversy involved both keeping people from voting and countless voting anomalies which almost always seem to benefit the Republican Party.

:hi:

[BradBlog]

85. I guess you're in favor of DEMOCRATIC vendors then?...

Of course you're note. You're in favor of NO private vendors running our elections. So am I. And, though I don't speak for them, I'd suspect the same thing is true of everyone who has signed onto that letter.

Using your logic, however, since you've stated in the subject line that your not in favor of "Republican vendors", we'd have to imply that you are fighting to assure that Democratic vendors should take over American elections.

That would be a silly argument, of course. As is the (meritless, and unsupported) one you keep attempting to make here.

[emlev]

72. I missed the part where "the coalition" got elected to Congress

and has the ability to introduce legislation. If there were a bill that said, "A paper ballot for every vote counted, but beyond that do anything you damn please," I wouldn't support it. And that's not what we're calling for. Just like, as Brad pointed out, Kucinich isn't saying in 6200, "Count presidential elections by hand, and beyond that do anything you damn please."

[BeFree]

73. Not elected

But still the coalition is representing people. "Representation without election-ization.^TM" Kinda like e-voting, in a way. <grin>

And frankly, you sell the coalition as impotent. I like to think otherwise. I like to think that a coaliton of all us warriors should be powerful enough to get legislation passed.

The crux of this is that in order to go along with the letter would be, in a way, codifying the machines as an acceptable system to count our votes. That's the problem.

Now, if someone can up with an opscan that we can all see is hack-proof but open sourced -- and all that jazz, then the letter backing such a system, would have unending support. There being no such system that I know of upon which to attach your letter, there can be no consensus.

As it is, as Auto has pointed out, it looks like Diebold and ES&S get a slap on the wrist and are allowed to keep on keeping on. Besides the lawsuits that would tangle such legislation as 550 up until everyone else gives up, it's just bad pratcice to coddle criminals.

[BradBlog]

86. Did you guys actually READ the letter?

I pointed this out earlier, but apparently, it needs re-pointing out. The FIRST GRAF OF THE LETTER READS (initial underlining and bolding added by me):

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.

Good lord.

[BeFree]

87. Good lord?

Not a paper "trail" or a paper "record," but a paper ballot.

Saw that. Now if it also said that the paper ballot was to be authenticated by a hand count in a way that would absolutely determine the intent of the voters then we get closer to consensus.

Like I say, if there is a machine, or a system which can meet that need for authentication requirement then that machine or system needs to be codified in the law. As it is, since the use of the same vendors and the same type of machines that we all know can not be authenticated are part of the agreement you are asking us to sign, the answer is NO!

[BradBlog]

90. Yup...Good Lord...

As I (and I believe EmLev) have said several times in this thread, you are welcome to add any additional thoughts you like when signing the letter at:
http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots

If you disagree, and feel that having a paper BALLOT for every vote cast is not important, than you needn't sign the letter at all. I, and the other members of the coalition, feel that it is important. And that it's worth assuring we get one.

If you've got another campaign you think folks ought to sign that calls for additional measures, I'm certainly open to looking at it, and joining in potentially, as I have with many other related campaigns.

[autorank]

74. Afternoon, how about reponding to my point on continuing Republican vendors.

It's right there and an important point in the dialogue, given where we're having these exchages?

Cheers & Happy Holidays!!!!!!!!!!!

[emlev]

75. I absolutely want the vendors gone.

[galloglas]

103. Missouri is heard from !

You know, when Michael Collins first published this piece, I found it in the Election Reform area. Emlev posted a piece on behalf of (and, if I understand correctly, the words of) Brad Friedman.

I waited almost two days for a response before I found out that the big words were being bandied about in General Discussion.

Never having received a reply from Emlev, it seems appropriate to post my questions over here in GD. Is that OK with everone?

Emlev's post at ER is found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=462741#462762

The part of Emlev post that I answered is this:

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."
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.

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. 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.

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, 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.)


My reply, titled "Some (opposing) points" is found below Emlev's, at ER.

But, if no one minds, I'll cut and paste my whole reply here and promise not to sue myself, DU, or anyone else, for "quoting" more than four paragraphs.

If that's a deal, the here it is:



Some (opposing) points

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 certainly 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 raises this question. Just 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"?

[BradBlog]

105. Missouri (my home state!) is answered to...

Galloglas - Thanks for your repost here, and my apologies for not having seen the note the first time around when posted at the other forum.

Allow me to do my best in replying to the most notable points, and forgive me in advance with any such points that I've missed (it was a long note). Feel free, of course, to repeat and/or follow up if I haven't answered to any such concerns.

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."

There is no such inference in the letter (or from me, or from anybody that I know of) that paper BALLOT are the only leg required. One may, however, take from the focus of the letter in general, that those of us who signed it, have reason to believe that a) none of the other "legs" are more important and that b) fighting for this particular "leg" at this particular time is likely for a reason.

That reason (at least for me, as mentioned, I don't speak for the coalition as a whole) is that there are (very) generally two different schools of thought developing in Congress. One that would allow for DRE's -- which, even with VVPAT, are entirely unacceptable on any level, perhaps even more dangerous with VVPAT since it offers a wholly false sense of security -- and one that would, essentially, ban DRE's entirely. I'd like to encourage the side who would ban DRE's entirely, and as well, combat the dangerous and growing popular public perception that has emerged (for whatever reason) that the solution to our election ills are "paper trails".

They are decidedly NOT the solution, and that public perception MUST be pushed back and quickly, before it continues to rise as it has. The effort of the coalition, attempts, in part to do that. Though it needs the help from a broad swatch of public (thus, I hope you and others reading this will sign the letter at http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots and add anything else you wish to it!)

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.

Using the logic that Michael applied to this whole affair, I could quickly right up an article decrying your willingness to allow the continued disenfranchisement of minorities vis a vis gamed registration (and many other) administrative procedures, and even disenfranchisement of citizens as a whole vis a vis lack of Election Day holiday and other issues that keep the voice of the people from being truly heard.

In other words, if we have all the "legs" to the "stool" you mention, there were still be things we need to be vigilant about. Simply because you focused on just a few of those legs, it would be unfair to suggest you have no concern or interest in assuring all the other issues are taken care of as well.

Michael, however, did exactly that in his original article, which -- as I have argued -- was both misleading, inaccurate, and ultimately unhelpful to the overall discussion (even if it has given us all an opportunity to talk about the various related issues here).

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.

Nobody, at least in the coalition is doing anything of the sort. Notwithstanding Michael's implication that we are. Had his article charged that the letter/statement "could give the impression that, blah, blah, blah" I'd not have had an argument with him. Such as he, instead, charged that the members of the coalition were in favor of this or that or against that or this, without first checking with anyone in that coalition to find out if his theory was true or not (it isn't) we end up in a long debate over a wholly false assumption to begin with. Ultimately, I don't find that to be helpful at all, and an overall distraction from the good fight at hand.

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!

The first graf, I find without merit, in general (if I understand it). In that, anyone is entitled (and would not be wrong) to call for something they feel is necessary (eg. A paper BALLOT for every vote cast, the need to remove our troops from Iraq, etc.) It does not put anything or anybody at risk to do so. I can call for troops to be removed from Iraq, without explaining the process by which that should be done.

You could argue it would be more helpful if I did (that's fine), but not that it's a "risk" if I don't.

The second graf is (pardon me) somewhat silly, in that I, personally (nor you, nor anybody else in this democracy, save perhaps for a dictator, and even they would have problems) can "guarantee" anything. The best we ALL can do is argue for what we think is right, and try to move those in a position to help achieve it for all, if possible.

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.

Again, and with all due respect (and a nod that I may not really understand what the hell you're talking about here ;-) -- none of us can "gaurantee" anything. So I'm not really sure how to even reply to this particular line of thinking.

"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.

Not only should not "trust us" (nobody asked you to), but you should never trust anybody (and if you read The BRAD BLOG, you'll know that's a common theme in my reporting). At least when it comes to this democracy business.

As to what I can share with you, if you ask, I'll share with you what I can. No, I can't share everything. Not because there are any "smoke filled rooms" (other than my office), but because reporting -- particularly as I do, making use of so many sources and whistleblowers, etc. -- also requires that I respect the wishes of those sources, and that they know I won't violate any such trusts they grant.

With that in mind, there's no particular secret here to protect. From my discussions with Election Integrity advocates, I've learned that there seems to be a good deal of concern about the audit protocols in the previous version of HR550, and that various elements of that are being looked at for future versions. Among them, I've come to learn (again, from various sources, not necessarily secret ones, but from small bits and pieces from enough different sources) that concerns about the protocol used in the previous version may be re-looked at in the new version. Also, that the EAC, which had the responsibility of overseeing audits in the last version, will likely be moved out of that role in the new version (thank god!)

Much of these things, I try to bring to my various reporting at BRAD BLOG every day. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes, implicitly. If there's ever anything you'd like to know of me, please feel free to ask. I'll always do my best to answer (though, mind you, my "best" is not always good enough for either me or for you...but that's about all I've got)

And again, of course, neither I, nor anybody else can "guarantee" you anything. If that's the bar for what it takes to rally for something necessary (even if it doesn't' cure ALL ills) I'd suggest your bar is far too high to be particularly useful to problem solving.

Have we all not the right to fight this battle on our own?

Of course! We must!

Do we not all share information?

As much as possible and appropriate (see above).

Do we all not think independently, yet work co-operatively?

I hope so. Whenever possible.

If so, after all you have done in this effort, can you not share with us why we should accept this one-legged chair?

You shouldn't. Nobody ever asked you to. We asked only for your help in shoring up this particular leg on this particular chair. As we (I) have asked for help with other such legs in the past, and still more such legs in the future, no doubt.

Or, if the chair is not one-legged, can you not give us those assurances? If you do, you would have our support, certainly.

I can give assurances of exactly nothing. And with that, I'd still urge you to join the effort by sending the important statement to your Congress members via http://www.VelvetRevolution.us/Campaigns/PaperBallots

Can you change, with full disclosure, "I have reason to believe" to a more comforting "We have reason to believe"?

I can only give you what I've got and what I'm allowed to share while respecting sources. I believe I have done just about all of that above. I hope it helps to comfort, as I hope you and all have as comfortable of a holiday as possible.

But beyond that, I can only do what I can do. And I believe I am doing precisely that (and more, whenever I can).

Hope that helps! And Happy Holidays all!

[tiptoe]

110. kick for a Happy Holidays reading.

[autorank]

111. Happy Holidays to you. I recommend your web site to everyone!!!

Beautiful!!!

:hi: