Kucinich to tell Rep. Holt he will NOT support HR 811 false "reform"

[Land Shark]

At a national conference being held in New Hampshire and sponsored by Democracy for New Hampshire, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, speaking via telephone to the entire audience, announced that although he is a co-sponsor of the Holt bill HR 811, he will inform Rep. Holt that he will NOT be supporting HR 811. In the opinion of this writer, though not a direct statement of Kucinich, HR 811 is false reform.

The announcement was greeted with applause from several hundred attendees present for this session.

For more details on HR 811, substantial information is contained here:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/hr_811_the_holt_ii_bill_to_amend_hava

Also present at the www.democracyfest.com were Sen Mike Gravel and Sen John Edwards, both of whom spoke in favor of more democratic structures for voting systems, and paper ballots specifically.

The Holt bill, HR 811, has had up to 212 cosponsors, including Kucinich, but Representatives including Kucinich and Maxine Waters have, in recent weeks, indicated that they have changed their view on the bill from support to non-support.

Kucinich also stated that he will "very soon" reintroduce HR 6200, the bill for hand counted paper ballots in the presidential race for last session. The timing is to arrange a national rollout for momentum on hand counted paper ballots.

[stellanoir]

1. You got through !!!

Godess bless you for all your intrepid efforts.

K & R'd

[Rydz777]

2. I like Dennis Kucinich a lot. I don't think that he has a chance of

getting the nomination, but he is our watchdog (no negative connotation there; I am a dog lover.) On the important issues that get before the Congress, nothing escapes his attention, and he is ready, willing, and able to ring the alarm on those issues that need our attention. He is articulate and he is not afraid to speak truth to power.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Okay, the first presidential candidate to stand up for transparent vote counting!

This should the THE litmus test.

If they support rightwing Bushite corporations "counting" all our votes on expensive, insecure and extremely insider hackable electronic voting machines, run "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our secretaries of state are permitted to review it--they do NOT believe in democracy. Either that or they are chickenshit scared of Diebold/ES&S. There is no "centrist" position on this.

And if they stand up for vote counting that everyone can see and understand, they deserve our support, or at least our sympathetic ear. They have passed the first test for President. They believe in democracy.

[Wilms]

4. "In the opinion of this writer, though not a direct statement of Kucinich"

:eyes:

Uh, er, thanks counselor.

Now, would you like to tell us what Kucinich actually said...sans your editorial and misleading subject line. :shrug:

[Land Shark]

9. Just trying to say "false reform" is my phrase, Kucinich to notify Holt

that he doesn't support HR 811 any more, and he will be arranging a roll out of a new HR 6200 bill to be filed "very soon" according to Kucinich. I just didn't want to put the words "false reform" into Kucinich's mouth.

[Wilms]

13. As to putting words in Kucinich's mouth, you nearly did.

It took a second read to realize you hadn't. That's when I let you know I didn't really need the editorial. What Kucinich actually said may make a more powerful argument against 811 than the rants I've read.

Bear in mind, I ain't jumpin' for joy over Holt, his staff, or his bill. But compared to his detractors, he doesn't seem as bad. Seems the anti-811 effort is having a reverse effect on some.

Now, I appreciate Kucinich. Very much indeed. And while his bill calls for HCPB for just federal races and therefore seems simple and reasonable enough, why is it that he is reintroducing it?

Is there anything different this time.

[MH1]

5. This is rather confusing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x473748

Lots of posts saying that HR 811 as amended now, is good. Also saying Bev Harris et al are trying to kill it, now. (i.e. as amended)

So, if I read this correctly, Kucinich is siding with Bev Harris?

[Land Shark]

10. That's correct but there are lots of people against 811 besides Harris

Bev is so much larger than life here on DU

[Kurovski]

16. This is important, and many thanks to you Paul, and to Kucinich, Waters, and others.

Apparently activists are now split down the middle, with two percent more being against HR811. This according to a recent posting in the ER forum.

Since anti-HR811 people are being accused of being "Bevbots" and paid agents for the E-voting machine companies with regularity in the Election reform forum, I think I'll take this opportunity to postulate my own opposing theory.

Please bear with my somewhat paranoid, or seemingly paranoid speculation about how it would actually be some--SOME--of the HR811 supporters who are actually doing work that the Machine companies desire:

So Bev Harris comes our early-on as a champion against the easily hackable voting machines. She demonstrates the simplicity with which elections can be stolen. She uses Howard Dean to make the presentation with her.

She gains attention and enthusiastic support from DU, Randi Rhodes, and Keith Olbermann to name a few.

She then proceeds to destroy her personal, and that's PERSONAL, credibility through rudeness, non-cooperation and an ugly campaign against respected activist Andy Stephenson, who is dying. She is secretive about funding (and I now begin to believe that she is very well funded indeed) and behaves in a way that arouses suspicion.

In the mean time we have sincere activists and citizens who find Bev so repellent that any information she presents is dismissed due to her appalling PERSONAL behavior.

The e-machine companies then have Bev present the most reasonable information for actually gaining reform that will keep the machine counts most accurate, and allow for the most transparency in the voting process. It is in reality all the information that the companies actually DO NOT wish to see enacted, but it is information they hope to discredit.

There are then "activists" and experts in a number of fields--psychology being one, verified by a poster from England--put in place whose purpose is to vehemently accuse people of being "bevbots" just because the information being supported also happens to be supported by Bev. It doesn't matter if the information is actually positive for real reform.

If Bev said it, all are "forced" to abandon it as worthless through orchestrated brow-beating and repeated postings of how Bev is PERSONALLY a wretched person not to be trusted.

This kind of operation would be nothing new in the world of politics. As you have pointed out in the past, Paul, there are enormous stakes that are to be gained in stealing elections. Most specifically the presidency.

So I suppose Dennis Kucinich and Maxine Waters are "Bevbots" as well, according to the crew who NEVER fail to make such accusations. They are both their own people, and always have been for many years now. I say sorry to the experts, but this much we know for sure about Kucinich and Waters.

Call your reps folks, and request that they support Dennis Kucinich in the matter of voting.

[Febble]

83. Could you explain this paragraph:

There are then "activists" and experts in a number of fields--psychology being one, verified by a poster from England--put in place whose purpose is to vehemently accuse people of being "bevbots" just because the information being supported also happens to be supported by Bev. It doesn't matter if the information is actually positive for real reform.

Thanks.

Lizzie

[Kurovski]

90. That is a terrible oversight for which I must apologize.

That individual never accused anyone of being a "Bevbot".

That individual's particular raison d’être appeared to be arguing that Bush won the election in '04. And, to quote a recent satirical Meta-Thread posted in General Discussion, they did it with "fucking enormous charts".

Back-up services to "Bevbot" accusers has also been provided, but no, not specifically for the "Bevbot" accusations themselves.

How pleasant it is to see you out of the confines of the Election Reform Forum, Febble. Much Roomier out here.

[Febble]

91. Thanks for the correction

I don't think I have so much as mentioned Bev Harris in a post.

And if you mean that I think that Bush either won a fair election, or that he won the electoral college vote, I don't think the first, and I think the jury is still out on the second.

My view is that the exit poll data suggest that the major factor in the discrepancy between the raw poll data and the count was due to an unrepresentative sample of respondents, and not to any factor that also contributed to an increase in Bush's vote share. I therefore think it is improbable that Kerry won by millions of votes, and probable that Bush had a popular vote win.

I don't think the playing field was anything like level, and I think the electoral process was both lax and corrupt. I think mandatory paper ballots and random manual audits would go a long way towards tighting the laxity and exposing corruption. However, much more is needed to level the playing field, in particular the issues of voter suppression.

Cheers

Lizzie

[Kurovski]

94. You're entirely welcome, Febble.

And we completely agree on the issue of voter suppression. It is an enormous problem. Truly disgusting that it has continued on in the way that it has for so long.

Peace.

[Wilms]

25. I'll go further than Land Shark on that one.

I think it's poor logic to group all opponents of HR811 with Bev Harris.

With that kind of reasoning, I'm gonna be in a heap of trouble if it turns out she likes vanilla ice cream.

[MH1]

29. Well I am NOT an expert and don't pretend to be one

but I know that Bev Harris has been thoroughly discredited here, and I have seen copies of what are supposedly her posts at freerepublic, that if true, thoroughly discredit her motives as well, imo.

We are not talking flavors of ice cream or whether one prefers cats to dogs. We are talking about a complex, controversial subject that apparently simpletons like me are too dumb to understand (I sure as hell don't know what "clause by clause" means, based on the link given to a site that supposedly debunks HR811 "clause by clause" yet I don't see anything that looks like that to me there), so I have to look at the credibility of who is supporting a bill versus who is fighting it. Personally, I would love to see just about any partial reform, because from what I see happening in the Election Reform big-leagues, there is so much infighting we won't get ANYTHING done. And that appears to play right into certain people's hands.

[Wilms]

32. I understand how complex issues are hard to sort through.

But I'd urge you not to give to much credence, one way or the other, to Bev.

Keep in mind, I've been disappointed with both sides of this debate. But I will not consider Bev siding with one side or the other as something to inform me.

[MH1]

34. That's fair.

The main criticisms I've seen of HR811 so far is that it doesn't go far enough.

I don't consider that a sufficient reason to not support it. (Nor is that sufficient justification for the personal attacks I've seen flung around about people who don't see it the "right" way.)

However, if I had my way, instead of one mammoth bill we would have smaller, simpler bills to deal with. Like why not a separate bill simply stating that any software used in any way to support a federal election, must be open source? That covers areas besides vote counting, and even if HCPB wins out on another bill, no harm is done. (except of course the proprietary software shills will scream bloody murder, but that's just too bad.)

Unfortunately, it seems the way our Congress operates, it is completely impossible to pass a simple, one issue bill. So instead we get 62-page kitchen sink bills to try to wade through, that attract poison pill and otherwise dumb, pandering, or pork amendments until you don't know what the hell you have.

What a way to run a country, huh?

:rant:

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. well, the thing about that is...

it's not always clear what is a reasonable scope for the "single issue." Just for instance, I'm not so interested in a bill that mandates auditable paper, but doesn't mandate that it be audited. HR 811 did go for a narrower scope than the Count Every Vote Act. But it's true that bills rapidly outstrip our capacity to hold all their possible consequences in our heads.

[Wilms]

38. Your post mirrors much of my thoughts on this.

At this point in the legislative process, I think activists may have little influence. It's out of Holt's hand and it's out of the committee's hand.

There'll be I vote soon, I suppose. Then the post-mortem, the healing, and the plans for the future can begin.

[yowzayowzayowza]

6. "hand counted paper ballots in the presidential race"

Nota solution to the problem atall; yet another potential stepping stone ... at best.

[mod mom]

7. I am surprised the entire CBC isn't on board.

[Robson]

8. Why the rush and need for technology

Why aren't ballots done on paper with an "x" in the block and hand counted? Some things are worth taking the extra time and having the hard copy ballots retained for future recounts if necessary, and most importantly giving the public full confidence that their vote counts. I fail to see the need for using technology that can be manipulated and scammed and instills non-confidence.

[Land Shark]

11. Good question, first level of analysis is whether a voting system serves Demnocracy's values or not

only then can we move on the sub-issues like cost and so forth. Hand counted paper ballots happen to have (in their proper form) the most advanced system of checks and balances FOR DEMOCRACIES that's been developed. So going to HCPB is stepping back up to checks and balances.

[Wilms]

14. The rush is over. We already have this frightening technology.

Holt's bill is an attempt (and a weak one) to provide a check on it. Some feel he didn't go far enough. Some think his bill justifies the technology. Some think the bill needed to ban technology. And most parrot their idols. So it's a big mess.

[MH1]

30. "Most parrot their idols"

I wholeheartedly agree with that observation, and that is what I am trying to wade through.

I am not going to change my opinion on HR811 just because Dennis Kucinich does. I need to actually understand what is wrong with it, better than I currently do. And to me if it is an improvement over the current requirements, then it should be supported.

[MH1]

15. Have you ever worked at a poll as a member of an election board?

I really don't see how hand counting of paper ballots could work in my precinct or county.

If it did work, it would be (I guess) by bringing in a bunch more people, who didn't have to work the poll all day, and wouldn't be people who had to go to work the next day, so we'd pretty much have mostly hired-gun republicans. I have trouble seeing how that would be a "safe" process.

Otherwise, I'd be all for it, I think.

[Robson]

27. Yes I have worked at poll and another day at hand counting would give reliable results.

My point was why the rush for outcome on elections? Let's take our time, count the ballots for a day, (separate counts by both parties or have each party oversee the results), and have reliable results. Yes I worked at the polls during the Kerry Bush election in 2006 because I wanted some insight into how it works. We had the lever type voting booths. It would only take another day for the results...no more than that. I'd rather have dependable results later than an undependable result earlier.

[MH1]

31. Where would you get the counters and how would you guard the ballots?

The current paradigm is that the poll is supervised by a several member election board from the time it is open (and verified that all counts are zeroed) to when it is closed, tallied, and locked up.

In my case I have to take a vacation day from work so that there is a Democrat on our election board, and my situation is not unique. (Many potential fraud scenarios go away as soon as you have people from different parties on the job at all times, btw) Do I need to take another day off of work so I can also count? Or do we cede the counting to the republicans, who by the way have all the county jobs locked up and get election day off (as well as, rumor has it, being paid by the party to work at the polls)?

How would you guard the ballots overnight?

[Robson]

33. They could be sealed and secured until the next day

They could be sealed by the poll judge and locked and transported to a central secure county location by 2 workers from each party. Next day poll voters from that precinct would count them. My own feeling is that our democracy is more important than inconvenience, delay in announcing results, and auditable results if the outcome is close, and it would save the money wasted on maintaining and storing the machines (although it might be awash). Canada still counts all their ballots by hand.

[MH1]

40. They could be.

Just keep in mind that it requires additional logistics and additional cost.

I am not necessarily against HCPB, but sometimes it seems that proponents haven't thought through all the implications. I also don't like the demonization of people who disagree, because these concerns are valid (even if you think they should be easily solved).

[Solon]

51. From a technical standpoint, electronic, computerized, voting machines...

as used today are simply a disaster, security wise. The biggest problem are systems like GEM, which require networking, which just means putting a hole in the security system, and relying on private companies to actually determine if the system is reliable, especially without the use of paper ballots that are printed, for auditing purposes.

To build a secure voting machine, the first thing to worry about is the OS, the operating system, it cannot be something as simple as what you buy at an electronics store, it has to be secure, have source code that can be audited by independent auditors, and is either readily available or can be easily coded. Most of these machines use Microsoft Windows, which doesn't allow for any of this.

The next step is the voting software, which also must have source code that can be independently audited, is stable, and has a good encryption scheme, the OS should have the same.

The next step is the hardware, which, ideally, should be made from parts that aren't proprietary at all, in addition to open standards, and a bios that can also be audited. The hardware should NOT have the capability for any type of communication with the outside world, and should be shielded against outside interference completely. This means that the system should, ideally, not use magnetic storage, like hard drives, but possibly be flash based storage. The data on the storage medium needs to be encrypted, preferably at 256 or greater bits.

The voting machine itself should be completely sealed in and locked, with the best physical security available, to prevent tampering. The interface should be simple and also tamper-proof. Avoid using a device to simulate keyboard presses at all costs, that's just asking for trouble. A touchscreen is fine, as long as its properly calibrated.

As far as paper auditing, well, part of the design for the voting machine should include a small viewing window, made of shatterproof plexiglass, or similar material, and the machine, after confirming your choices, should print out a paper ballot and confirm that what is on that ballot is correct. The ballot itself should be human and machine readable, whether barcode or simply optical ballot type, doesn't matter. If the ballot is confirmed as valid, it drops into a separately secured ballot box that is within the machine. If the ballot is rejected, it should be put in a discard box, after being shredded, also sealed within the machine.

The data within the machine will already be stored in, most likely, encrypted USB keys, or a similar system that is portable and reliable. When encrypted, the key itself cannot be either read or written to, outside of the voting machine. They will be stored in a secured lockbox by poll workers, with party witnesses, and then sent to a central location to be decrypted and the data read. The USB keys will then be destroyed, in an unrecoverable fashion.

Random audits should be done at least once in every county after the voting is done, involving both hand counting of the paper ballots and optically scanning them. The results from the machine data should be compared to the ballots, if accurate, then all the data from all precincts can then be used to determine the outcome of the election, if the audit fails, then only the paper ballots are counted, with some being counted by hand counts and others by optical scans.

Please keep in mind that I'm a computer geek, and know about both hardware and software, I don't advocate using such a system. I'm just illustrating how to create as secure a system as possible, even though, as everybody knows, it wouldn't be 100% secure, that's impossible.

[Kurovski]

71. Thanks for giving info and your "computer geek" input.

I appreciate it.

[Land Shark]

45. Just sat thru a presentation by the NH Asst Secty of State

This stuff is really not that hard at all. People still do it, and did it for a century. One has to wonder at the attitudes that suggest that people today are too cretinous (?) or something to manage HCPB.

[kpete]

12. Kucinich is not given enough credit for his patriotism

and his dedication to this country and it's constitution. I applaud him for this courageous and sound decision. I hope others will follow. We need politicians who work for WE THE PEOPLE and have our best interests in mind when they consider legislation - not their own careers and agendas.

Thanks for all your hard work Land Shark. We miss you in San Diego, come back soon...k

[Kurovski]

18. Amen to that kpete.

And many sincere thanks go to you as well.

[sandnsea]

17. The absolute height of stupidity

Fools. Complete fools. Forget election reform if you get idiots ranting about hand counted ballots fighting against the small margin willing to do anything about elections in the first place. This is why the left continuously has no credibility. This undermines progress and is a complete waste of time.

[Kurovski]

20. So calling opponents "fools" "idiots" and charging them with "stupidity"

is a form of persuasion, is it?

Will Kucinich come rushing to your side? Or do you hope that folks reading what you write will exclaim "Oh my! I don't want to be an idiot like Maxine Waters and 52% of all election activists, I think I'll side with sandnsea!!" :shrug:

[sandnsea]

21. I gave up on that years ago

I spent time after 2004 trying to convince people about implementing paper ballots, and registration reform, and mail-in. But nooo, they went off with their hand counted ballot scheme. Well we still don't have election reform. We won't have election reform next year either. And now these idiots have Congress fighting each other over a stupid measure that will NEVER EVER EVER get implemented. Fuck it. They're idiots and I'm not about to continue pretending otherwise.

[Land Shark]

22. Well, hand counted paper ballots is the only system consistent with American rights

If a crook is in charge of computerized elections, we can NOT kick a crooked politician out of office, especially under the additional trade secrecy protections on top of the invisibility to start with.

What it means to be able to kick out only an HONEST politician but not a crooked one manipulating computerized voting?

It means simply this: We are not a free people.

And yes sandnsea, in case you don't follow this issue closely enough, there are easy ways to make all audits of paper trails match electronic counts and yet have the election still be totally fraudulent and not matching the intent of voters.

It's idiotic to have a voting system that is such that we are totally vulnerable to criminal election insiders.

HCPB is the most advanced system of democratic checks and balances we have, that honors citizen rights in elections and allows their supervision and control. It's running UNOPPOSED in the race for a voting system that complies with the needs of democracy.

[sandnsea]

24. Hand counts were crooked

That's why we went to machines. Yelling doesn't make you right, and neither does your law degree. This is a stupid waste of time, and a diversion from getting real reform. You ought to be ashamed.

[Kurovski]

39. With hand counts you couldn't switch a million votes with a keystroke.

Hand counts didn't have laws that protected the secrecy of the methods used by people who wished to steal the vote. Hand counts had the greatest transparency and accountability.

E-voting, ImO, is an open field for crookedness no matter how many safeguards are put in place.

There is no shame if one sees that and states it out loud in a public forum.

[sandnsea]

41. Oh please

Maybe you're too young to know boxes of ballots in the river was real. Maybe you don't know why you sit and wait for hours for two precincts on opposite sides of a state to report. There have been crooked elections forever. Hand counting makes it worse, not better.

I support paper ballots, opti-scan, open source, precinct audits, along with registration reform. But now that people are off on a tangent with hand counted ballots, that will never happen. And there's no shame in pointing it out so people will pull their heads out of the clouds and get to work on something real.

[Kurovski]

43. That brand of election fraud you mention is far too much work,

entails too many people being in on the crime, and is far more easy to catch.

[Land Shark]

47. Some people just don't understand the multiplying powers of computers

even as they sit there using a computer

[Kurovski]

49. ...Or perhaps would rather not acknowledge it.

One could at least think about it a while. Something.

But I dunno, for you see, I'm too "young, stupid, idiotic and foolish" to begin to know, or at least that is the implication upthread. :D

[sandnsea]

55. Or the auditing of ATM's

Which happens every day in this country. Thinking that we can't machine count our votes is as stupid as saying we have to hand count money. It is so dumb there are no words to desribe the dumbness of it.

[Kurovski]

73. Yes, and people who have bank accounts can check the accuracy

each and every month. Even DAILY. Regular citizens can't go in and keep an eye on their vote whenever they want to. In fact, they can't do it at all with the latest HR811.

If someone can steal an election through electronic means, they're going to find a way to do it. If you come up with a safeguard, there will be a way around it found.

The rewards of a heist such as that are irresistible to thieves and cons.

This is the history of legislation: leave the loopholes for those who can get away with it.

The Bush admin is a sterling example of all that one can achieve with a stolen election.

And please knock it off with the "dumb" business. It's an illegitimate part of an argument. It is manipulative and makes you appear to be a psy-ops operative hoping to influence an observer's opinion through psychological means.

[sandnsea]

84. No it isn't a legitimate argument

I can check to see whether my ballot was counted. It just isn't a good measure of whether all ballots were counted so that isn't a legimate argument.

People are always going to be looking for methods to steal elections, so that isn't a legitimate argument.

There are solid proposals to close those loopholes, so your history of loopholes bullshit isn't a legitimate argument.

Accusing me of being a troll isn't a legimate argument.

So let me see, what are we left with. Oh yeah, a bunch of dumb bullshit.

No more secret proprietary software. Audit every machine. Take the counting out of the precinct and put it into one highly secure county location. Make the paper the ballot. Registration reform. These are the things that need to be done and I personally question how the exact same people continuously distort the correct solutions to the extent NOTHING ever gets done. You want to talk psy-ops, how about you consider that.

[Kurovski]

92. I believe that you're a legitimately concerned citizen,

understandably frustrated.

I don't believe you're a troll. Not at all. I merely stated that all the insults hurled toward those who would disagree with you "looks like" a very common psy-ops technique. It's not a good way to go.

I understand that you're frustrated and angry. So am I.

And you can add heartsick to the list as well.

And...all of the points you make go back to the proprietary software which is not open to view without one being an expert and overcoming legal hurdles.

And as for "People are always going to be looking for methods to steal elections", the methods with e-voting reap far greater results with far less effort or chance of being detected, and so are far more dangerous, in my opinion.

[sandnsea]

97. Who is talking about proprietary software?

Nobody. Because everybody is rolling their eyes at the idea of hand counts. It diverts attention from everything you say you care about. So what are you doing really? Diverting attention from the truth, by calling anybody who points out the obvious some kind of mole. Who benefits from distortions on important issues? It happens over and over and over. Some people need to wake the hell up and stop being tools, including Dennis Kucinich.

[Kurovski]

98. I really didn't think you were a "mole" at first.

But now we're on second.

And while we have one more previously posted exchange downthread, I shall now say Good-bye.

[sandnsea]

58. As opposed to a national computer hack?

Implemented in 50 different ways in precincts across the country. Right. That hardly takes any people at all. :eyes:

[Kurovski]

66. Your eyeroll emoticon has convinced me.

:D

[Wilms]

26. re: "there are easy ways to make all audits of paper trails match electronic counts"

That's new to me. Help me understand.

[sandnsea]

42. You cheat on the hand count

That's how. You pick prefincts that you know you didn't manipulate, and count them. Then you leave the precincts that you cheated on, alone. That's why Oregon is trying to get an audit in every precinct, instead of the random audit that is about to be passed. We're still way way ahead of the rest of the country on elections though, not that any of the experts are paying any attention.

[Wilms]

44. You're saying two different things.

"You pick precincts that you know you didn't manipulate". Why does the bad guy get to pick the precincts to be audited? That would be thwarted by a random selection.

But you say you aren't happy with random audits. I'm not following.

You do suggest an audit of each precincts. There I do agree, except to say that even that may not be necessary to catch/deter bad guys.

I wanted to post a link about from Howard Stanislevics blog, but the site is done. I encourage you to poke around his site and see what he has to say about auditing.

http://e-voter.blogspot.com

[sandnsea]

54. Thats the theory

They picked the precincts in Ohio, that's why you can't trust audits. If it doesn't make any sense to you, go complain to the stolen election people.

I'm not happy with random audits, but they're a step in the right direction. Every machine that counts votes should be audited. Software should be in escrow. There should be alot of changes. I don't need to read anybody's blog to know that. Especially since Oregon has managed to get auditing legislation to a vote, which is a damn site more than the hand counters are ever going to get. You keep reading your blogs though, that'll really make all the difference.

[Wilms]

56. Well that was insulting.

:cry:

[sandnsea]

60. Then put on your thinking cap

I am so sick of this shit. THINK. You know damn well promoting hand counts over paper ballots with audits is stupid.

[Wilms]

62. That is not at all what I said.

But I don't feel it's worth the trouble bothering you with such a minor detail while your on a roll.

[sandnsea]

67. A minor detail??

How can derailing election reform possibly be a minor detail?

[Wilms]

68. Perhaps we're talking past one another and should, therefore, give it a break.

It's obvious to me you care deeply about election integrity. That's good news.

Peace to you.

[sandnsea]

69. It's very simple

Audit paper ballots which has support.

Or run around like headless chickens demanding hand counts, which has no support.

I don't think anybody is talking past anybody here.

[Wilms]

70. It's the best I can do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1083312&mesg_id=1086525

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. well, that was an interesting twist

Land Shark wrote, "..."there are easy ways to make all audits of paper trails match electronic counts" (emphasis added). Presumably if you agreed with that, you wouldn't be supporting auditing as an alternative to 100% hand counts.

[sandnsea]

82. Except it's not true

Besides, if you can cheat hand counted audits - you can cheat hand counts. And you can cheat hand counts, ALONE, a whole lot easier because you only have to cheat once. The hand count movement is stupid.

I live in Oregon. Go ahead and check for 2004 glitches. We had registration fraud by Republicans. But we didn't have election glitches and we're one of the few states that didn't have them. We're also one of the few states that had all our 2000 Dem & Green votes go for Kerry in 2004. And people are working for even tighter elections, but not hand counts because it is just never going to happen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. I agree: it's not all THAT easy to cheat audits

The random selection has to be actually random, and close in time to the actual recounting, to minimize the risk of tampering.

How easy it is to cheat hand counts probably depends on how they are implemented... but of course, almost no place does implement them.

I don't mind having the hand count movement plug away -- hey, maybe they could win somewhere -- but "hand counts or bust" is sure not a rallying cry I can get behind.

[sandnsea]

86. How it is here

We have all mail-in, consequently every voter already has a paper ballot. There already is a ballot test, it has to be done to make sure the machines are counting correctly. We're looking to add an audit after the count, at the time of the election. The argument here is whether the audit will be a random sampling of precincts or all precincts. Our precincts are all counted in one county location, so we also don't have the opportunity for all these different local operatives to engage in their shenanigans. As I said above, there is more reform needed and all this hand count bullshit does is divert attention from the real issues. It's infuriating.

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. Oregon is different

Lots of activists are dead set against mail-in ballots. Partly for security reasons, but not only. Moving away from a single election day changes how campaigns operate (this is also true for early voting). It also eliminates all the social institutions that have grown around elections. (For instance, a lot of community fundraisers would be wiped out, as would the whole idea of "go vote, see your friends, buy a tasty treat." And of course, in those relatively few places that still do hand counts, that would sleep with the fishes.)

I'm by no means an apologist for hand counting paper ballots. I just try to see all sides (hence my screen name). I definitely see yours!

[sandnsea]

89. Oregon works

And there's just a different voting tradition now. Families and friends get together over pizza or Chinese and vote. Besides, the ability for everybody who wants to vote to be able to vote outweighs any argument. I can't understand how anybody could look at those people standing in lines for hours and not see that it's time for mail-in. Securing the ballots is an issue. We have drop boxes sitting outside and I don't think that would work in some of these more notorious states. But there's no way a mail carrier can steal ballots, everybody is getting them, it isn't like the randomness of absentees. It would be obvious if one carrier had all the ballot problems.

Still, my main point is that there are methods of securing an electronic vote. We've been using machines of one form or other for far too long to go back to hand counting. Machines count our money, people are simply not going to accept that we can't use machines to count our votes.

[althecat]

19. Reported on DU... reported on Scoop...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00132.htm

[robcon]

23. Another reason to suspect Kucinich's policy recommendations

"Kucinich also stated that he will "very soon" reintroduce HR 6200, the bill for hand counted paper ballots in the presidential race for last session. The timing is to arrange a national rollout for momentum on hand counted paper ballots."

Hand counted ballots? In 2007? Hard to believe ANYONE believes in that nonsesnse.

[Kurovski]

72. I'm beginning to think there may be a fair majority of Americans

who think we already are counting ballots by hand.

they don't seem to know much of anything about electronic voting, given the lack of information on it in broadcast news, and how infrequently most representatives make statements on it.

[livvy]

28. Great news on HR 6200. I hope it gets the support it deserves. n/t

[upi402]

35. Kucinich for President

I'm done compromising for corporate whore, or corporate whore lite.
This guy is my badass #1 to do this dirty dirty job. Keep low Dennis and stop flying please my brother.

[kiteinthewind]

37. Great news, Land Shark! It is so predictable to watch all the usual suspects

(nay sayers) come out of the woodwork! It absolutely makes them crazy with rage when someone says HCPB's. Makes me wonder what their horse is in the race. :shrug:
Thanks for posting! :hi:
and K & R, too!

[Land Shark]

46. Yes it is, and then to see them try to humiliate americans by suggesting they can't handle HCPB

Last time I checked, Americans had a can-do attitude, not a "can't do" attitude

[kiteinthewind]

80. I agree. The 'It's TOOOO hard' argument is just insulting. Always makes me thing of * and his

'this is a HARD job' line. Thanks for posting, LS!
:kick:

[emlev]

48. Have you heard anything re: Waters lately?

I haven't and would like to. As the person who asked her the question that led to her public statement that she would withdraw her sponsorship, I'm very interested in what she currently has to say about the bill.

And this Kucinich news is exciting.

[Kurovski]

50. Maybe we'll be hearing more soon...

I've been told that there's exciting news coming up in a few days that will make me "dance a jig".

I prefer the Frug, but I'll do what I can. :hi:

[emlev]

53. Do you know any more? Gettin' jiggy wid it?

[Kurovski]

74. That's all I know.

keep coming to DU for the next few days, I guess.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. She is still a cosponsor of the Holt bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00811:@@@P

[Kurovski]

76. It needs to be updated. (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

77. Perhaps Congressman Waters has not officially withdrawn her support

All she needs to do is notify the Speaker (or Speaker Pro Tempore) in writing.

[Kurovski]

87. It appears that she hasn't.

I called her office and I was told that she has not at this time withdrawn her support.

Land Shark, do you have any more information on this?

[Freddie Stubbs]

93. So, either someone isn't telling the truth or someone hasn't done their job

Either way it does not reflect well on Congresswoman Waters.

[Kurovski]

96. There's a misunderstanding somewhere, yes.

I don't know what exactly it reflects on yet.

[Bill Bored]

57. Well, I like Kucinich, but having HCPB for POTUS is pandering!

If you want to do it right, do it for ALL federal elections. There are only 3 of 'em you know.

The Presidential race is one of the hardest to hack. Sure, it can be done, but it's the hardest. That's why they have to use techniques other than e-voting to steal it.

If you really want the biggest bang for the buck with HCPB, it's the House races, which are harder to audit and easier to rig.

A bill that only addresses the Presidential election is just so much grandstanding.

But hey, I'm stubborn enough to think that Holt's bill can be improved too!

[Wilms]

59. Hey, thanks for the correction.

I was thinking it called for all federal elections.

[Bill Bored]

61. Who knows? It's last year's fucking bill!

We will have to see what is introduced this time.
But he has been warned!:grr:

[Wilms]

63. That's a good point ya got there, Bill.

Why does Kucinich oppose HCPB for races other than the Presidential.

Anyone? :shrug:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

64. cause he forgot the children?

you know, if you love the kids and all that?

[Wilms]

65. That must be it!

I mean, it's not as though he's some Patriot Act loving Fascist or somethin'.

At least, I hope not.

:rofl:

[glowing]

75. Would a bubble ballot work?

Bubble in the ballot, send it through the reader, and there are still paper to recount in a close call. If it works for our highschool students with their bubbled tests, wouldn't it work for an election?

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. that is what is called "optical scan"

It variously uses bubble, boxes, or broken arrows that the voter connects. It is widely used, and many election integrity activists support it.

Critics point out that the optical scanners are hackable, which is true. They can also be misconfigured, or just fail. In my opinion, which is pretty common, those problems are manageable as long as the ballots are secured and systematically audited.

Another twist is how people with various disabilities should vote. Some folks advocate technology that would help people with various disabilities to mark their ballots themselves; some folks advocate that everyone use touchscreen equipment (ballot marking devices) that would produce optically scannable ballots; and some folks advocate Direct Recording Electronic equipment, perhaps with an audio audit trail. It gets pretty arcane.

[loudsue]

81. This is GREAT news, Land Shark!

And OF COURSE it's Kucinich that "gets it". :loveya: He's the best!!

Keep up the good work!!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[Kurovski]

95. Kick. (nt)

[kster]

99. KR.nt

[Patsy Stone]

100. Excellent, Paul!

Great news; and thanks for all of your time and effort.