You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #10: You're missing the point. It's not about Lipari. Here's the deal: [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You're missing the point. It's not about Lipari. Here's the deal:
New Yorkers have a right to know that their votes are being counted as cast and that the winners and losers of elections are as the voters intended.

You are correct that this problem is nationwide. Other states have quietly and willingly given away their constitutional rights long ago. But does that mean New Yorkers should too? No fucking way!

We are not as quiet here. That upsets some folks from other states (where perhaps there is something in the water or whatever), but New Yorkers don't give up without a fight. It's not how we were brought up or how we're wired.

Now, Lipari notwithstanding, the problem with paper ballot/op scan is that there is nothing in this new voting system, nor the NY election law that mandates it, to protect the voters' constitutional right to have their votes counted as cast -- that is -- there is nothing to require hand counts of enough of the original paper ballots to see if enough of the scanners counted correctly or not.

Not only does this unconstitutionally deprive voters of their rights, but it can also result in the wrong candidates being elected -- a LOT!

Since you mention "audits", which presumably are random hand counts, you may accept that computers make undetectable mistakes and can also be easily programmed to do so deliberately. But if that's the case, doesn't it make sense to "work for improvement of your audits and election procedures" BEFORE replacing the non-computerized machines with computerized ballot scanners?

Unfortunately this was not the policy of Lipari, NYVV, the LWV of NY, the NYS Legislature or most New York election officials. The solution you're proposing -- working for better audits -- has been tried repeatedly by others in the state, and has failed. In fact, audits are getting worse in NY -- not better -- because county election officials do not want to hand-count one more ballot than the law requires. The State Board of Elections has caved to the counties' wishes by gutting their own regulations that would have required somewhat more hand counting.

Almost all these election officials have virtually ignored the advice of advocates and experts when it comes to auditing elections. So what does that say about their willingness to verify election results?

The bottom line is: There is no interest in election verification among the powers that be in New York. They just want to trust the computers.

The one thing that might result in better audits of elections is lawsuits. Perhaps the very same one Lipari opposes. It's primary focus is to keep the lever voting machines rather than giving up the protection of our constitutional rights that they provide. But the reason for this is that the new system and the way it's being implemented in NY, as elsewhere, does NOT protect those rights.

As I'm sure you know, you have to take the good with the bad, so if getting better audits can only be achieved through litigation, and no one has the balls to sue for better audits, then the next best thing is to sue to keep the mostly unaudited computers from counting the votes in New York the first place. This should have been done years ago, but because NY had not yet met its HAVA obligation to provide accessible voting equipment for voters with disabilities, a lawsuit to protect the constitutional rights of ALL voters might have been premature. That accessibility mandate has now been met, so it's time to say enough is enough. We are HAVA-compliant now. End of story.

As far as HAVA itself, the statute bans neither lever machines nor hand counts. The only "forces that HAVA has unleashed" are the tools of the propagandists! And there are far too many New Yorkers willing to pick up those tools and use them to construct their bogus narratives about HAVA, levers, computerized vote counting, etc.

Hope this helps put things in perspective for you. It's not about Lipari; it's about our constitutional rights. And the courts will be the ones to decide all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -E-Vote Counting in the Filipines: "Fired up with faith and hope" Bill Bored  Apr-10-10 12:23 PM   #0 
  - This reminds me of those Nigerian email scams.  Wilms   Apr-10-10 12:37 PM   #1 
     - Reminds me of some of our New Yorkers, only it's a bit less secular.  Bill Bored   Apr-10-10 01:58 PM   #2 
     - Uncalled For.  Yellow Horse   Apr-11-10 04:55 AM   #3 
        - Are you, and have you been paying attention?  Wilms   Apr-11-10 08:35 AM   #4 
        - Indeed I have been paying attention; I joined DU 12/25/2004.  Yellow Horse   Apr-13-10 11:32 AM   #6 
           - We joined the same day.  Wilms   Apr-13-10 11:58 AM   #8 
           - Thread not hijacked. Much of NYS uses same e-voting system as the Phillipines.  Bill Bored   Apr-13-10 01:21 PM   #11 
        - Talk about uncalled for. Look what Lipari writes about election activists.  Wilms   Apr-11-10 09:50 AM   #5 
           - I agree with what Bo Lipari wrote. It's common sense.  Yellow Horse   Apr-13-10 11:46 AM   #7 
              - Pardon?  Wilms   Apr-13-10 12:05 PM   #9 
              - Thank you for putting words into my mouth and then telling me to shut up.  Yellow Horse   Apr-13-10 01:50 PM   #12 
                 - While Bill Bored covered it well, I'll add that I agree that I don't know who you are.  Wilms   Apr-13-10 02:27 PM   #13 
                 - People haven't made the right legal arguments, have they?  Bill Bored   Apr-13-10 02:53 PM   #14 
                    - Here's a case that was pretty close. It quickly got tossed.  Yellow Horse   Apr-13-10 03:27 PM   #15 
                       - Try not to be misleading.  Wilms   Apr-13-10 04:42 PM   #16 
                       - Wilms, I was present at every day of the proceedings on that suit. Yes it was pretty much tossed.  demodonkey   Apr-13-10 05:40 PM   #17 
                          - Well, thanks for chiming in despite the tight schedule.  Wilms   Apr-13-10 07:27 PM   #19 
                             - Quick reason why (IMO) and then I have to go to sleep...  demodonkey   Apr-13-10 10:39 PM   #21 
                       - Oh come on! You can do better than that, can't ya? This is not similar to the Nassau case at all.  Bill Bored   Apr-13-10 06:04 PM   #18 
              - You're missing the point. It's not about Lipari. Here's the deal:  Bill Bored   Apr-13-10 01:06 PM   #10 
                 - Speaking of the audit "...policy of Lipari, NYVV, the LWV ...", what's their position?  Wilms   Apr-13-10 08:42 PM   #20 
                    - Their position seems to be: kill the levers now; ask questions later. nt  Bill Bored   Apr-13-10 11:04 PM   #22 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC