Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Paper Trail will Perpetuate E-Voting Manipulation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:06 PM
Original message
Paper Trail will Perpetuate E-Voting Manipulation
Let's not get euphoric over a Paper Trail ( paper vote receipt) system.
Not only is a Paper Trail not the solution to Electronic Voting Manipulation, it will aid,abet,enable, and protect the electronic
vote fraud.
Sure, the paper receipt will show you who you voted for.
Big Deal. So what.
Who is going to cross reference, reconcile ALL the individual paper receipts to the computer logs? Nobody.
What law is there that allows for the reconciling of the paper receipts to the software logs? There is none.
What is the guarantee that the line item entry (i.e. your vote)is
going to be accurately counted in the log total. None
In Excel, sure you can make every line item entry the correct and legitimate entry. But, at the end of the row or column, one can enter whatever formula one wants to, in order to make the total correspond to any figure the programmer wants to.
And, still after that, who or what law is there to protect the integrity of the correct and accurate vote totals being transferred to and from the central tabulators. There is none.
But there will definitely be a Surefire Bullet Proof Excuse by the
BushReich to not permit further investigation of the Electronic Voting Equipment and Electronic Trail. After all, the Voters got a Paper Receipt for their vote. What else can American Citizens possibly ask for?
All the Paper Trail Vote Receipt is going to accomplish is to put one more additional barrier between an American Citizen's Vote and and any possible guarantee that each vote will be legally, lawfully, and correctly counted and logged.
The rush to concentrate and demand Paper Trail Vote Receipts is actually a false and deceptive security endeavor.
This is not the solution to Electronic Vote Manipulation.
This does not and will not grant American Citizens the legal right and avenue to impound and investigate the complete electronic voting
process, i.e. software and server records.
What America MUST have, immediately, is the legal right to have ALL Electronic Voting Equipment and records impounded and inspected.
Until America has that legal right, America is no better than any other 3rd World Election Rigged Despot Ruled Fascist State.
And the concept of a True Democracy in America is nothing but a cruel misconception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Using paper and pen in the first place and counting those
plain paper ballots on Election Night is so much cheaper, easier, and straightforward than impounding electronic machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Ain't goin' to Happen
Each state spent way too much money,
the BushReich has way too much work invested into Rigging and destroying the Sanctity of the Democratic process of voting to let paper ballots return.
NO WAY!
If they give up E-Voting, that is an admission that the E-Voting was rigged
Ain't goin' to Happen!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. Using Paper Ballots is cheaper than using computers.
Computers have to be maintained, upgraded, thrown into a landfill...

Paper Ballots not Paper Trails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. you may like the hand count solution better
But there is no way it is cheaper. Many more election officials would have to be employed to oversee hand counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. yes I have to agree
I think this "paper receipts" thing is a real smokescreen to hide just how insecure the whole e-voting process is, as you detail very well. We really must fight this, and educate the public.

Yes, need to stress
1. security
2. access to equipment by investigators

The better thing is to go back to paper ballots. Right now security experts like Chuck Herrin don't even trust optiscan to count the paper ballots, at least not right now. He wants hand-counted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. How are checking paper receipts more difficult than hand counting paper?
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 08:33 PM by imenja
Aren't the obstacles the same. Would you advocate doing nothing about promoting paper receipts and just let things stay the way they are now?
The advantage is they allow for verification and recount. Machines that produce no paper do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm Not talking about paper Ballots- Those are in the Past
It will be a cold day in Hell before Paper Ballots come back into use in Amerika.
Electronic Voting is the Reality in Amerika today and in the future.
To dwell on what was done in the past is counterproductive and diversionary.
The Problem at hand, NOW and in the Future, is how to put an end to the rampant fraud and vote manipulation which has become an integral and inherent part of Electronic Voting in America Today.
We have to deal with it.
We have to fight it.
We have to put an end to the vote manipulation.
Let's get real here. NOW
FACT-
Today, In America, we have absolutely no legal right to get the Electronic Voting equipment impounded and investigated.
FACT-
No Public Official is going to discontinue using the Electronic Voting Machines.
WHY-
1. They would have to admit that the machines are rife with manipulating software
2. They would have to admit that they Fucked Up
Neither is going to happen
The BushReich is not going to Permit it to happen
Our Fight is to FORCE AMERICAN ELECTED OFFICIALS to implement
laws guaranteeing America the Right to Impound and Investigate the Electronic Voting Equipment. Now.
Our Fight is to Convince Publically Elected Officials that the Aberrations, anomalies, discrepancies, and other vote count irregularities generated by the use of Electronic Voting Equipment was the result of Criminal Human Intervention. Period
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. It's possible to have paper receipts and examine the machines you know
They aren't mutually exclusive. A paper back up is crucial for verification and recounts. Without that, no accurate recount can be carried out. Also, votes were wiped out in their entirety in some counties. Elections had to be redone. To me, the idea that having a paper backup makes it impossible to examine the voting machines itself makes absolutely no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Identify ONE Electronic Voting Machine in the U.S. which was examined
Can't Name one
Why
Because there is No law granting America that Right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. but why does promoting paper receipts prohibit that?
The laws need to be passed. In Fla, there is no law guaranteeing paper receipts either. I really don't understand why so many people working on voting reform insist on thinking so narrowly about the issue. We must consider a variety of reforms. It is possible to achieve more than one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I am glad there is no paper reciept in Florida.
When no statutory definition for a term exists, the first fallback in all courts is to consult the definition in Blacks Law Dictionary. a compelling case can be made for the fact that ballot is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary...Paper is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary but "Trail" is completely absent. Collectively the definition for ballot and the definition for paper generate a clear and easily understood legal definition of the paper ballot needed to ensure the integrity of our vote. Paper trail produces no such record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. this really is a lost cause
Everyone fighting with each other insisting that any proposed reform is wrong. Who needs Republicans when manage to so efficiently destroy ourselves. Pogo's words seem appropriate here: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Im not fighting...
But my stance on vvpb has never changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. This isn't meant to in-fight
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 02:13 PM by JunkYardDogg
Imenja,
There was a definite reason why I posted this
And Yes, I wish we had Paper Ballots,
I'm lucky, where I live, Paper Ballots were used.
Here are the reasons why I posted this, so that you and everybody else will understand:
I spoke at our County Progressive meeting the other nite, our 2nd meeting, on the subject of rigged E-Voting
Why,
Because it is a subject which must be first and foremost FORCED upon the Public, specifically upon Dems, who do not seem to want to acknowledge this problem-That is why there is a fast emerging formation of Locally Based Progressive Activist groups, operating outside of the traditional non-confrontational parameters of the Democrats. The problem is now that there are not many people who have serious dissident political leadership experience. This goes to those of us from the '60's who went thru this and know how to git'er done.
My politics are very confrontational and the best results come from Forcing people to think and act and acknowledge repressive politics.
That being said, I now must repeat myself.
The E-Voting machines are unfortunately here to stay. Unless we can
build a HUGE, and I mean HUGE Public movement to terminate them.
The only way that could happen is to prove that the E-Machines are rigged-WE all have a pretty good idea of how that is done.
But there are IMMENSE obstacles in doing so.
First and Foremost, as I have said, there is actually No law which enables American Citizens to get the Equipment impounded and investigated.
I don't know about you, but that really pisses me off.
It erodes and decimates the very foundation of the concept of American Democracy.
There were 58 MILLION People who voted Democratic this past Election.
It should be of great significance that we make every one of those 58 Million people know of and understand the E-Voting problem.
Nobody is going to do it for us.
We have to do it ourselves.
This isn't Black Magic we're talking about here.
When I spoke at the meeting, and I can talk some shit, I lit a fire under everybody. And surprise, just about everybody agreed that this is the most important thing which we need to fight right now.
Someone in the group raised the issue that in California, in the next election, a paper trail (voting receipt) will be mandatory and it resulted in the opinion that we wouldn't have to worry anymore about Electronic manipulation.
So, I got to thinking, what's wrong with this picture, how are we going to get fucked next.
That's why I posted this topic.
I think that it still leaves the door open for a good screwing.
From a business viewpoint, if this was a business based accounting procedure, there would have to be a duplicate type of paper tape style roll used.
One copy goes to the voter. The second copy stays on a roll on the machine. After voting, the roll would have to be reconciled to the Electronic-computer generated log-than the individual machine electronic-computer generated log would have to be transferred/transmitted to the central tabulators-than its gets more murky,less easy to trail and follow
So where's the problem?
Each machine has to be reconciled,the central tabulators have to be monitored. Do we have enough trained observers for EVERY Voting Location to do this?
And , Legally can we, as monitors do this?
I do not know.
If we can, than we have less than two years to recruit and train enough poll-site monitors to do this.
If legally we can't, we are back to where we are now.
So, why I am so militant about forcing this issue upon the DU group-
We have to deal with it, whether or not we want to.
This is the reality of the situation.
How do we deal with it
How do we beat them
How do we keep from getting screwed the next time
If I pissed off anybody
than good,
We cannot afford to bury our collective heads in the sand any longer
Idealistic dreams and goals are great,
But deal with the Reality NOW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. I agree with much of that
I personally think this movement in favor of paper ballots counted by hand is not only unrealistic but not adequately thought out. It appears to be a Luddite reaction to machines themselves. People seem to have no idea how hand counts worked in this country in the past and the problems that arose. They imagine broadcasting counts on TV will somehow solve the problem. I feel quite certain it will not. Also, I can't see politicians or the public at large embracing the system. Frankly, I don't see a reason why they should. Both hand counts and electronic systems are potentially corruptible. I believe the best solution is to make the system as verifiable as possible. I agree with you that voting machines must be subject to examination, but not by any citizen who asks. They themselves could corrupt the counting programs. I don't know enough about computers to imagine what the best way to deal with the machines themselves is, but since we rely on computers for so much else in our life, banking for example, I don't see why good computerized voting machines couldn't be created. I agree that some sort of open programming and verification system needs to be put in place.
Paper receipts or ballots, however, are also central to verification. I envision a system where we have machine counts of paper ballots or receipts, and then verify the accuracy of the machine counts by randomly checking a certain percentage of the paper ballots. If the paper ballot/ receipts don't correspond with the machine count, an extensive hand recount would have to be carried out. I suggest we verify a certain percentage of ballots in every election, not just in the case of contested or close election. It should be part of the normal process of the election.
Machines should also be scrutinized. Those familiar with the technology need to decide how that could best be done. I think it is unwise, however, to suggest paper receipts or ballots are not necessary. Both reforms are crucial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I'm not advocating no paper receipts
I'm just thinking out loud how we're gonna get screwed on this and how it can have better safeguards written into it
If we can put our collective heads together, maybe we can come up with a safer standard which we can collectively present to state law makers (friendlies). Because, the standards are not really set yet,
let us fight for standards which are more protective of the sanctity of the vote process than are less protective. This really is an issue we MUST pursue and explore vigorously.
As I understand it, there is a provision that paper receipts must be issued, but there is no standard for what they say, or their accountability to the tabulation /auditing process.
As far as individual requests to investigate the E-Vote equipment, I'm really addressing that use in valid lawsuits, as in the Ohio/Arnebeck suit.
The problem being the standard involved-
Which is:
One must give evidence of:
1. Vote Fraud having been committed
and
2. The Amount of the Fraud committed was sufficient enough to have caused a difference in the final results of the election
This must be proved Before one can force the issue before the court of impounding the machines and back tracing the servers.
That's the BIG Problem.
That's what doomed the Arnebeck suit.
We have to change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. in some states, legislatures are a huge obstacle
In Florida, the overwhelmingly Republican legislature has blocked all efforts to implement paper receipts. That and other changes, I believe, will likely only be implemented through a constitutional amendment that allows a direct vote by the people. Such amendments need to be worded in one or two sentences, and in as clear of a way as possible. It is the Republican legislature who implements the amendments, and we need a clear mandate they can't wiggle around. I want voting reform on ballot for the 2006 gubernatorial and congressional election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Not sure, but Paper Trail may be part of HAVA
How's that for a short reply
This is, as per your reply, exactly why we need to keep this on fire
It really is a subject for All the Progressive Regional Groups to fervently pursue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. no, it's not part of HAVA n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Read Andy's Post
It's all about this subject
I just now read it
Wish I readit before I started this Post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cookie wookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Just happen to have a pdf handy on this question
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 07:59 PM by Cookie wookie
as today was involved in a discussion on it. Below is the first page. This can probably be googled somewhere for those interested in reading the whole paper.

Point to note, where Wold says "requirements," HAVA's mandates are not mandatory on states, only voluntary guidelines.

To quote Brit Williams from a post he made on September 7, 2004 to the IEEE.org bulletin board: "It may be worth pointing out occasionally that the entire Standards program is voluntary and nothing binds the Secretaries of State." http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc38/1583/email/msg0026...

Brit Williams describes himself as "a Professor Emeritus of Computer Science and Information Systems at Kennesaw State University. He was a consultant to the FEC during the development of the FEC Voting System Standards in 1990 and again in 2002. Currently a member of the NASED Voting Systems Board and Chair of the NASED Voting Systems Board Technical Committee. He has been conducting certification evaluations of computer-based voting systems for the State of Georgia since 1986. He also assists the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia with certification evaluations of computer-based voting systems."
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:n646wQdW-cJ:www.vo...

"THE HAVA REQUIREMENT FOR A VOTER VERIFIED PAPER RECORD
Darryl R. Wold1
July 23, 2003

"This paper explains that the Help America Vote Act of 20022 requires that any voting system used in an election for Federal office must produce a paper record of the vote cast by each voter that has been seen and verified by the voter. HAVA further requires that this voter verified paper record be available for a manual audit of the voting system, and for any recount.

HAVA requires, in section 15481, subdivision (a)(2)(B), that:

(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system.

(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to change the ballot or correct any error before the permanent paper record is produced.

(iii) The paper record . . . shall be available as an official record for any recount . . ..

Taken together, these provisions requiring a paper record that is to be used for a manual audit for the voting system make it apparent that HAVA requires a paper record that is seen, verified, and turned in by the voter.
The suggestion has been made, however, that the requirement of a paper record to be used for a manual audit can be satisfied by a paper record of votes that is produced for the first time after the polls have closed that is, a printout of what the computer has stored, and that has never been seen by the voter.

This interpretation, however, that a post-closing printout of what the computer has stored would satisfy HAVA, would permit an audit or a recount to be conducted on the content of a computer and not on a contemporaneous paper record of votes cast, and would make the requirement for a manual audit capacity virtually meaningless.

1 Mr. Wold served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission in Washington, D.C., during 2000, and as a Commissioner from 1998 to 2002. He is currently an attorney in private practice in Orange County, California. His practice emphasizes political and election law, including campaign finance compliance issues, ballot access, and recounts. His clients include AccuPoll, Inc., Irvine, California, a manufacturer of electronic voting systems.

Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA in this paper), enacted as Public Law Number 107- 252, October 29, 2002, 116 Statutes 1704, and codified at 42 U.S.C. 15301 et seq.. All references in this paper are to 42 U.S.C. 15481 unless otherwise noted."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Andy, Could you explain this a bit more
Sorry,
but in a way, it is not quite clear, but it
obviously leads to something
Sounds a bit interesting, but I don't get all of it
Thanks
and Thanks for joining in on this
GRRR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
46. Read my sig line.
it explains it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. JYD, no need to growl.
And I've yet to use an electronic machine for voting.

Punch-card with stylus, here, in the present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. So if we can't get paper ballots, then what should we be asking for as far
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 09:02 PM by Amaryllis
as machines? In my state we have paper ballots, but we still have Diebold tabulators, and we are trying to figure out what exactly to promote.
See this other thread I started about the whole issue of hand counting extremely complex ballots with many races, ballot measures, etc. They don't have these complex ballots in Canada. Many are saying hand counting is not practical with these ballots and hand counting will never gain public acceptance anyway. So where does that leave us? What should be be promoting?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brindis_desala Donating Member (866 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
44. Not True if the Democrats are united paper ballots are a given
trouble is only New York's senators nixed HAVA...hmmm wonder why?...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. Paper Trails and Paper Reciepts....
I don't want either. Give me a voter verified paper ballot. Nothing more nothing Less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. What is the difference?
Are you advocating hand counts? If so, better read up on nineteenth-century American elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. The 19th century...
...didn't have video-chain-of-custody technology.
___
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. true
People called out their votes in full view of the community. Fraud nonetheless was common.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
18. Kill the machines
Voting and counting votes with electronic machines is like carrying water in a sieve - too many holes!

Paper ballots with public hand-counting and recounting when necessary.

Kill the machines and get the vote back to the voters where it belongs.

Too many real democracies do it this way - and it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. P aper B allots H and C ounted........... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fly by night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
19. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
22. use computer to print, human to count
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:51 AM
Response to Original message
23. yes, but there is a solution
I agree 100% a paper ballot is not the panacea.

There are only two options. A full hand count or a mandatory percentage of randomly selected precincts to hand count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Remember the problem isn't the paper ballot: IT'S THE AUDITING!!!
What we should be yelling for is a voter-verified paper ballot AND AN FAIR AUDIT FOR EVERY ELECTION EVERYWHERE. Without the auditing the paper ballot is just meaningless, entirely meaningless, just a cover for continued fraud. The optical scanners have a paper trail, but that has not kept elections from being stolen. In MN, e.g., where Coleman beat Mondale after trailing in the polls by 5% points in 02. That one was pulled off w/ scanners because nobody ever audits these things unless it's a close enough race and even then, there are a million qualifications as in OH last year.

Unless this becomes a crusade with everybody on the same page, I doubt if anything will be done before the next election cycle in 06 when the Repubs will win a few more delegates in Congress and around the country. The present split in the Senate is 55-45. After the 06 election cycle, it will be something like 57-43, etc. And this will continue. I have no idea why the ACLLU and other orgs cannot be made aware of this and cannot act. SOMEBODY DAMNED SURE BETTER ACT AND ACT FAST. This site has got to be united on this point. It's so obvious that it's almost unbelievable that we are fighting for this. WE DON'T HAVE A DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW AND WE HAVE TO FIGHT TO GET IT BACK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Amen Brother
AMEN!

Speak to the power of the ballot!

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. No, kill the machines
Take away and remove forever any and all intermediary steps where human hands are replaced by machines.

There WERE random recounts in Ohio and other places and they were done with "random selections" ahead of time by election workers.

The "randonly picked" machines were then "recalibrated" so that the recounts would jive with the results. Nonsense.

Take away the human hands except for the final tallies and then....

Those final tallies will be done on live television, in real time, and several if not many times over.

Totals will be published LIVE before they go to state headquarters.

Canada had 14 million paper ballots counted by hand within 4 hours of the election!!!!!

We can do it - if we really want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. Canada counts 2 elections by hand...
all the other elections use...you guessed it....optical scan machines. Some made by Diebold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Hand counting can be done
That's a good point about Canada.

They separate their elections. We have too much happening on one ballot: federal, state, county, municipal, dog catcher - all on one ballot, and...

It all has to be counted by the 11 oclock news!

What kind of madness is that!

One ballot for federal elections. That one paper ballot the same for all the states.

Counted manually in each precinct or state.

Other elections should be separate and even at another time!

If we really wanted to, we could fix all this!

Or we could wait until there are angry and intemperate crowds in the streets demanding it be fixed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonyguy Donating Member (589 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #28
47. Not to be picky or anything, but....
....all other elections use..... ??????

Can we just settle for some other elections use optical scan?

Federal and Provincial races are typically hand counted. Civic or Municipal races are hand counted although many jurisdictions have switched to optical scan. Some are considering, perish the thought, adding touchscreens into the mix to provide 'some additional benefits' to the disabled.

HG ;-)

Hey I finally understand splits !!! So I got to be a wee bit picky on SOMETHING, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Flaming Red Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
25. They don't call it VV (verified voting) for nothing nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
torque Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
36. Don't forget who owns this country
and don't forget who's the boss. WE ARE! We can trash the voting machines and tabulators if we want to. WE OWN THEM. We can have paper only ballets if we want them. And there is no doubt we need them. All that remains is we do it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhite5 Donating Member (510 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
39. Believing the Electronic Machines are here to stay = giving up. Period!
I agree the national Presidential election should be separated from all the other things we vote on. Separate elections. Separate days.

The Presidential Election vote should be hand counted at the Precinct level. The results made public immediately. It is not an overwhelming job if precincts are kept relatively small.

Most of the rest of the world does it this way. Why must we be different? Being different illustrates that we are NOT as smart as the rest of the world.

The original HAND COUNT creates the the essential AUDIT TRAIL that anybody can follow. Many people will independently compile the results from the separate precincts to see what COUNTY TOTALS should be. This includes the media as well as a lot of us. We all have computers. The precinct results can be posted on a web page and totaled for all to see.

The same goes for the COUNTY RESULTS which must add up to the STATE RESULTS. It is NOT rocket science!

Sure, there will be other factors (called "reconciling factors") including the Absentee Vote, the Military Vote, etc. And these need a clearly separate audit trail. But the bulk of the vote will be the numbers coming from the precincts.

That original count is where all challenges should take place. It should be conducted by partisans representing all sides in the vote as well as non-partisan observers. It is best if it is not done by hired election workers. Use volunteers supervised by paid staff. I think plenty of volunteers could be recruited. Look how many are willing now to volunteer to be poll watchers and such! Being an official counter at an election should be a prestigiuos thing. Responsible Citizens doing their civic duty. High School students could be used - a great civic lesson. Volunteers could even film the process.

Remember, the typical precinct only will have 300-600 actual ballots to count. These could easily be counted twice in one or two hours. Once all who are present agree on the results the ballots themselves should be sealed in a bag. They will not be needed again unless a candidate demands a recount.

I believe this is the only way we can restore public confidence in elections. The costs will be minimal. A side benefit, many voters may return to actually voting again. I am pretty sure a big chunk of those who do not vote now, don't vote because they do not trust the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. Yes
Well detailed.

I agree.

Kill the machines!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwghlmian Donating Member (768 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Good - except for one thing
when you have Presidential elections, turnout is between 55% and 60%. In off-years the turnout is between 35% and 40%. If you separate Presidential elections from others, you will basically ensure that all the other elections will get turnouts similar to the off-year turnouts. Since higher turnouts favor Democrats, that does not seem overly beneficial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Lesser evil
That's a good point but the evil of stolen elections merits this action.

Canada does this and so do other countries.

Our elections are a disgrace.

The greatest democracy ever?

Nonsense!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cookie wookie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. Re: your subject line
Edited on Sun Jan-30-05 12:16 PM by Cookie wookie
""Believing the Electronic Machines are here to stay = giving up. Period!"

The states where electronic voting machines have already been purchased and implemented have a financial investment in keeping them. State election code has been written and put into law to support the process.

Turning this around takes time because the actual changes in law have to be done during state legislative sessions, with grassroots activists leading the way.

Legislators, Secretaries of State, and elections officials will have to be worked on, not to mention the wild card of the EAC which writes federal standards that the states use as guidelines, which they take seriously but as stated above, are not mandatory. All this is political, meaning everyone who has the power to make the changes at the local, state and federal level has their own political and competing interests at stake.

Legislative sessions for states are limited. For instance, In GA we have 2 opportunities to make changes to our voting systems before the 2006 elections, as our legislature only meets for 40 days per year.

Citizens of each state have to work within their own state's legislative structure and politics to effect change. To get rid of the machines in states with electronic voting and stop other states from purchasing new systems may be a final goal, but getting rid of electronic systems that are already in service will take more time than is feasible before the 2006 elections. In the meantime getting a voter verified paper ballot (vvpb) -- that is used as the ballot for counting purposes -- implemented for electronic systems before the 2006 election is a next step that, though certainly a steep and rocky climb, is nonetheless a possible interim goal on the path to achieve transparent, auditible voting.

Once vvpb systems are in place, it's only a matter of time before everyone will start asking, why do we need the electronic voting systems (with all their costs and complexity) if the voter verified paper ballots that the machine creates are being used as the ballots for counting purposes. It will be obvious that maintaining such systems will be unnecessary and expensive. End result, electronic voting systems, as they now exist, will be phased out. That's why elections officials are so opposed to adding vvpb systems. They know what it really means.

So, we not only need to support activists in our states who are working to implement vvpb, but also support Howard Deans proposal that we move the office of secretary of state to a nonpolitical status. One aspect of that would be that those in office, like SOS Cathy Cox in Georgia, would no longer have a political stake in whether or not their decision to add electronic voting helps or hurts their political ambitions and those of their Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JunkYardDogg Donating Member (618 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. It's Reality vs. OUR Ideal Vision (Goal)
Paper Ballots are the BEST Way to Go
But in the meantime we have to deal with the F'n Machines
The Borg own them and they are making a mockery out of Democracy with them
So we have to fight for a number of things at one time, hopefully all together
The Machines are here and they are going to be here the next election unless we can get 58 million people sufficiently educated and Pissed off to do something about it
There are not a whole lot of us YET
Go to your local Progressive and/or Dems club meeting and talk about this and educate the people- the more they know, the more pissed off they will become, and if you are knowledgeable, you will quickly find out that this can become their number 1 concern
Remember, the average Dem voter has little or no education and knowledge of this subject, but we do
This string is a pretty good platform showing what we must do and concentrate on-Everybody's input is good
1. We must make the E-Voting Chain of Use entirely Transparent
2. We must fight for a Properly "Secure",Traceable,(Trackable), and accurate Paper "Receipt" system,-not some Bullshit placebo piece of toilet paper
3. We must change the laws to make impounding the E-vote equipment and backtracing the servers/auditing easier, more in line with an understanding of modern, contempoary technology and the effect of human manipulation of same
4. We must instill enough distrust of the entire E-Voting System
to convince the Public that Paper Ballots are indeed the best way to go.
5. We must start training and educating enough people to be on site poll watchers and be technologically knowledgeable enough to monitor
the E-Voting chain-if the law doesn't allow us to monitor it properly, we must work to change that-How much we can see, I really don't know
Saying the Machines are here to stay is NOT giving up- It's dealing with the reality of the situation
While we are running around with sugar plum dreams of the return of the Paper Ballots, the Borg are going to just keep fucking us with their rigged Electronic voting machines
unless we do something about it
HAVA does require Paper Receipts, but unless we start fighting, those receipts can be anything some BushReich asswipe wants to give us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
50. Kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 28th 2014, 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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