OVERTHROWING OF DEMOCRACY (From Within) - "Pseudo Activism"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Overthrowing Successful Activism 101 -
Or Maintaining the status quo of failing election systems.

Since 2003, Congressman Rush Holt has fought to get legislation that would protect the elections of all 50 states.

Now that HR 811 gets closer to passing, has a "pseudo activism" or counter-effort emerged?

What is Pseudo Activism? This is a new definition for an old tactic.
It requires the participation of at least some well intentioned activists.

What many people do not grasp is that some people's interest in elections
integrity is "tactical". They are really interested in a much more
fundamental transformation of society. Their goal is not to create election
systems worthy of trust, but to use the untrustworthiness of elections systems
as a lever to undermine the legitimacy of our government as a whole.

Pseudo Activism Compared to CointelPro

An extreme example of "Pseudo Activism" is COINTELPRO. This may paint a picture that I
hope the most innocent can see and understand.

"COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a program of the United States Federal Bureau
of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political
organizations within the United States....
The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to
"expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Is there a "pseudo activism" element in the election integrity movement that purports
to adhere to the tenets of democracy, but does the opposite?

"Pseudo Activism" seeks to prevent the strongest avenue to protect civil rights of citizens - legislative remedy. They cry "no compromise no compromise"... all the way to ruin.

Legislation as a Tool of Democracy

Legislation (or "statutory law") is law which has been promulgated (or "enacted") by a legislature or other governing body. The term may refer to a single law, or the collective body of enacted law, while "statute" is also used to refer to a single law. Before an item of legislation becomes law it may be known as a bill, which is typically also known as "legislation" while it remains under active consideration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation

The "It isn't perfect so it must be evil theory"

The Pseudo Activist points out that legislation is less than perfect, and hence is reason to reject it. Awful-izing is used to exaggerate and distort: The outcry is this - "its not perfect, therefore it is evil." Never mind that the legislation improves the situation and advances our cause forward. Pseudo activism pushes the flawed theorem of "all or nothing", which results in no positive out come, and further sets back the movement by 10 years through loss of creditability.

Pseudo Activism grows in an echo-chamber, where no other voices are listened to nor are they heard. Different voices are labeled as "anti-democracy". The assumption is that the rest of the world agrees with the pseudo activist - just like the colleagues of the pseudo activist.

Pseudo Activism is like crying wolf over and over, and when help is offered, they cry "Your help isn't good enough, so go away."

[troubleinwinter]

1. ABSLUTELY right on!!!!! A BIG recommend!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. do "pseudo activists" know that they are "pseudo activists"?

I think that the dynamic you describe here occurs in various ways.

I can't stop thinking of the dumb old joke that there are two kinds of people in the world: people who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and people who don't.

It appears that a lot of people who seem convinced waaaaay beyond the evidence that elections are Totally Rigged also seem to think that there is little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. One might infer that their stated concerns about elections are a pretense, but probably they often aren't. I don't know, and I've spent a lot of time trying to crawl inside some people's heads to understand the view from inside. Certainly such people have a different conception of 'locus of power' -- who has it -- than a lot of the rest of us do. I read a post elsewhere about how HR 811 is basically a plot to ensure enduring Republican domination. I suppose that if one considers the Democrats and the Republicans basically interchangeable, the small detail that the Republicans just lost control of Congress seems like a blip or even part of the ruse.

It seems that this sort of analysis posits that They presently have almost all the power and We the People presently have almost none, although we can reclaim it through a unified act of will. In that Manichaean mindset, I suppose, there isn't much point in nuance or give-and-take discussion, and surely no room for compromise: We the People must be forged into a terrible swift sword of "democracy," to destroy the machines/Machine and Take Back the Power.

In my reading of history, this sort of thing rarely ends well. I wish I could find a language to convey to its adherents why they scare me. But that may be a vain hope.

[populistdriven]

5. it also strikes to the core of an extremely common "all or nothing" mentality, D's voting Republican

I personally know 2 very liberal democrats who prefer to vote republican because they are unsatisfied with the democrats not taking exactly their stand on the issues so they prefer to let the republicans destroy things in the hope that finally people will wake up and overthrow the entire 2 party system

The behavior of the DLC encourages pseudo activist liberals to vote Republican

Pseudo Activism grows in an echo-chamber, where no other voices are listened to nor are they heard.

[eridani]

17. People like your 2 liberal friends--

--have been waiting for the revolution of people disgusted by Republicans to happen for the last 30 years or so. Hey, how's that been working out for us? :sarcasm:

[Kurovski]

3. It isn't that the "help isn't good enough",

it is that the help also happens to continue to protect machine voting companies. it still leaves too much room for fraud.

I haven't seen any one calling it evil. It's misguided, certainly. Who's guiding it, and what are their connections is a good question. And even one that you imply here in the op with the theory of "pseudo activists".

As you say, in any psy-op there will have to be sincere folks within the movement to purchase credibility and trust.

You've just flipped the coin of what the popular suspicion is around these parts.

So pass the bad legislation. G'head. But it's not the best for the protection of voting rights. Why say that it is when it is not?

And I've always held that to say it's the best we'll ever do is a corrupt concept.

It seems that if one is to work so very hard at a remedy, and when one is dealing with criminals and their companies who necessitated such action, that one would not compromise much with said criminals. Or--if one's hands are tied--at least state plainly that this is indeed the best we can do for now and and speak every time of the flaws within the partial fix, or "band-aid".

But why not just strive for a greater remedy? That's where a great deal of suspicion arises that it is actually the HR 811 "pseudo activists" who have driven the creation of the bill, and created an idea that it is the best we can do. For my part, I feel that is a corrupt and unacceptable concept.

I commend you on a fine job of turning the tables here.

But I feel that you continue--unintentionally or not--to support a deeply flawed law. And if you believe there is no greater remedy than this creation of "wiggle room" for election theft, than I believe that to be corrupt.

At any rate, the concept would be--is--unacceptable.

[populistdriven]

4. excellent discussion - very thought provoking - addresses many concerns i have had

[shance]

6. Great points however I would disagree with the end, the help indeed isn't good enough,

therein lies the pseudo activism.

Pseudo activism is like that of the rather milquetoast/risk aversive blogs/activists, who claim to be "progressive", when in reality they are simply gatekeepers/monitors that don't allow too much success and/or mobilization within the overall citizenry of the US.

Its Cointelpro that has infected every Progressive group around. Its the fact that one bill in the works wants to rid our elections of electronic voting machines BUT doesnt include Optical scans which are run with the exact same software as the electronic voting machines, thus allowing the fraud by technology to remain in tact.

[glitch]

7. Of course cointelpro is at work. Trillion dollar thefts need protecting.

But honest disagreements don't automatically make the opposing view "operators".

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. CointelPro, like pseudo activism - depends on innocents to participate

thats the only way it can succeed.

While Pseudo Activism is similar in function to CointelPro, I am not saying that
Pseudo Activism is CIA driven. It could be driven by ego, by money, or just an innate
desire to maintain the status quo.

[glitch]

12. Pseudo Activists will also take your side and behave as obnoxiously as possible

to turn people off supporting your idea. They also resort to name-calling rather than rational arguments.

The object is to kill discussion, create distrust and disgust, and so disperse action. Poisoning the well, I think they called it back in the day. I am sure they have a new name for it now.

Everybody should take the time to read up on Cointelpro, especially since the Patriot Act has made it legal again.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/COINTELPRO60s_WAH.html

I usually watch for behavior rather than positions taken.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. the trouble with that is

we have absolutely no consensus on who is "behav(ing) as obnoxiously as possible," and the distinction between "name-calling" and "rational arguments" isn't very strict.

For instance: I always thought that TIA behaved (roughly) as obnoxiously as possible and couldn't reliably reason his way out of a paper bag. Name-calling, right?

[Bill Bored]

36. It can be driven by nihilism too.

Some of the psuedos are very smart and they view most of their counterparts as not "getting it." So rather than trying to explain "it" too them in a way that's understandable, the psuedos use the whole situation to their advantage to muddy the waters even further by creating more doubt, less certainty in ANY solution, even partial or incremental ones, but especially the most effective ones.

Their goal may be to prolong the uncertainty and doubt and to benefit from it financially, through fame, or otherwise.

I'm thinking that at their core, they're pretty unhappy.

[robinlynne]

8. Excuse me. When it comes to election integrity, and specifically the holt bill,

I disagree whole heartedly. As Landshark said, but I don't remember the words, a little bit better in counting votes, is like being a little bit pregnant.
The holt bill maintains dres. Dres, as we KNOW, are not accurate vote counters; they can be set by anyone to do anything with our votes. Leaving them in play is not better at all. It is a farce of "better". In addition, the holt bill gives all monitoring power to the EAC. the one honest person who belonged to the EAC quit! The EAC is chock full of Bush loving extreme republicans.
Elections belong to the people.
They are the only menas by which we can maintain democracy. They are being bought and sold, literally.
there are no half measures or better whne it comes to elections.
You are criticizing the very people who are trying to restore democracy to this country.
you could not be more wrong.

votes need to be counted as cast, and one person one vote. There is no half-way means to this. It HAS to be honest, all the way. Or it DOES NOT WORK.

[Land Shark]

27. In the big picture, HAVA moved "the ball" 80 yards down field

and that was a bold shift of power, to corporate owned corporate-counted secret elections.

Our response is pretty lame so far.

The present legislation suggests an audit as a tradeoff for continued corporate counted secret elections of the first counts, the only ones that matter all that much. Those who say "no deal" to this kind of stuff are now going to be attacked as agents or something? Or that there's money in activism?

Oh, dear. The money in elections is not in activism. Everyone knows that's a bad investment and nobody will leave college thinking they can make some good coin in activism.

The better case would be to say that those that just want a tiny incremental improvement to a corporate revolution would be the paid provocateurs, but in the end this whole subject is a waste of time. It's a refusal to deal with substance in arguments or a diminution of them on the grounds of assumed motive.

[Kurovski]

28. Thank you.

"The better case would be to say that those that just want a tiny incremental improvement to a corporate revolution would be the paid provocateurs..."

I couldn't come up with a way to say that.

I do think that since the topic was brought up, it needed a bit of attention, of only for those who may be unfamiliar with the ER.

I gotta run...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

35. bull biscuits

Voting machines/corporate control is not new, it began with lever machines in the 1800s
and worked its way to paperless DRE machines in the 1980's.

North Carolina had paperless DRE voting machines for TWENTY Years (20)before HAVA was passed.
These machines used software licensed and owned by private companies.
http://www.ncvoter.net/machines.html
Our state used its HAVA money to pay for VVPB machines.

The Election Center used to "Rule":

North Carolina's Executive Director of Election USED to sit on
the Board of Directors of The Election Center, but not any more.
The Election Center used to certify voting technologies and was the main
organization to advise congress on election issues.
http://www.ncvoter.net/ElectionCenter.html

*If the EAC is eliminated, wouldn't that re-empower The Election Center and the NASED?

The EAC, as deficient as it is, is a big improvement over The Election Center and
NASED:
The EAC is an independent bipartisan commission created by the 2002
Help America Vote Act in order to disburse funds to the states for the
purchase of new voting systems, certify voting technologies,
develop guidelines and serve as an information resource for election administration.

Bribery Trouble in the 1990's:

We had one voting machine salesman bribe the election director of the
largest county in the state.
http://www.ncvoter.net/briberyNC.html

Money in E-Voting Activism

"The money in elections is not in activism."

Actually, its a cash cow for some - see the thread about Bev Harris' $600,000
cash that sat around in a non interest bearing account -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=470408&mesg_id=470408

[jaksavage]

9. Activists invigorate the masses

They pull the lazy center in their direction.
They never attain their ideals
but they do make a difference
and sometimes instigate a revolution
\

\
I M P E A C H !!!!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. And Pseudo Activists impede solutions

Pseudo Activists, the intentional ones - have one goal - to disrupt, to
prevent a solution, to thrive off of the chaos.

[jaksavage]

16. How do you tell the diff? n/t

[fooj]

14. KandR!

Hell, they have infiltrated EVERY aspect of our government. I think it's foolish to believe that they have not infiltrated the election reform movement. After all, revelations these past few weeks SHOW that elections are one of Rove's obsessions.

[glitch]

15. It's integral. If they don't rig them then they don't "win" them.

The fact that Rove is obsessed with elections, to the point of putting people in power who will ignore election crimes, should tell everyone exactly where to start looking to find out all they need to know.

I think it's all coming out now though. It will take some very fancy footwork to get Waxman and Conyers off the trail. Perhaps Rove will finally get to prove his genius. He certainly hasn't so far (unless it takes a genius to lose an election rigged for you ;))

[Cookie wookie]

18. Certainly there is no reason to think there aren't any

Cointelpro-types in the election integrity movement -- I certainly keep my eyes and ears open and at attention. But I just don't buy that those who are leading (and echoing) the hysteria against HR811 fit are cointelpro or their followers.

I think more likely is that they share one or more of these traits:

1) Lack experience in working to get legislation passed. This is a main factor in the misunderstandings, the extreme positions, etc. Actually spending years trying to get legislation passed teaches one that these things are done by creating and building alliances and also by surrendering to the process, which is step by step. After all, the soul of democratic action is compromise, and everyone who has a vested interest in the outcome, no matter whether that interest emanates from the highest or lowest human instinct, will be fighting for their piece of the action.

2) Emotional immaturity. Some activists see things in a simplistic way: it's black or white, either/or, my way/the highway. HR811 doesn't come in like a heat-seeking missile and completely destroy DREs and optical scan and any other method of voting other than hammer and chisel on a slab of marble, so .... must be evil.

3) Emotional instability: Human nature being what it is, some people are in this movement to give them a purpose in life -- to earn a living, to be "important." If "this" becomes less about drama and more about building coalitions to make forward progress, well, where's the drama & stardom? Then again, there will come a time when enough progress is made that the tipping point is reached and within a very short period, it will be boom boom boom, all of a sudden the whole corrupt electronic voting structure will come falling down. These activists will be out of work and no longer a "big wheel. What does the though of that do to motives? Has to have some effect.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. fabulous post -- but I think there must be at least one more element

It may tie in to what you call "emotional immaturity," but I think it is a trait of mind. Some people see connections that aren't necessarily there -- it's what leads to all those pointless semantic debates about "conspiracy theorists." But some folks are convinced of so many bad things, it is no wonder that they see no value in legislative incrementalism. I just can't figure out how they became convinced of so many bad things, or at any rate, the specific bad things they are convinced of.

ETA: I know some folks will miss the point here -- it's not about assuming or insinuating that anyone who opposes one bill or believes one thing is defective. But there does seem to be an interesting prevailing difference in fundamental perspective, and I keep trying to understand it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. but at least this shows the counterpoint

I have been called a member of the "Holt Hit Squad"

:rofl:

I have seen outrageous bovine excrement blogged or posted that
paints supporters of federal legislation to require VVPB as
enemies of democracy, against civil rights, etc.

At least my post was under 600 words and wasn't boring.

Its really the counterpoint of the poultry digest that is
often fed to e-voting activists.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. I think your point about cointelpro is subtler than people may realize

The point I took away wasn't that a lot of people are paid provocateurs -- it's that some people, for whatever reason, are engaging in the sort of behavior that one might expect from paid provocateurs, and we ought to think about that dynamic.

I assume that lots of movements veer into nuttiness without anyone being paid to push them there. We need to think about the values and practices that support collective sanity. Well, I think so, anyway. But I think way too much.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

22. I should have said "overthrowing democracy for profit"

because that is another possible motive for those who want
to ensure 10 more years of paperless voting.

The gigantic sums of money solicited for "election reform".

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. yeah, some -- but, also, we need to consider first principles

Provocateurs, hucksters, shills, charlatans, true believers, drama kings and queens, whatever -- what power can they have that we don't give them?

I'm amazed when folks trumpet the need to distrust politicians and election officials (fair enough), but also seem uncritically to trust self-appointed leaders making claims and arguments that people can't evaluate for themselves.

I won't trust anyone who can't hack honest disagreement and questions. I don't know why anyone does. I know from experience that I can challenge you on anything and you will take it in the intended spirit, and so I trust you -- but, more, I trust the process. It's the only democracy I know.

Maybe people aren't naturally cut out for democracy. As infants, we are unusually helpless, and our survival perhaps depends on the ability to follow people who seem sure they know what they are talking about and doing. But that ability is also a vulnerability.

It seems to me that if we challenge ideas, each other's and our own, with compassionate rigor, we will be much less vulnerable to harm from people who -- for whatever reasons, whatever their motives -- say things that aren't soundly tethered in reality.

Aw, hell, I'm just getting all mushy. All these years (OK, not that many), and I still can't quite figure out why all this is so hard.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

26. clarification

I don't intend to say that if someone disagrees with me that
I automatically assume a conspiracy, or that they are being
swayed by a manipulator.

Just that in every movement, there will be people who
just want to steer it into the ditch,
and some people whose strategy is so bad that it
could steer the movement into a ditch.

There are some very smart people who don't support
HR 811, who do not have any ax to grind, and who are
not being led by anyone.

However, while respecting those people, I just disagree,
based on my feeling of strategy - how to get from point
A to point B.

[althecat]

29. I appreciate where you are coming from however...

Willyourvotebecounted,

I think everything you say is right in principle. I think that there are loads of pseudo activists in the ER movement, several on DU and possibly even one in this thread.

However I am - unlike you - a staunch opponent of Holt's bill precisely because it will prevent transit to point B. And here is why.

Once you get to point A - a large chunk of the sheeple in congress (and the public) will jump ship, they will have an excuse think they have already got to point B. They will be able to publicly claim that they are "election reformers" and simultaneously enable the status quo to remain. These are the real pseudo activists. And if we accept this result quietly we will never get to point B.

Very importantly in my view I think you need to realise that you - US Election Reformers - may have only one shot at substantial reform. If you have a decade of corrupt elections your democracy will be completely stuffed and you really will need God to save America then. It is therefore vital to decide where the line in the sand is drawn and to not allow it to be crossed.

Here is why 811 is a dog in a nutshell:

1. Unauditable votes are the primary problem.

DRE voting machines are hackable and riggable and unauditable
OPTISCAN machines are also hackable and riggable but they are auditable

THEREFORE DRE ELECTRONIC BALLOT VOTING HAS TO BE REMOVED ABSOLUTELY... PAPER TRAILS AND AUDITS ARE NO SOLUTION THIS IS GROUND ZERO.

2. Notwithstanding point one audits suck. They are not a solution - you have to get the count right at the beginning.

As we saw in Ohio audits (recounts) are also hackable and riggable...
More importantly they are also slow and always conducted after the event.

Elections OTOH are almost invariably decided (I.e. WON) on the night on the basis of the first count.... there may be some debate about this and in extraordinary circumstances 2000 there was a delay until a decision. But as we have seen it is almost impossible to conceive of any after the election event producing a real transfer of power.

THEREFORE YOUR VOTING SYSTEM MUST HAVE INTEGRITY AT FIRST COUNT - NOT AT AUDIT STAGE

This is of course what everybody in the world with a functioning democracy already has. America must not compromise on this. Democracy is flawed enough as it is without leaving questions about vote counting. Look at Mexico. Real debate over election integrity is in the medium term on the track to revolution and everybody really needs to start understanding this.

The Holt bill implicitly relies on an audit process to give the system integrity. This will never work. Any legislation that has as its core principle the auditing of elections should not be supported.

THEREFORE ELECTION REFORM LAW MUST HAVE ELECTION INTEGRITY (NOT AUDITING) AT ITS CORE

*******

Ok... so if point B is an election system with integrity at first count how do you get there?

Ideally the path to an election system with integrity is to follow the system used in most parts of the world. Paper ballots hand counted.

Another relatively quick path would be opensource software, government-built, bullet proof optiscan ballot counters. I.E. remove all the commercial vendors. Personally I think this is vital - but I am sure you will think this is a bridge too far.

So lets compromise a bit.

In my view you can possibly get to an election system with integrity in 2 steps if you start by first eliminating electronic ballots altogether.

You can then work to make certain that electronic systems for counting the paper ballots are not compromised, properly tested and certified, and properly audited (not the following day - but on the night) this will however be very hard in a world where even though video evidence proves that vote scanners can be easily hacked nobody actually believes this.

To compromise to allow electronic ballots is however to go too far.

They will never be auditable. It is in their nature.

And here endeth the opinion of this pseudo activist.

al

[Cookie wookie]

31. Strong points Althecat.

1) True, but we have strong lobbies who are fighting against getting rid of all DREs at this point, so we are not going to get a bill to do it. States have invested in DREs and can't or won't just dump them in landfills. They aren't ready to do that. I'm thinking of the quote from Charlton Heston about prying guns from his cold dead hands, or however that went. Legislation is a compromise, and these DRE supporters are not willing to compromise.

However, consider that some of the provisions in HR811 make it less profitable and less palatable for vendors to ply their electronic wares. For example, they will not be able to just pass money back and forth to ITAs for testing, or pick their own ITAs. ITA test results will have to be published with the EAC. One of the biggest detractions is that they would have to deposit their source code with the EAC who would have to make it available to anyone who asks for it!! The bill also calls for funding for making the changes. The bill adds transparency to the process that it hasn't had.

2) Let's take the audits. States with paperless DREs would have to add paper records that would have mandatory random audits (with some exceptions unless the bill is amended somewhere along the line in the process to plug that hole). Other states with paper records & DREs would have to implement audits if they aren't already. Okay, now the vendors have to deal with the fact that if their systems fail, whether through hacking or malfunctions, to count the votes accurately, somewhere it's going to show up & citizens will now have hard evidence of those failures.

Of course if HR811 doesn't pass or gets poison pilled to death then we have nothing. At least I don't know of any bill in the hopper that gets rid of DREs nationally and funds the purchase of new equipment and requires mandatory random audits for opscan etc etc all the things we need. So, we end up in 2008 with states voting on paperless DREs, no mandatory audits at all, except what we can get through on a state level, no oversight of payments between ITAs and vendors, no ITA testing being revealed, no source code availability to us to look at.

It takes years for these laws to be put together and moved through the system. Who is writing that new law that mandates no DREs that has the sponsors & votes and that is in the hopper NOW, when it will have to be passed if it is to effect the 2008 elections?

I'm in a paperless DRE state and I can assure you that we've worked our hearts and souls out trying to get verified voting. We had a great bill that called for putting paper on the DREs (since we couldn't get rid of them yet and had elections happening in 2004 and 2006 !!!!!!!!!), making the paper the ballot of record, and hand counting all the paper at the precinct on election night. We got a few sponsors and after 2 years got the bill introduced into the legislature, but it never went anywhere, so we voted on paperless DREs again and again. It's a nightmare. It's horrible. It's like living in hell!

If Holt doesn't pass (and I mean HR811 without poison pills), we will have to vote in another presidential election on paperless DREs. For god's sake people, think of what you're doing to people like us when you're making demands without any means to make them happen. I wholeheartedly want to get rid of DREs!!!! But this is the real world folks, and whether we like it or not, there is a system that is used to make changes and it's our legislative system. We can yell and scream and complain and offer better ideas all we want from the sidelines but it's legislation that will change things.

[Kurovski]

32. If Holt passes, will there even be enough time to

institute it in time for the '08 election?

[Cookie wookie]

33. If it passed as currently written, the answer is yes, because the

effective date for the act is 2008:

"SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.: Except as otherwise provided, this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to elections for Federal office occurring during 2008 and each succeeding year." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110E14HGQ:e54902:

There's more to it than that, however. States who are considering buying DREs and states, like Georgia, with old technology that their legislators are considering replacing, are no doubt waiting to hear whether this passes or not before making a decision. After all, if they are considering buying DREs and they realize that there is much more work that will be required if Holt passes to certify and maintain certification on those systems, that the software will be open to public inspection, that if vendors put on unauthorized patches it will be a "federal offense", then the temptation would be to opt out of buying DREs altogether. The whole love of them by the election community has been that they have less work to do (or at least that's the promise). The bill also requires archival paper and no DRE has the printing technology to use archival paper as far as I know of (correct me if I'm wrong here please) -- they use thermal paper. The bill adds lots of time consuming red tape, from a vendor and election officials' perspective or, from a citizen's perspective, transparency and accountability. That makes DREs much less attractive a system to purchase and use.

So just the threat of the bill passing may have delayed some purchases -- I'm thinking in particular in Georgia where they want to upgrade the system and have been pushing for TSX with the continuous roll (which by the way the Holt bill states that the paper ballots have to be produced and stored in a way that preserves voter anonymity, which the roll doesn't do so that's another reason why states would pass on buying DREs with the paper roll. I wanted to find the section in the bill to add here, but right now that link at the website isn't working (linked off the contents at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.811:).

So what would states pick? If the technology is not there to meet the reqs of HR811, then states are going to have to go to another technology -- op scan -- or paper ballots because they will have this 2008 deadline and have to move on it.

As far as the time to implement new systems, Georgia implemented the whole DRE system between May of 2002 when the contract with Diebold was signed and November 2002. The state already has something over 400 opscans in counties.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

34. not cointel pro, but point to make

HR 811 doesn't require DREs, it regulates them.

My County Election Director said that the DREs in our state
(toilet paper in 23 counties) would have to be replaced.

Our State Board of Elections thinks the audit protocol
is over-kill.

Standards for a states alternative audit plan should have a minimum
and be statistically significant, and there is a concrete way to achieve that.

You get more with less.

But we don't have the lobbying power to get rid of DRES.

Federal legislation won't cure all ills, citizens will still
have to work to provide oversight, (nothing new), and
there will still be bad people in some places. (age old reality story).

But Federal Legislation WILL pass, and it can be either
pretty good, or it could be the kind that allows paperless verification systems.

Some folks are overconfident and do not understand that there are much
stronger forces who are better organized, have more experience with legislation,
and who have more creditability.

My state has a really good law, but I can't hold the line forever,
there are opponents in my state who will not quit fighting to get
rid of the paper.

I need federal legislation in place so that I don't have to
worry about our paper being taken away from us again.

[troubleinwinter]

30. "But I think way too much."

[Kurovski]

24. I keep going back to Glitch's fine comments upthread.

"I usually watch for behavior rather than positions taken."

Everyone claims to be--and most all actually are--on the side of real and effective election reform, reform that is to make the system accountable and verifiable as regards the vote. Reform that is designed to reduce the incidence of fraud as much as possible.

So it's by its nature a tricky operation to figure these things out for oneself.

I will also refer to Glitch's posted comment about name-calling. Look for the name-calling in posts. Look for it, and note it.

Take a look.

It is a device used to call other's to ones side. It negatively defines the opposition in a debate, it implies that those who disagree with you, or who hold an opinion one wishes to squash are unappealing to the community. It implies that they have unattractive attributes and it can carry the subtle effect of the community disengaging any identity with the defined unattractive behavior, and the ideas the individuals express.

That's a large part of psy-ops. It's why even when the technique is called out, when it is too direct and personal, it finds ever more subtle ways back into the discourse.

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. well, I think Lippmann explained that last part

The opponent has always to be explained, and the last explanation that we ever look for is that he sees a different set of facts. Such an explanation we avoid, because it saps the very foundation of our own assurance that we have seen life steadily and seen it whole. It is only when we are in the habit of recognizing our opinions as a partial experience seen through our stereotypes that we become truly tolerant of an opponent. Without that habit, we believe in the absolutism of our own vision, and consequently in the treacherous character of all opposition. For while men are willing to admit that there are two sides to a ‘question,’ they do not believe that there are two sides to what they regard as a ‘fact.’ And they never do believe it until after long critical education, they are fully conscious of how second-hand and subjective is their apprehension of their social data.

Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Free Press, 1965 <1922>), p. 82

No psy-ops required. Psy-optional, I guess.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

37. reminding people not to be so naive

there is alot of wild "enemy of democracy" type crap
being circulated around the usual channels.

thought it time to remind people.

[Kurovski]

38. And yet you post a thread wildly entitled "Overthrowing Democracy "

excoriating some of those who realize that the Holt Bill still stinks badly and who disagree with you.

I'll also take the opportunity here to remind people not to be so naive, since I guess we're going to now assume everyone here is sometimes prone to gullibility.

Harking back to LandShark's post on who could most reasonably be about the business of overthrowing Democracy from within in this instance, ask yourself "why would a corporation employ folks to destroy the reputation of their product, and in fact demand removal of that product?"

Machine voting as it stands has extreme negatives in the public eye, as a Zogby poll revealed. 80% of those polled object to it. Removing these systems would have enormous popularity if it ever became part of an open national discussion, and if televised media properly reported on it.

No company would pay any activist or lobbyist, pseudo or otherwise, to inflame the masses against its product with the tinderbox of opinion that exists around machine voting.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00220.htm

And so, I do not see how individuals who are against the Holt bill and machine voting could reasonably be considered the "pseudo activists" working to "overthrow democracy."

The "Enemies of Democracy"--and yes, it is quite apparent that there are many such enemies in charge today in our government--will use red herrings and accuse others of that which they themselves do, particularly when suspicion is directed their way. It is the MO of the Republican Party as it exists today in all its vast corruption.

You might more reasonably hold as an opinion that rejecting Holt will/may end up serving to damage Democracy, but that's not how you approached it here. You went scorched earth on it, stomping your opposition. Almost military in its maneuvers.

When you get down to it, with Holt or without, there are still going to be far too many opportunities for tampering and theft of elections.

That is unacceptable.

Again and again we've seen how partisan owned voting machines were designed for partisan purposes of stealing elections. That's what is overthrowing Democracy. That's where the problem exists. They are the ones undermining Democracy.

And we should play ball with them? we should accept the fate they've designed for us? And we should make them wealthy in the process?

No thanks.

They belong in prison. They should be stripped of their citizenship.