Reply #42: Land Shark, is Holt lying to us? If so, we need to know if this is

[Peace Patriot]

deliberate.

The five points I site above are direct quotes from Holt's web site.

"1. Mandate a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast in every federal election..."

It says "BALLOT." Is this defined elsewhere (in the fine print?) as not a "ballot," but only a "paper record"?

Let me repeat the full item:

HR 550 will: "1. Mandate a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast in every federal election, nationwide; because the voter verified paper record is the only one verified by the voters themselves, rather than by the machines, it will serve as the vote of record in any case of inconsistency with electronic records;"

This summary uses the phrase "voter verified paper record" in the course of defining what a BALLOT is. It does not say that we will have ONLY a "voter verified paper record." It further states that the "ballot" (subject of the sentence) "will serve as the vote of record."

Is this outright deception? Some kind of inadvertent misinterpretation? Is there language in the bill that has you worried about the definition of "ballot"? And please admit it, if you have exaggerated a bit, to make the case against this bill. I'll forgive you! But we really need to know what this bill does with "ballot."

The audit issue is bad enough. If this bill ALSO waffles on "ballot," then we have to disavow it completely. It can't even be promoted as a compromise or temporary measure to get SOME significant transparency.*

----------

*(I see election reform happening in stages. It's not what I would like, but I think it's the reality of the situation--including my assessment of entrenched corruption, and of the election reform movement itself (a grass roots movement, strong in some places, not others, etc). We get SOME transparency--spotty transparency, by county, region, state, and imperfect transparency (say, a countable paper ballot, but with "trade secret" programming in the machines), but at least some power to frighten off fraud, to successfully challenge fraud, to make the case against the machines and move things along, and possibly to win some elections. We start electing good people who will protect and expand election reform gains. And the more transparency we get, the more good people we elect. It snowballs.

(There are certainly perils in this scenario--one of the big ones being that "imperfect transparency" will be sold as having solved the problem, with the non-transparency still lurking in the system, so that the fascists can strike at any time and flip any elections they want to. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to cry foul on ANY government action that could be used to permanently embed "imperfect transparency" in our election system, by what a bill really says, or by the way it is sold, or by devious means (such as centralizing power). And I am more than with you on preferring that this Congress stay away from the issue. I have NOT promoted Congressional action in general, and have always been very wary of it. But HR 550's summary seemed to say we would have, a) a real paper ballot, and b) the end of secret source code and even of private corporate interest (by forcing disclosure of the code). I saw these as a transition out of complete non-transparency. So I started including this petition in my list of recommended actions.

(I still think we have to face the reality of a long term, messy struggle, with spotty advances, some defeats, some compromises, continuing public education, and continuing pressure in innumerable jurisdictions, hopefully with increasing transparency as we go--and that we will one day be able to say that we have actually restored our right to vote. I just don't see this Congress or any near-future Congress fully restoring our right to vote. I had thought, though, that we might get some quick help, on a national basis, for some broadstroke principles (like a real paper ballot, less secrecy, a ban on partisan vendors?)--say, after '08, if the fascists decide to install a War Democrat, who has to at least LOOK LIKE he/she is into good government.

(Anyway, these are vital strategic issues--whether to push on the federal front, or when to, or what compromises to tolerate, etc.--and I would appreciate any thoughts you have on them. Maybe it's time to say, "Repeal HAVA"--a bill written by the biggest crooks in Congress--eat the billions of dollars they've wasted, and go back to square one: PAPER BALLOTS. Say: It cannot be fixed; it is a disaster (just like Iraq). And oppose ANY bill that further institutionalizes electronic voting, even if it has good (or some good) provisions.)