Reply #199: The best bill that could be introduced was introduced.

[Cookie wookie]

Legislation is about compromise, at least in a democracy. If this were a dictatorship, we wouldn't have to worry, at least as long as we wanted what the dictator wanted. Since this is a democracy, the process is about bringing all wish lists to the table, putting them in the mix.

In this democracy at present, the ones at the table with the most money usually win what they want and maybe a crumb goes to the people.

But not with the Holt bill, because the vendors had the most money at this table (think Microsoft, Diebold, ES&S, etc), and they do not want paper ballots on their machines, they do not want a law passed that requires that paper by 2008 on paperless machines, that also requires the paper to be durable and not on toilet paper rolls because they don't even have any DREs that can meet those standards by 2008, so they lose business.

So the vendors, the ITAs, and lazy or crooked election officials and politicians lost that fight and the people won. But there's a vocal bunch of activists who can't see it even though it's right in front of their eyes. Why are they putting their energy into killing the reputation of Holt and great activists who have worked their hearts out to get verified voting. If they put that energy into getting the next bill after Holt, with whatever it is some want -- a DRE ban or HCPB -- instead of literally savaging good activists and groups in the election integrity movement, we'd be in great shape. If they kill the bill, where will we all be? Will our next election be safer and more secure? No, because it's going to take law to get change and the clock is ticking....time is running out folks. Will we have verified voting in the US in 2008? They complain that the Holt bill doesn't tell states that they have to trash their DREs, only that they have to have paper and that paper needs to be verified by the voter (who is to be reminded at the polls to look at it). They cite statistics about voters not looking at the paper on DREs (the ones that states already have with paper on them), but none of those studies can possibly show what an educational campaign to get voters to realize that the paper would be used as the ballot of record for recounts and audits in 2008. Instead of attacking activists, why aren't they working to educate the public, or writing up their ban DRE bill and working to get it introduced? These are valid questions.

Ironcially, the biggest complaint by Republicans about the Holt bill that I heard on a recent trip to DC to lobby for the Holt Bill, was that there IS NO DRE TECHNOLOGY THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY 2008 if Holt passes with that implementation date. And what does that mean? If the states currently have paperless DREs, they would be forced to get optical scan or go to paper ballots.