Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CONYERS INTRODUCES LEGISLATION: VOTE RIGHTS ACT 2005

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
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:31 AM
Original message
CONYERS INTRODUCES LEGISLATION: VOTE RIGHTS ACT 2005
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 01:16 AM by Wilms
Conyers: Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005

This is Conyers proposed legislation titled:

Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005

Its a 49 page comprehensive package of reforms that seems to address a considerable amount of the concerns expressed here. (Though, that is what the man promised.)

Sections. 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17 caught my attention on my first scan.

The Sections are:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Enhanced protections against voter intimidation, threats, coercion, and deception.
Sec. 4. National Federal write-in absentee ballot.
Sec. 5. Verified ballots; preservation.
Sec. 6. Requirements for counting provisional ballots.
Sec. 7. Minimum required voting systems and poll workers in polling places.
Sec. 8. Election day registration.
Sec. 9. Integrity of voter registration list.
Sec. 10. Early voting.
Sec. 11. Acceleration of study on election day as a public holiday.
Sec. 12. Improvements to voting systems.
Sec. 13. Voter registration.
Sec. 14. Establishing voter identification.
Sec. 15. Impartial administration of elections.
Sec. 16. Strengthening the Election Assistance Commission.
Sec. 17. Additional protections to ensure fair administration of Federal elections.
Sec. 18. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 19. Effective date.


It's a pdf:

<http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/electionreform... >

Dzikas post of the Press Release:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

A summary of the press release, here:

<http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/conyersreformsummary.p... >


Here are links to other Bills and related DU Threads


Note: Due to DU software limitation, the three following links need manual help.

Click on it (you'll get a dead page) then add a colon : to the url and hit enter.


Here's the Senate companion Bill to Conyer's by Dodd:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.17 :


It's not clear to me if the Republican and Democratic Bills are competitive (except for here at DU and over at verified voting.)

Here are the Republican sponsored offerings. (See note above about manuallying reaching these urls)


This is the link for Ensigns Senate Bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2437 :


This is the link for King's companion Bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.278 :


Here are recent DU Threads on the subject, including important questions, commentary, and concerns by the likes of

Teddy (from Conyers staff), Andy S., BillBored, UnderstandingLife(and just how diabolical Diebold is), and many more:


<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >


On Paper Ballots, Hand Counts, and multi-issue ballots:


<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >


On Voter ID:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good plan needs to be in place well before mid-term elections
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. Woah, so now we have 3 bills? my head is spinning......
is this mass confusion by design?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. It ain't easy.
I count four...so far!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
44. Four? Conyers, Ensign, Dodd. What is fourth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Mr. King, from Iowa.
It's one of those funky links in the original post.

There is also A Bill to allow residents of DC to participate in the presidential election. I always forget about that disenfranchised city.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Knew about the DC! Definitely good idea. They are heavily dem. Obviously
that is why there's resistance. Didn't know about King.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. Very Nice!
A warm and fuzzy DU thanks to John Conyers and our fine Dems fighting for voting rights!

I like the $2,000,000,000 budget increase for HAVA, though I wonder how much will actually be appropriated. Kinda sad it won't take effect until 2007 -- I'd like to see it applied retroactively. :)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:42 AM
Response to Original message
5. THIS is the bill that could save our democracy
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 12:43 AM by garybeck
All day long I've been getting more and more depressed about the two other bills. It seemed like everyone was saying "this is better than nothing" I didn't realize this was coming. Thank God. Praise Jah. I need to read more of it but so far it appears this is the bill we should all support.

"Among other things, it provides for a voter verified paper ballot that will be used for random election day machine audits and recounts, requirements that polling places have a sufficient number of machines, strong protections against the thuggish tactics that were used in 2004 where voters received phony fliers on official looking letterhead providing false information about the date of the election and voter qualifications, tougher penalties and new rights for private citizens to combat voter intimidation, and a nationwide expansion of early voting and same day registration."

If that paragraph is true, this is definitely the bill to support. The others fall short on virtually everything.

Gary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. Are we starting a new thread on this? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
7. couple questions about the press release and summary pdf
on the press release link, there's a link to a summary PDF, I get a dead link. Anyone know where to get the summary doc?

also, is the press release available on the web anywhere? I want to link to it from Solar Bus

thnks
gary

------------------------------------
the solar bus
ELECTION FRAUD AND REFORM CENTER
your home for updated information on the fight for Democracy in America
http://election.solarbus.org
------------------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. A summary of the press release, here
I added it up top, put it in a reply to Dzika's post, and here, for you Gary. :)

<http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/conyersreformsummary.p... >

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. thanks, you rock!
I just added in the top slot of Solar Bus-- Conyers letter, the bill, and the two paged summary. I'm going to send out a newsletter on this too. Do you mind if I convert the 2-pager to HTML and post it on Solar Bus? I'm finding that a lot of my readers are on webtv and they can't read pdf files.

:yourock:

------------------------------------
the solar bus
ELECTION FRAUD AND REFORM CENTER
your home for updated information on the fight for Democracy in America
http://election.solarbus.org
------------------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Not my call. But I'll bet it's fine.
Send an acknowledgement, thanks, and link to Conyers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. acknowledgement to whom?
who wrote the summary?

thanks
gary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Says "Prepared by House Judiciary Democratic Staff"
Here's their site, though it seems dumb that I can't find the summary there.

<http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/index.html >

And their webform:

<http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/contact.html >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. do whatever you need to do
This is all congressional work and is all in the public domain....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
8. Oh, one other thing
If it's going to take effect Jan 2007, what difference will 2 months earlier make? Uh, well, it might determine the results of the 2006 Congressional Election! Think about this Teddy, but read the last thread too! There are some real problems with balancing the need for ballot access for the disabled with ballot verification/integrity. Read the rest of the other thread please, or I'll repost here. Thanks.
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
35. getting through your post
and I am grateful to everyone who has taken the time to read the bill carefully. I am trying to do my day job and take some time to give you my best response so excuse the delay....

"First, how would the auditors and recounters count so many different kinds of ballots? Are they actually going to sit there and listen to audio files or tape or look at the photos to count the votes? Wouldn't this make the auditing process a lot more cumbersome? And this process is in fact the key to verifying the vote. You don't want to discourage auditing, do you? Has this even been considered?"

I think a very small portion would be non-paper and the task of listening to an audio file that says "choice for President: Kerry" would not be terrible time consuming. Looking at a picture, I would think is quicker than reading a ballot. I don't think it would make the auditing process more cumbersome, just different. If I am wrong about that, I don't think it would change the rationale for the provision. In Mr. Conyers view, if a bit more inconvienience is the price to pay for independent and private voting for the disabled, then we should pay that price.

Conyers does not want to discourage or encourage auditing, he wants it to be mandatory, and that is what the bill (and not Ensign's bill) does.

"What is a voter-verified pictorial ballot? If it's photographic, it could be either chemically (on paper) or digitally preserved. The other non-paper formats would still be preserved ELECTRONICALLY, JUST LIKE WITH THE CURRENT DREs. And so would the pictorial ballot if it were digital. Electronic records are NOT independent of the software in the machines, but paper is! Anything stored electronically is hackable by someone who knows how. These other electronic ballot formats, while they may appear to be verifiable, are not immune to tampering."

I concede that, at a minimum, the audio record would be electronic and that is not the ideal from the perspective of making it tamper proof. It is the ideal for voters who are blind, however.

"Frankly, I get the feeling that the authors of this section are really just grasping for straws. They are more concerned with allowing the disabled, the non-English-speaking and the illiterate to vote than they are with verifying the vote. We need to do both but verification of the vast majority of votes has to take precedence!"

Sorry you feel that way. The section represents an attempt to balance verification with the needs of disabled voters. Any voter that wants paper can get it. In Mr. Conyers analysis, if a disabled voter wants another modality of verification, that voter should -- fully cognizant of its limitations -- be permitted to make that choice, and we should not make that choice for them.

On your point that verification should take precedence, I think we just disagree. You can build the best mousetrap in the world but if there are barriers to its use that fall disproporionately on those who are less educated or poor, you have a separate and unequal voting system. Both are equally important and you cannot have one without the other.

"As far as the auditing, there is no direct mention here of the requirement or the methodology. If it's not in HAVA somewhere, it may never be done."

This is a good point. There is of the requirement -- on page 21, line 5. As to the methodology, I think the bill could be more explicit, though the intent is that paper ballots will be hand counted.

"I think you should either specify a MINIMUM Federal, requirement for random, unannounced audits, or leave it up to the states. The states should also be allowed to exceed the Federal requirement and audit even more if they want to. And you should use the same (paper) ballot standard for all the audits. "

That is what it does. Every standard in the bill (and in HAVA) is a minimum standard. States are free to do more.

"Do you have I.T. security requirements in the bill to prevent alteration of the code?"

No. And that is a very good suggestion. The paper and audits are designed as a check against tampering, but your idea would also help.

"And won't there be massive opposition from the corporate rights advocates? "

Sure there will from some. Some favor the idea.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Thanks Teddy. Please see post 39 below. I'll be back later. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:54 AM
Response to Original message
9. how / why is the Dodd bill a companion to this?
in Conyers' letter he states that the Dodd bill is a companion to his. I don't understand, they seem pretty different to me. Everyone was saying that the Dodd bill doesn't require paper ballot and this one does. how can they be companions?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. I think that is what makes them companion.
One handles one chore, the other handles, well, everything else.

But this Dodd thing feels like a weight around our neck. Worse, I think we can get the disabled voter satisfied AND have verification needs met. Dodd only cares about one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I have to read the bills... but I keep hearing the Dodd bill...
has something in there stipulating that paper ballots are not required. if that's the case I don't see how conflicting legislation can be companions to each other. Why can't someone in the Senate just introduce the EXACT same legislation as Conyers. Don't they do that all the time? It seems to me that from the intro, Conyers' bill is good enough by itself.

gary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Look at Teddy's replys in the Conyers "letter" thread.
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

It seems that the disabled voter gets a choice among 4 forms of verification.

I think we have to ask for a tweak, but check that thread, you'll see a bit more on the issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #19
28. One is introduced in House, one in Senate.
It is up to Conyer's and Dodd to find a compromise - e.g. if they both pass in their respective side of Congress.

I asked Teddy about it it in the old thread and he answered - so check it out for his full answer. I'd link it but my connection is slow and I have to leave for work....

Good morning everyone! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
10. I got the 49 page PDF
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 12:58 AM by troubleinwinter
And am only half way through it. It looks good EXCEPT it looks like it allows electronic votes without a paper ballot. This must be changed.

I could be wrong, it's late, and haven't looked real closely, but I think there is a huge problem here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Page 18
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
25. Where Dodd Abandons Paper Ballots. (And, perhaps, how to fix it.)
The section in question would (and if not, we ought to demand it) only affect machines used by people with disabilities. THEY WOULD CHOOSE one of the four offered methods:

(i) A paper record.

(ii) An audio record.

(iii) A pictorial record.

(iv) An electronic record or other means that provides for voter verification that is accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides privacy and independence equal to that provided for other voters.

I'll repeat a part of (iv) here...

"...provides for voter verification that is accessible for individuals with disabilities, including nonvisual accessibility for the blind and visually impaired, in a manner that provides privacy and independence equal to that provided for other voters."

That seems to (or it better) apply to i, ii, & iii, as well as iv. It's argued that this is what (or would satisfy what) the disabled want.

So...

On the "Conyer Letter Thread" I asked Teddy if the machine could provide a Paper Ballot in ADDition to whatever the voter preferred. The voter's choice would still be the primary legal record, as they desire, but a paper record would still be available to help verify/cross-check in cases of doubt. I don't know if that would satisfy all parties. I hope others chip in ideas.

It's one of the big sticking points but it may also be quite fixable.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. Dupe from the previous thread
Please let me know if anything isn't clear.

First, how would the auditors and recounters count so many different kinds of ballots? Are they actually going to sit there and listen to audio files or tape or look at the photos to count the votes? Wouldn't this make the auditing process a lot more cumbersome? And this process is in fact the key to verifying the vote. You don't want to discourage auditing, do you? Has this even been considered?

What is a voter-verified pictorial ballot? If it's photographic, it could be either chemically (on paper) or digitally preserved. The other non-paper formats would still be preserved ELECTRONICALLY, JUST LIKE WITH THE CURRENT DREs. And so would the pictorial ballot if it were digital. Electronic records are NOT independent of the software in the machines, but paper is! Anything stored electronically is hackable by someone who knows how. These other electronic ballot formats, while they may appear to be verifiable, are not immune to tampering.

Frankly, I get the feeling that the authors of this section are really just grasping for straws. They are more concerned with allowing the disabled, the non-English-speaking and the illiterate to vote than they are with verifying the vote. We need to do both but verification of the vast majority of votes has to take precedence!

As far as the auditing, there is no direct mention here of the requirement or the methodology. If it's not in HAVA somewhere, it may never be done. I think you should either specify a MINIMUM Federal, requirement for random, unannounced audits, or leave it up to the states. The states should also be allowed to exceed the Federal requirement and audit even more if they want to. And you should use the same (paper) ballot standard for all the audits.

Now, I realize that the last sentence above makes the disabled, who choose to use other ballot formats, second class citizens again because they have now way of knowing whether e.g., the audio, matches the paper. But this is the road you're going down by allowing these other ballot formats. Sorry but I don't think this was very well thought out.

I'm open to any opposing comments, but I'm not yet convinced that this section does very much to ensure that ALL the votes will be verifiable.

The best compromise I can see is to print ALL the ballots on paper AND let the voters who CAN verify them do so. The other formats can be used only in addition to the paper for each vote. The disabled you are trying to protect are unfortunately out of luck when it comes to audits and recounts if they can't verify what's on the paper. But you could give them the ability to use paper with a device such as the Automark (one per precinct) as I understand it, and this is what the people who think about this stuff "for a living" actually advocate. Otherwise, just say in the law that the other ballot formats must also match the paper and TRUST (but NOT VERIFY) that they do.

Source code: It's fine to make it public, but then what guarantee is there that it won't be altered on Election Day? Do you have I.T. security requirements in the bill to prevent alteration of the code? And won't there be massive opposition from the corporate rights advocates? I'd rather see the code public than not, but this alone doesn't prove that this is the code the machine is actually running on Election Day, or on any of those Early Voting Days you're advocating! (You know my feelings about Early Voting already.)

Please let me know what you think. In the immortal words of our so-called president, "It's HARD WORK!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. It IS hard work! But we are up to it! Gonna take some lookin' at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #12
26. Bill...
Responding to your paragraphs:

1. My guess is yes, they sit there and listen. How many disabled voters might there be. Perhaps not a lot.

2. I don't quite picture the "photograph", myself.

3. Yep, probably Dodd. Big on the disabled, which is fine, but oblivious to the rest of us.

4. I don't think it's in any recount/auditing requirement in any of the current Bills, though there was a specification in last years Holt HR 2239.

It does, however, seem to amend HAVA and force that criteria be developed. On page 46 in Section 17:

(A) IN GENERAL.Subtitle E of title II of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, as added and amended by this Act, is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:

SEC. 299H. STANDARDS FOR RECOUNTS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

The Commission shall establish standards for the conducting of a recount of the results of any election for Federal office, including standards for determining who may request a recount, who may witness the recount, and the deadline for completing the recount (which, in the case of an election for electors for the President and Vice President, may not be later than 7 business days prior to the deadline referred to in section 12 of title 3, United States Code, for the receipt by the President of the Senate of the certificates of votes and lists referred to in sections 9 and 11 of such title). .

6. Totally.

7. Good catch. Which is where auditing would help. Plus certifying the machines.

Plus a seal over the USB port where they load the * votes.

8. And I'd like that Boxer clause added. NO FELONS ARE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE STUFF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
36. picture ballot
like this and used in many other countries

http://www.exploris.org/learn/activities/minix/ballot/b...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keepthemhonest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. you learn something new everyday
i swear. thanks for enlightening us.

i am not sure about all of these bills. Yes we need something in place ASAP but we need to ensure that we are backing the one or ones that are not going to put us right back where we started. The the repukes will say , you are the ones who backed this bill, remember?

We need to take it slow and steady but get it done before the next primaries. It is reassuring to see that so many different government offficials working on it, they obviously think there is a problem to address and that is a start.

I agree with the ones who think we need to have a paper ballot(not a paper trail.) In georgia we have all EV machines with no paper so I don't know how they could fix that quick. One thing I don't want is to have some machines granfathered in if they are already out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtLiberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
14. WHY, WHY, WHY???
WHY CAN'T THIS BILL BE EXPEDITED?

WE WERE "READY" FOR WAR IN LESS TIME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. i agree but
sometimes when things are rushed they don't get done correctly. this bill will hopefully become law and protect our democracy for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. True. Look how "Shocking and Awful" * war remains. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
feelthebreeze Donating Member (570 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. Republicans run the congress
and set the timetable. We would have done this yesterday if we could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
46. Teddy, can't we support Ensign as an emergency measure and also support
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 03:32 PM by Amaryllis
Conyers as comprehensive reform? Obviously Ensign falls short, but given:
-the history of election reform bills to amend HAVA (see post #45)and republican efforts to stop reform
-the fact that Ensign could, according to the verified voting analysis http://www.ballotintegrity.org/WhyVIVA2005.pdf stop the purchase of a lot of e-voting machines
-the fact that Ensign has a much greater chance of passing, and passing quickly,

wouldn't it be better to support both bills? From everything I understand, I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. If we don't do SOMETHING to keep from losing more congressional seats in 06 due to fraud, we will never get election reform anyway. (not to mention governorships, since they have so much to do with elections at state levels-we lost FL and GA in 2002 due to machine fraud; there may be others I don't know about). It seems the Ensign bill would help in 2006 and I don't see it in any way conflicting with anything in the Conyers bill. Am I missing something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #46
49. a very reasonable argument
As I had said in an earlier post, the bills are not mutually exclusive.

That said, I would counsel against that approach. Why? Because unlike some of the people who post here, I think we have a problem with not just one part of elections, but the entire system. Until the entire system is fixed, none of it will work.

Hypothetically, lets say in 2006, all the machines have paper ballots. But, the Ken Blackwells of the world still are able to shortchange democratic precincts out of voting machines, "lose" democratic voters registration forms, and allow third parties unfettered access to those machines. And republican operatives intimidate voters and send out false information to trick people from exercising their rights.

The result: voters don't get to vote on those pretty new ballots, we are cheated out of another election, and everyone asks why that election reform bill didn't work.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #49
69. I completely agree that the whole system is broken but I also believe that
anything we can do to stop states from buying hundreds of thousands of new DRE's is a good emergency measure. And absolutely we need comprehensive reform, but I am not following your logic. NONE of the things you are proposing will go into effect before 2006, but the Ensign bill could. Yes, we will still have problems with all the things you mention, AND anything we can do to improve the situation before 2006 will help. If we don't have some reform by 2006 and lose more congressional seats to fraudulently elected senators and reps, we will never get reform.

I also don't follow your logic in your last statement that everyone will ask why election reform doesn't work if the Ensign bill is passed and we still have fraud. All of us who know about election fraud KNOW we need comprehensive reform; those who don't know about it wouldn't even know to ask the question.

I appreciate very much the chance to kick this around with you.

I am referring to this when I talk about the Ensign bill stopping hundreds of thousands of newe DREs being deployed:
http://www.ballotintegrity.org/WhyVIVA2005.pdf
Why The Ensign Bill is Critical
By
Robert Kibrick, VerifiedVoting.org
Passing a meaningful federal paper ballot requirement ASAP (e.g., a re-introduced version of Ensign's S. 2437 from last session) is the most urgent priority, as dozens of States are poised to spend at least $1 billion in HAVA funds in the next few months on voting systems upgrades to meet that HAVA requirements that become
effective in 2006. Less than a dozen states have enacted a state-level paper trail requirement (either by legislation or by executive action of their Secretary of State).
In the absence of a federal paper trail requirement, we may see States purchase and deploy in the next few months hundreds of thousands of new, paperless DRE voting machines. Once those machines are deployed, it will be that much harder to get VVPB printers installed after the fact. In fact, we would rather not see any more DREs
deployed, period. With a paper trail requirement in place, most States that are able to do the math are likely to follow Ohio's lead and switch to precinct-based optical scan systems, which are inherently voter-verified.
A number of States, like Connecticut and Louisiana already have RFPs in progress for new voting systems. In Connecticut, they are only accepting vendor bids for DRE voting systems and are excluding other options like precinct-based optical scan; the deadline
there for vendors to submit bids is in February. Other States are not far behind Connecticut, and are poised to fast-track the deployment of DREs once bids are accepted
and contracts are let. VerifiedVoting.org is hard at work with TrueVoteCT to try to put
the brakes on Connecticut's RFP, but whether we succeed in that effort remains to be seen. We are also pushing for a paper trail bill in Connecticut (SB 55), but its prospects for passage remain unclear.
Given the urgency of this situation, we should push for a federal bill that can be passed as rapidly as possible, i.e., one like the Ensign bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2437 :
The Ensign bill establishes a clearly-defined requirement for VVPBs in Federal elections and establishes that in cases where the electronic record and the VVPB conflict, the VVPB wins. That is the extent of what it does, and for that reason, it provides fewer
provisions for Congresspersons to disagree with. Of the various bills that were introduced
in the Senate in the last session, it was the only bill to attract bipartisan support (it had 4
Republican cosponsors and 4 Democratic cosponsors, including Harry Reid (D-NV), who
is now the Democratic minority leader and Dick Durbin (D-IL), who is now the
Democratic minority whip).
My recommendation would be to make rapid passage of the Ensign bill in the Senate the
top priority for federal legislation, and to push to find a Congressperson to introduce a
companion bill in the House. We should try to get this legislation enacted in the new
month or two, while there is still momentum on this issue and before dozens more states
commit themselves irrevocably to the widespread deployment of paperless DREs.
2. Once a federal paper trail requirement is in place, focus on more comprehensive
election reform legislation
While getting a federal paper trail requirement in place is the most urgent priority
(because of the imminent purchasing decisions that are about to be made by many
States), it is only a small part of the problem. Without some provisions to require
mandatory, manual audits of those paper-trails, they won't do anything to provide greater
verifiability of election results.
More comprehensive legislation is clearly needed to make paper trails an effective tool
for auditing elections, and additional voting rights legislation is needed to correct the
problems of voter intimidation and vote suppression that were all too apparent in States
like Ohio.
However, such comprehensive legislation is going to be extremely difficult to get passed in this Congress, and it will likely take many, many months to get such legislation hammered out and passed. It is quite possible that such comprehensive legislation might not get passed until 2006. So if we entangle a basic paper trail requirement with this more comprehensive legislative effort, that basic requirement will likely be put in place too late
to stop the deployment of thousands more paperless DREs.
Although we would prefer to see more rapid passage of comprehensive legislation, the key thing is to make sure that this comprehensive legislation is in place no later than late Spring of 2006, so there is time for States and counties to implement its provisions in
time for the Nov. 2006 elections. So we do have a little more breathing room to get this comprehensive legislation passed, which means we can spend a bit more time to make sure that we get the very best legislation possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #69
71. Amaryllis, what do you make of all this...
Teddy says these Bills are not competing.

But ballotintegrity states on the home page:

"Three competing election reform bills are being introduced in the Senate in the next two weeks.

But only ONE of them deserves YOUR SUPPORT!

So...

1. There's the word "competing", and

2. There's the word "three". What's the "third" bill in the Senate??

Any idea?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #71
97. Not sure. I wondered about the third also. I interpreted "competing" to
mean competing for your support, not necessarily competing in the sense that only one could pass. I just emailed ballot integrity and asked them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #97
104. In other words...
...more muddying the waters from ballotintegrity.

They critiqued Dodd, endorsed Ensign (who's Bill is yet to be introduced, though alledged to be the same as last years version), and called both pieces "analysis".

That's muddying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #71
136. Wilms, Lautenberg NJ is working on legislation; probably this is third.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #136
142. Perhaps
I thought he introduced that right after Jan. 6th.

The purpose of Lautenberg is to prevent Kathleen Harris/Kenneth Blackwell-like conflicts.

I would hope that deserves our support. And I'd think it would not be in competition with any of the other legislation we've been looking at.

<http://lautenberg.senate.gov/%7Elautenberg/press/2003/0... >

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #142
153. This just in Nashau Advocate: Senators Feinstein, Clinton, and Boxer
More bills, from Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Clinton (D-NY) (with co-sponsorship from Senator Boxer ) are forthcoming.
http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/02/news-republi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #153
174. I got to make a list of all of these so I can keep track. n/t
These are from 2003/4 and may be what's in store.

It's those funky links you click, then add a colon : , to the url, and hit enter.

Boxer S 2045

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2045 :>


Clinton S 1986

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1986 :>


Graham S 1980 (Perhaps DiFi inherited this)

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1980 :>

Verified Voting
Comparison of Senate Bills 1980, 1986, and 2045

<http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5038 >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
45. Can't be expedited because many don't want reform and will block. Do you
know history of Senate Bill 1980 (Graham-Clinton) and House Bill 2239 (Holt) which were designed to amend HAVA to provide security measures and prevent many of the problems we had this election? THey were designed to go into effect by this last election but sat around for over a year and were not even granted HEARINGS by Delay in house and I believe Lott in senate. Tubbs-Jones and Boxer both referred to this I think in the press conferences on Jan. 6 (might have been in Boxer's speech on senate floor but I think it was press conf) that one of the reasons they were forcing the issue with challenging the Ohio electors was that they couldn't even get hearings on election reform bills.

This is one reason why there is talk about the Ensign bill; it has a much greater likelihood of being passed because it is sponsored by repub and is much simpler. I see it only as an emergency measure because it would stop the purchase of thousands of e-voting machines. Then we can work on comprehensive reform. We can support this and Conyers.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
29. Good discussion of details, but
...am still hung up on these points:

1. Timeframe--why the strategy of implementing it just after the 06 midterm elections? What was the thinking on that?

2. "Verified ballots" --does not specify paper record.
What are "partial audits" of voting machines?

3. Will we be able to trust the EAC to "establish standards for
verified ballots"--?

4. "All voting machines use open source software"--not enough specifics or conditions, as Bill Bored argues above
------------------

Am generally in favor of other provisions in Conyers bill and will read it more closely. I do want to support Conyers. His bill has a lot that seems very desirable, in theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. some answers
1. Timeframe -- see last thread for more. Basically, it takes a long time for a bill, any bill, to pass, even one that just names the post office down the road. Unlikely to pass both the House and the Senate in less than a year. Then you are looking at mid to late 2006, making the transition impossible in time for 2006 elections. It would have been easy to say immediately in the bill, but also dishonest.

2. Paper ballots -- the voter can get the paper ballot on any machine.

3. Trust the EAC -- most of what is in here is specific and they will have to follow the letter of the law where it is specific under administrative law. where there are ambiguities, they have to follow the spirit of the law.

4. See my response to Bill on open source. I think he makes a valid point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #38
50. It is my understanding
that although the press release uses the words "voter verified paper ballot"--

the actual section on verified ballots in the draft of the bill DOES NOT specify REQUIRING a paper record which can be audited later.

Can you clarify this??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. mostly not right
The bill says (A) The voting system shall provide an independent means of voter verification which meets the requirements of subparagraph (B)and which allows each voter to verify the accuracy of the ballot before it is cast and counted, and to correct any errors before the record of the ballot is produced and preserved...." To meet the requirements of subparagraph (B), you have to give the voter a choice of several options, one of those options of verification must be paper. Every single voter can choose paper. Every single one. All of them.

Some might not because they have a disability and another method of verification is available, but most will choose paper and everyone will have that option.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. thanks for reply
1. Somehow it seems cumbersome to put the burden of the "choice" on the voter. Why not just say verification by paper, unless the voter specifically requests otherwise (from the list of options). Make it stronger on the requirement for paper records.

2. ALSO--it LOOKS to me from the paragraph you've posted here that this wording does not require that a paper record be kept--and that such a record overrides the electronic record, in the case of a recount or audit. AN "independent means of voter verification" is not the same thing as "an independent means of VOTE verification."

Can you clarify this?
I am looking for the exact means of auditing, no matter what the voter chooses..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #56
63. sure
1. I think we disagree about that, but it is hard to quantify, so let's just say reasonable minds differ.....

2. Look at the bill. It does everything you are saying and more. It requires retention of the paper ballot, as secure as other ballots. It says it will be used in a recount or audit. AND its says there must be random audits on election day and if the results differ the official election night tallies are based upon the paper, not the machine.

Hope that is responsive
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Please reconsider your response to Marion's first point in Post #56
I think it's very reasonable.

More to the point, I don't see what's reasonable about offering choices that are fraught with security risks to people that don't need it.

There are Disabled-Compliant elevators that I'm not to use BECAUSE I DON'T NEED IT.

We're going to need a separate effort to safeguard Disabled-Compliant machines.

The fewer, the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #51
74. If it does not say "voter verified paper ballot"
it is not a voter verified paper ballot and is unacceptable. Too many choices in Conyers bill IMHO Mr Conyers is trying to appease Mr Dodd. Another fact to consider is the House and Senate Republicans will not support Mr Dodd's or Conyers bills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #51
84. Because it is easier to verify and harder to hack paper should be REQUIRED
for all but the disabled and their should be proof of the disability required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
30. Excellent -eom
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
31. KICK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
floridadem30 Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darknyte7 Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
34. I think this is the bill we should get behind...
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 12:59 PM by Darknyte7
Admittedly, I have not yet had the opportunity to study the entire bill, but hey, the clowns on Capitol Hill don't read the bills before they vote on them either! :P

But seriously folks, this bill appears to be much more comprehensive the the other two Voting Rights bills which I have take looked at previously. Furthermore, I trust John Conyers almost implicitly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Voting Rights are fine
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 02:21 PM by Bill Bored
but what about COUNTING RIGHTS?

I've slept on it now and I still believe that this bill is a hodge-podge when it comes to vote counting. Let's see what Teddy from Conyers' staff has to say.

My biggest complaint is that it doesn't explicitly say which of the four ballot formats must be used for auditing and recounts.

This gets very complicated:

1. If you audit all formats, you still end up with hackable votes cast by anyone who didn't use paper (mainly the disabled).

2. If you audit only the paper, you end up with votes that are un-audited (cast by those who didn't use the paper).

3. If you print paper for EVERY vote, and audit only the paper, then you end up with votes that are not voter-verified by those who didn't use the paper.

So you never have 100% voter-verified AND 100% auditable voting, unless you have a common ballot format that every voter can verify and that will also be audited.

And even MORE formats are allowed on page 18 (7) (B) (iv) where it says "An electronic record or other means!" So where will it end?

And finally, just because the bill says that the other formats will be at least equivalent to paper, won't make it so. I think this is a legal abstraction not grounded in the real world of technology and its potential abuses. The fact is that any electronic record, whether it's an image, video, audio or just 1s and 0s, can be altered on a grand scale. Once again you are trusting the machines and their vendors not to do this, regardless of the stakes e.g., a stolen election, TRILLIONS of dollars, millions of lives.

We have seen in the last four years what can happen if the voters' intent is not clearly discernible. The costs to our society and to the world have been enormous. Please don't let this happen again by putting in place a system so vulnerable to attack.

I await Teddy's response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. I honestly don't know what else to say
I thought I explained this above and it may just be that we disagree on this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. A few more questions...
Teddy,

1. Is it just Disabled Voters who use the special machines? Or can anyone walk in and use them?

2. I asked before if a Paper Ballot could be issued IN ADDITION to the verification method requested by the voter (thus, providing a Paper Ballot that could back-up/be cross-referrenced to the Verification Method chosen by the voter.)

3. Can you point me to standards for auditing and recounting be they in Conyers or Dodd or HAVA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. Touchscreens can be brought to the car of a disabled voter
And that is the law in some states---FL for one--I saw it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
54. answers
1. Special machines -- Short answer -- any voter could choose paper or not. Long answer -- The bill says the voting system has to have all of the options. Under HAVA, "voting system" means all the machines. You could have a system where each machine could give all of the options and any voter could choose paper or not choose paper on any machine. You could have a system where some machines are accessible to the disabled (non-paper options) and others do not.

2. I thought I said earlier that this was an interesting idea.

3. Conyers bill (page 21, lines 5-12). None are in ensign bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #54
64. Answers to your answers!
Hey Teddy,

1. I'm involved with electronic equipment design. Engineers want every bell, whistle, & light you can think of. Problem is, it increases the chance of the confusing the operator. Such systems are error prone. And as a side note--drives-up the cost of manufacture, training, maintenance, and down time.

Can't imagine that's not the case, here.

I don't see why we need more than a minimum of Disabled-Compliant machines in a polling place. And I don't see why a non-disabled person needs a verification choice. What does that provide other than confusion.

2. If it's an idea for the Disabled-Compliant machines to produce a Paper Ballot in addition to the voter's chosen verification method, I'd strongly urge Conyers/Dodd (or perhaps, Dodd/Conyers) to have a look at that. It'll save on the headaches I outlined in 1 above. And, as another side-note, re-engage potential supporters who may otherwise walk away from this. This same notion applies to #3.

3. Please see BillBoard's post #61 on this thread.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. Can anybody tell me WHY we NEED touchscreens at all?
It appears that the Conyers bill is actually advocating e-machines to become the norm everywhere, and the "paper verified choice" does NOT make me feel much more comfortable. Sorry, tilt. If anybody can name 3 good reasons for having touchscreens (other than providing them for disabled which we can do) I'm listening. Teddy is helpful on most other points but perhaps doesnt understand why this is a BIG hang-up for some of us.

So is there ANY justification for introducing all this overwhelming complexity and extra expense into the election system, when we have already so much proof that not only are electronic machines wide open for tampering and malfunction, but election officials cannot deal with the technical difficulties enough to oversee the use of the machines. We have had clear and irrefutable proof of that. WHY have error-prone machines to do something so simple as recording a few votes?

I'm not anti-technology, but computer security expert Chuck Herrin (and my brother who is a computer engineer) have convinced me that wholesale use of electronic voting machines is just not justified. I have voted all my life with paper ballot/optiscan and never felt the need of anything else, and I suspect that touchscreens are not an improvement the majority of voters really prefer. Also I have a severely disabled nephew, so I have a good feel for that perspective too, and I think we can provide for the disabled to have help from technology without compromising the whole system.

I really WANT to support Conyers bill and advocate support of it to others, but I am stuck on this point. It seems Wilms and Bill Bored have problems with it too...am thinking I will put it out for further discussion as a separate topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. It will require all touchscreens all the time.
I am still disinclined to support Mr Conyers Bill.

It is too broad in scope and has not been thought out carefully. Hell...the ones on the front lines of this issue for the last 2.5 years were not even consulted on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. You've explained some of it but there are problems
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 04:09 PM by Bill Bored
First of all, see this thread from Jan 26, in case you think I'm in any way against the disabled:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

Now you are saying that anyone can use any ballot they want and you _assume_ that most will opt for the paper one, which can be verified. You further assume that WE will be able to educate the masses on this issue and you are placing the onus on us to do that. That doesn't solve the problem. What percentage of voters are disabled? Enough to swing a close election?

Further, you seem to be implying that only the disabled (or anyone else who decides to use an electronic ballot) will have their votes subject to electronic tampering and that this is somehow OK. How is this fair to the disabled? I don't get it.

I can just see the Republican sponsored ads now, telling people NOT to use the paper because it's so un-cool, 19th-century, or whatever. I think you underestimate the ruthlessness of these people on this particular issue. They will stop at nothing. They build the machines and THEY count the votes. There's something profoundly wrong with this picture. I'm not blaming you or anyone else who pushed for the HAVA reforms, but there are those who have exploited this for their own ends and you are giving them further opportunities to do so in this bill as it currently stands. I'll wait for Andy and others to weigh in because I don't want to seem like the only "bad guy" here.

The issue is that the disabled, like most of the electorate, have not been educated as to the threat of unverified voting. Instead, like the BOEs and SOSs, they've been lobbied by companies who stand to make some money on these systems. And in effect, by introducing Multimedia Electronic Voting, you are giving them another way to NOT count the votes as cast.

I'm sure that given the choice of a verifiable paper ballot that would require some assistance (be it human or mechanical) to fill out vs. an insecure electronic ballot that they can use without assistance, most disabled voters would choose the one that ensures that their vote will be counted as cast. The problem is that no one has asked them this question. I understand that they would prefer to be independent and have an interface to the machine that they can use on their own. But there are people who want to drive 100 mph too and we don't let them do it -- because it's dangerous!

I've had a number of blind people in my immediate family and I'm sure they would agree with this if they knew the facts.

We should be reaching out to disabled voters to tell them about the pitfalls of electronic voting instead of acquiescing to what may their uninformed desires.

Besides, it would appear that the Automark gives us the best of both worlds so why not push for that, or something similar?

As far as the pictures, as long as they're on paper, that's fine. But what I foresee is pictures on the touch screens (i.e., Multimedia Electronic Voting) that will be no more secure than what we have now with paperless DREs.

I hope someone else will come and explain this more eloquently than I have, without the clarion call for 100% paper and 100% hand counts, which in the case of this legislation, won't get us anywhere.

There needs to be some common ground and common understanding. It does no good to get everyone to the polls who wants to vote if their votes will STILL not be counted as cast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. hope I didn't do that
Certainly didn't mean to imply anything like that about your view of the disabled.

All I can say is that disabled voters have told us what they think works best and is most useful and that's what we relied on. I disagree with your view that we should substitute our judgement about what works for their. Many of them have studied this very closely as have I. Not everyone who disagrees with your view just doesn't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. OK, let's see what the rest of us think BUT
I think the problem is that you and others don't believe that the other formats are less secure.

That said, I might be able to support this bill if you make the paper ballot, with or with the graphics, the DEFAULT voter-verified ballot and require the voter to provide some proof that they can't use it independently before allowing them to use something less secure. That way, you will not need as many of these expensive machines, and you won't just have people using them because the lines are too long for the regular machines, or for the fun of it, etc.

Assuming you are willing to allow disabled voters to take the risk that their votes won't be counted as cast, I think they should at least have to prove that they are disabled. I leave the question of how to do this legally up to you. I don't mean for it to be too restrictive, but it should not be done frivolously either. Most other programs for the disabled require some proof of the disability. Why not this? You don't have able-bodied people rolling around in wheel chairs, or getting Seeing Eye Dogs for the fun of it, do you? So why should they be allowed to use voting methods designed for the disabled, especially if it makes their vote less secure.

What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raksha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 04:01 AM
Response to Reply #57
178. Plus, if you park in a "handicapped only" parking space you get a ticket..
...unless you have a "handicapped" sticker on your car. And you need to show proof of disability to get the sticker. That's how it works here in California anyway.

Re >>Most other programs for the disabled require some proof of the disability. Why not this? You don't have able-bodied people rolling around in wheel chairs, or getting Seeing Eye Dogs for the fun of it, do you? So why should they be allowed to use voting methods designed for the disabled, especially if it makes their vote less secure.<<
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #178
179. I would have agreed a day ago.
Edited on Sat Feb-05-05 04:28 AM by Wilms
But if I understand the spirit of the American's with Disabilities Act (let alone HAVA) the idea is that facilities should be available. Period.

The idea is that I don't have to tell/prove that I have a vision problem, or that I can't read, etc.

And I think I'm both ok with it, and able to imagine that it doesn't have to prevent a solution.

-on edit-

This doesn't mean every machine needs to be specialized. HAVA, I think, mandates only one provided at each precinct (I'd say two, for back-up).

And actually, a lot of people fake disabilities for all kinds of reasons. So they might fake to register as such, or if we don't implement that they might fake at the poll cause the line is shorter or something. (But then, all lines would equalize in length, and that's fair, too.) If we don't touch that, I'm thinking it will not be a problem. Then, problem solved.

You??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Restricting use of Disabled-Friendly machines
Would there be a problem restricting use of Disabled-Friendly machines to the disabled?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Ah! Great minds think alike (and so do ours)! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rumpel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #60
66. ..which votes are easier to verify and monitor. great idea!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #39
59. Bill, are you good with this...
From Conyers Page 21, Lines 5-12.

(b) AUDITS.The standards issued under sub-section (a) shall provide for partial audits of the results of elections using the records produced pursuant to section 301(a)(7), and shall provide that those records shall be used for the official count of votes in the event that the tallies derived from the records differ from the tallies otherwise derived from the voting system used in the election
involved..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. No.
At least specify that it needs to be statistically significant, random, unannounced, etc. and a few cherry picked as you suggested before.

americanwoman had some good suggestions in another thread too if you want to link to it. I have to go now, but I'll be back later. It's the one about 100% hand counts vs. auditing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. OK. Put that link up when you can. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #62
76. Here it is:
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >

Post by americanwoman about how to audit the paper ballots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
105. MAJOR FLAW in counting rights: Does not address tabulators at all! Just
voting machines. The tabulators are where the big numbers come in as far as fraud. Am I missing something? Any bill that does not address electronic tabulation of votes in my mind is missing the single biggest problem of all when we are talking about fraud. And the security issues such as remote access need to be addressed with tabulators and voting machines both. Or is the thinking that open source will take care of this with the machines?

And as far as machines and open source, Chuck Herrin and others see this as still fraught with vulnerabilities. (See below for more on this) I still have yet to hear of any way to machine count the votes that is trustworthy. Anyone know of one? And I know there are issues with hand counting complex ballots, and Andy also says this, but Andy, what do you recommend for counting?

If I am going to support a supposed comprehensive bill, I want these issues addressed.

Bill, your thoughts?

Herrin on open source:
Open Source has a double-edged sword associated with it - widespread code review. The key to making open-source more secure is that vulnerabilities that are found are then reported and fixed in the next version or via a patch.

But what happens when the bugs *aren't* reported? I'm Joe Hacker, and I find the source code to comb through. I find a bug, let's say a remotely exploitable buffer overflow, but don't say anything about it. The code is reviewed and patched, and everyone feels great! The false sense of security sets in.

That bug that didn't get reported is known as a 0-day exploit, since the people managing the system have zero days to react to the vulnerability because they don't know about it. No patch is available.

How much do you think China, Iran, or Al-Quaeda would pay for a zero-day exploit for the US electoral system? The DNC? RNC? Enough for one little hacker to retire on, I'll guarantee it.

(Computer folks, bear with me - oversimplified, I know) Every patch that fixes a critical security flaw was at one time (potentially) a zero-day. The reason it got patched was because someone responsible reported it. I myself have been involved in reporting a couple, and know of dozens of default settings that are almost as bad as a full code exploit. But what happens when someone responsible doesn't find and report them?

Most elite Hackers try to keep a stash of 0-day exploits - they're like cash in the Hacker community. "I'll trade you 5 login accounts at Experian (to pull credit reports) for a Server 2003 0-day." That example's probably not accurate - exchange rates vary greatly depending on the people involved (spammers vs
warez folks, for example).

But that's why I'm not receptive to running our voting system on ANY software! Bugs WILL be found - that's another guarantee from your Uncle Chuck. But getting every bug reported and fixed is another matter. Voluntarily turning in an exploit to such an important system would cost somebody a lot of power and money, and Hackers aren't interested in giving up power and money any more than politicians are.

Over a LONG period of time, Open Source software (like OpenBSD) DOES get more secure as more and more bugs are reported and fixed, then re-tested. But that is a LONG process - we are still seeing bugs in 20 and 30 year old code get discovered. Like Justin showed with his excellent airplane code example, it is extremely time and money intensive to get code secure. That holds true whether
the code involved is open or closed source. They both can and will be exploited.

More: http://www.chuckherrin.com/sinceyouasked.htm and scroll down to open source.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. "Andy, what do you recommend for counting?"
Currently the optiscan machines count the number of votes cast on each machine. We could tally by hand and caluclator...and audit the paper against the optiscan machines.

I have been working on a few Ideas. But have not fully coalesced them yet.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JD Lau Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
65. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
68. Conyers for president
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
72. After a careful read of Conyers Bill today...I still cannot support it.
At a mininum it will require all jurisdictions to purchase DRE's... Because how will you accomplish giving the voter a choice between pictoral, paper, audio or electronic ballots unless you mandate electronic voting? Ted your a nice guy....Mr Conyers is a true American Patriot. But his bill falls far short of the mark. I am still sticking with Ensign's bill and will work for further reform from there.

Andy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Andy, what do you think of some the suggestions for improvement
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 08:53 PM by Bill Bored
in this thread? Particularly, the one that says the paper ballot shall be the default ballot unless the voter can prove he/she can't use it. In that case, the other accommodations can be offered, but on a limited number of these "multimedia" machines. One per polling place maybe.

This way, OpScan can still be the primary technology, with the "Multimedia" DRE in limited use for the disabled. (I call what they're trying to do Multimedia Electronic Voting because they go beyond the standard e-ballot to audio and image.)

Is there any hope for this bill? Wilms and I have been working really hard on this in your absence from DU the last 2 days. I do like many of the other provisions in it. We might even get them to specify some auditing procedures if they'll listen, which Ensign's bill lacks.

What do you think?

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. From the discussions I have had over the last few days...
Dodd and ensigns bill will never make it out of Committie. That is just my opinion.

Some of the things I think open the door wide to fraud are the

"Same day registration" What if a person is found to be ineligible to vote? There is no provision in Conyers bill to hold them aside until verification of elegibility can be made. Additionally I see that provision as creating a hell of a lot of work for election administrators. I have a better Idea. When you turn 18...your registered to vote...and here is a novel idea....it never expires unless you go to prison or die.

The provision re. felons and purges...I have another novel idea...once out of prison...your right to vote is restored automatically. The only time you should not ba able to vote is while incarcerated. Otherwise you should have that right back.

The one for the write in preaidential ballots? WTF??? that one has fraud written all over it...no pun intended.

I see too many problems with Conyers and Dodds bill. I wish to hell they had consulted the experts before submitting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. did you mean to say
Dodd and Conyers bill will never make it out of committee???? (u wrote Dodd and Ensigns --is that what you meant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #78
85. Sorry Yes...
I have been sick you know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. Thanks for saying I am a nice guy
And saying the nice things about Conyers. Your work speaks for itself on the issue of vvpb and you seem like a very good and sincere person too.

I have to be blunt here, though. "I wish to hell they had consulted the experts before submitting it." This frankly offends me. It represents a view that smart, well-intentioned people cannot reach different conclusions while looking at the same problem and that anyone who disagrees needs to be "educated" or "informed".

You are an expert on vvpb. You are not an expert on voting rights. The other provisions you criticize were drafted with the assistance of the best voting rights attorneys in the country. Mr. Conyers has been in Congress for 40 years and was drafting the original Voting Rights Act and successor bills before you and I could say the words "voting rights".

Your objection to same day registration does not seem to appreciate the barriers Republicans, like Ensign, have put on registration rolls. And mark my words they will put more into Ensign's bill. They have mandated the purges that result in valid voters being stricken from the records. They will mandate more purges. That is what they do with every single voting rights bill in the last forty years. Like you, they throw around the word "fraud" in instances where it is not proven to exist (

The provision re: felons. You have studied this issue enough to not know that Conyers and Senator Reid have a bill (Conyers has introduced it for years) that does exactly what you are advocating. Who is blocking it? republicans.

Write in Presidential ballots -- every military and overseas voter has this right today under federal law. Why shouldn't you?

Your contention that the people who have been working on this for the past few years is not merited either. You were not consulted. That is true.

I think I have made a good faith effort to explain the bill and to be candid about its limitations. I think the best thing to do now is to back away, let Andy have his say, and anyone else who has an opinion, and let you guys make your own determination.

Comments are always welcome to the Judiciary Cmte dems website and Mr. Conyers personal office mailbox. All of them are read and all are given serious consideration.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. You didn't answer the question about making the paper ballot
the default and limiting access to the other formats to those who really need it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. I think he did.
He said, in a reply to me here or on the last thread, that it was interesting. I urged him to urge Conyers/Dodd to have a look at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Sorry
You are right. I had not answered that. I think it is impractical because I think going down the road of making someone prove they are "really disabled" on election day is very dangerous. There is another really interesting suggestion (Wilms) about paper being generated in addition to the other method that deserves a lot of thought.

But, if you listen to others, none of this matters because the Conyers bill will never go anywhere. And no experts were consulted. Not John Bonifaz. Not computer security experts who are well known. ...And there will never be a challenge to the Ohio electors because we weren't going to get that done either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. I said I'd leave the disability verification up to you. It need not be
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 10:17 PM by Bill Bored
overly rigid and lawyers are good at writing this sort of language. Although I think all the Republicans would show up with dark glasses, seeing-eye dogs and wheelchairs, bandaged from head to toe if they thought they could steal an election that way!

I'd say, anyone who can sign the poll book without assistance should have to use a paper ballot. Simple.

But if you don't think it's possible to identify people who can't use paper on election day, then I'd say go with the paper option on EVERY machine. BUT there should also be some kind of voter education campaign that explains all the ways the electronic ballots can be altered that the paper ballots are not subject to. Then they can make educated choices.

Also, as far as computer experts go. I've heard some say there is no evidence that anything went wrong with the vote counting in 2004. But the fact is that they have NO PROOF whatsoever that this did not occur. The audit trail just isn't there to prove that it didn't happen.

I know it's hard when experts disagree. Look at the global warming "experts" trotted out by Bush. But when in doubt, and the experts don't agree, why not err on the side of caution? Use the solution with the least amount of risk. That's not the DREs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #86
132. Teddy, please have a look at post 99 as well as 89. Thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #83
89. That makes sense. It probably isn't ok forcing one to prove disability.
Then, mandatory paper generation would get us out of one part of this jam.

Also, do I have it correct that a pictoral verification IS, essentially, a piece of paper? If so, it ain't :puke: electronic, it can be hand-counted...we're saved!

Still a pile of dough to equip all machines as full-service kiosks, but we'd have "primary verification" on paper except where an "audio recording" is the voter's selected choice. In that case, we still have the mandatorially (is that a word!) required "Paper Ballot" as a back-up/cross-reference.

I bet most non-disabled voters choosing additional verification would opt for a picture (which may actually help them make the choice they really wanted, think about it). Poor-sighted people, who might otherwise want "audio" may find themselves able to use the "picture". That means "more paperwork" and in this case, that's a good thing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. suppose the picture is only on the screen?
The bill doesn't say the picture has to be a printed picture, does it?
I guess all those computer experts didn't think of that, or they're just confident in the ability of the bureaucracy to secure the data, even though there is no mention of any I.T. security in the bill whatsoever.

I'm very worried about this, and I'm not even an all-paper/hand-count true believer. I just think that we are talking about a very specialized field, namely I.T. security, which most people outside that realm know very little about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #93
99. Thanks Bill. That's why I like working with at least one other person...
...as long as they're willing to :spank: me when I need it!

I tripped myself up confusing the issue with a neat link someone put up.

<http://www.exploris.org/learn/activities/minix/ballot/b... >

OK. :think: How about this...(are you there, Teddy?, Andy?)


First, the touchscreen displays a mug-shot of the voter's choice.

If the voter likes the face they see, they hit the -- "Yeah. That's the One" -- button.

And a "paper record" rolls out of the machine (until it jams or runs out of ink. Sorry, I'm an engineer.)

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. OK....
So long as it is the ballot of record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #100
107. Maybe not "The" but, "A" ballot of record.
Since the disabled voter wants to choose the means of verification, and that we want to try and oblige them, I've argued that (let's say they speak), the recording would become not the only, but the "Primary" record.

A "Paper Ballot" would also be generated. That's a back-up/cross referrence to the recorded. Or perhaps we'd consider both as the legal record.

Any discrepency would put the heat on the machine, not "voter intent", which, perhaps, would be an improvement.

See also Posts 89 and 99, on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #107
113. Let me ask you this....
would you buy a house or a car...without a contract?

If the answer is no...then you just answered why we should not vote without a voter verified paper ballot. Your ballot in essence is your contract with your government. Without a contract how do you know the terms and conditions etc etc etc? Anything less than paper to me is a sell out. I am sorry to be so stubborn on this...but I have seen shit go on for two years with these machines and the only way to protect our vote is a paper ballot. To quote Ronald Regan...trust but verify.

:)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. That was a great line of Ron's. Gotta admit.
That's why I wrote:

"A "Paper Ballot" would also be generated. That's a back-up/cross referrence to the recorded. Or perhaps we'd consider both as the legal record."

Is it manageable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #114
118. The duality of ballots is what got us where we are now.
only one ballot can be the ballot of record. That is why in most states the "electronic" ballot is the ballot of record.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #118
119. Thanks. Point well taken.
If these disabled Friendly machines are deployed minimumly, so as to provide for the disabled, how many voters might choose the electronic verification?

What % of the overall vote might it be?

Just a guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #119
124. Well...if I were a betting man...
rapidly it would be 100% if we leave the door open to that.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #100
109. The bill states that ANY of the formats that the voter chooses
becomes the ballot of record.

If this has to be, then we need to LIMIT who can use these other formats. I think an easy way to do that is to only allow those who CANNOT use paper, to use non-paper. The "test" for this is: can the voter sign the poll book? And this can be the definition of who is and is not disabled.

Comments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #100
112. Also. Tell us more about paper options for the blind. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #83
115. Whether it goes anywhere or not, we want it to be the best it can be!
This is why we need to take a break!

However, I think defining "disability" for the purpose of this legislation, as someone who cannot sign the poll book without assistance, could be useful. This could include those unable to get to the book due to mobility problems, the blind, etc. All these folks could be given the option (the RIGHT actually) to use non-paper formats.

The rest of us are stuck with good old paper and OpScans or hand counting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #79
87. Teddy I am truly sorry your offended...
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 10:29 PM by Andy_Stephenson
and I did not mean to offend you honestly.

"You are not an expert on voting rights." True enough...but voting rights mean nothing if my vote can be subverted via machinery that has been and continues to be proven flawed.

"Write in Presidential ballots -- every military and overseas voter has this right today under federal law. Why shouldn't you?" Simply...because I am not overseas and this would create a bigger mess than it solves. I have a friend (an elections expert) who is agast at this idea. The Language on signing and sending it in are, pardon me, laughable.

"You were not consulted. That is true. " and I would like to know why? I have been followed...threatened and harrased by these people. I think I have earned at least a bone here as have many others who have given nearly everything to this issue. Last night I was sick...I could not even afford to go to the Doctor ...why...because I have taken myself to the edge over this issue.

"I think I have made a good faith effort to explain the bill and to be candid about its limitations." Yes you did...and when I said I would like to make a few suggestions to make it better I was told..."Sorry...it's too late to do that". Sorry...the only time it is too late is when we the people say it is too late.

"You have studied this issue enough to not know that Conyers and Senator Reid have a bill (Conyers has introduced it for years) that does exactly what you are advocating." How many years were the Democrats in control of the House and Senate? 40? I see this as a strawman argument. The Republicans have not always been in control.
If the Democrats had the intestinal fortitude to make this happen it would happen.

One last comment. Conyers Bill wnats to study the possibility of making Voting day a national holiday...WHY wast the money studying it? Make it a holiday already!



Edit: Honestly all the hoopla over the Ensign Dodd et all bills is beginning to turn me off to any kind of machine. Perhaps we should go to all paper, all hand counted, all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. last try
1. Agree with your point about the machines, even though you do not agree that the reverse is th case.

2. First, the "laughable" language on signing and sending comes directly from the existing federal law. Thanks for the ad hominem. Wonder why you offend me? Mail in balloting is currently used in Oregon. So far, no problems there. I know you say with respect to Oregon that we don't know there have not been any problems so we just shouldn't do it. I don't think that is compelling.

3. "Good faith effort". Since you have decided to take this out the open, you said you would call me back in one hour on the day it was introduced. Never heard from you again. Nonetheless, used the comments you had already given me to make some helpful changes (e.g. a ban on cryptography based on your "vote here" comment). "We the people" (of which I am one) have the right to ask for changes throughout the legislative process, which continues long after a bill is introduced. We had a deadline based on when bills can be introduced in Congress, rules that cannot be changed. Major changes were not possible then.

4. Why you were not consulted. Nothing personal. My sense was that you would not be open to a bill that used any electronic voting records, even for disabled voters, and would throw the kitchen sink at it to oppose it, I also knew you had endorsed a different bill already and were lobbying for it. We started this with a difference of opinion that I think is intractable. I think we both would agree our public debate here has demonstrated that.

5. Election day holiday bill. "Make it a holiday already". He has a bill to do that. Why do you keep saying these things without checking the facts? Why isn't that in the bill? because a number of objections have been raised to his bill to make it a holiday and we need to get the facts in a non-partisan way before going any further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. Look Ted...I don't want to argue with you...I like you you seem sincere..
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 11:33 PM by Andy_Stephenson
"Since you have decided to take this out the open, you said you would call me back in one hour on the day it was introduced. Never heard from you again."

Yes...I did not call you back because...in case you did not know I was in a BAD way with food poisoning...as a matter of fact I had to see a Doctor yesterday which. I am now on Cipro and feeling a bit better. So I apologize for not calling back...but there was not much time between the hurl fest and montezumas revenge.

"My sense was that you would not be open to a bill that used any electronic voting records, even for disabled voters, and would throw the kitchen sink at it to oppose it, I also knew you had endorsed a different bill already and were lobbying for it. We started this with a difference of opinion that I think is intractable. I think we both would agree our public debate here has demonstrated that."

Your right electronic voting records are absolutely unacceptable. But I have shown and given you options for paper ballots the blind can use. Why do you push electronic ballots as the only feasible option? The disabled should be shown the options...I think their insistence on an electronic record is coming from somewhere else. Not you or Mr Conyers...but we did have a discussion about Mr Dixon.

"We started this with a difference of opinion that I think is intractable. I think we both would agree our public debate here has demonstrated that." I am not intractable on anything but one thing...the need for a voter verified paper ballot as the ballot of record. I see Conyers bill as necessitating only electronic voting. I mean how are we going to offer all these options without using electronic voting only? It is unfortunate we are letting a small minority drive the discussion here (National Federation for the Blind). Now please don't take that as a slam against the Handicapped...I have spoken to many visually impaired and handicapped individuals regarding this issue and they to a person have told me they want a paper ballot.

"He has a bill to do that. Why do you keep saying these things without checking the facts? " In an earlier thread...you stated he wanted to "study the possibility" so I went with what you said. "(8) Section 11. Requires a prompt study of whether election day should be a holiday http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
So did that mean what it said? Or did you mean to say Conyers bill would make election day a federal holiday? I am confused here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #79
90. Teddy I support a lot of Conyers bill
and you may be SURE I appreciate the work and experience that has gone into it, and I WANT to support it, but one point of Andy's (and mine and others here) that you really did not answer is that the Conyers bill SEEMS to mandate DRE's, --"multi-media" DRE's as Bill Bored argues.

----------------
Can you give us ANY reasons for DRE's (OTHER than helping disabled which I think we all agree should be stipulated and enforced)?
WHY do we NEED expensive trouble-prone touchscreen voting for everyone--I cannot see the improvement over paper ballots with optiscan capability and hand-counting in addition. Touchscreens were pretty disastrous in the last election. Why should we think we can suddenly have new fabulous ones? WHO will be manufacturing, servicing, operating these? We have NO reason to trust a wholesale move to DRE's. Give us some if you can.

---------------
This seems like a workable alternative to heavy investment in DRE's:
What do you think of this proposal?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #90
92. HAVA's mandates are for voting systems
This means the entire system at a polling place (as defined by HAVA). As I said in an earlier post, in conjunction with Conyers bill, that means these options have to be available to voters, not on every machine, but on a sufficient number of machines to accomodate every voter who wants them. Under current HAVA, the system has to be disability accessible. This does not mean every machine has to be disability accessible, just that some (enough) should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Teddy, if they can sign a poll book without assistance, they're NOT
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 11:26 PM by Bill Bored
disabled for the purpose of this legislation, are they? In fact, other than visual impairment, this bill doesn't define "disability" at all.

If we can define it, to everyone's satisfaction, then we can address the need. Anyone who can sign a poll book can vote on a paper ballot. I have no objection to having pictures on the paper, if that will help.

Why not make this, or a similar criterion, for allowing the disabled to NOT use the paper ballot? What am I missing Teddy?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #94
101. Re: "This bill doesn't define "disability" at all."
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 11:39 PM by Wilms
The American's with Disabilities Act" doesn't seem to, either...a bit to my surprise, but think about it. It makes sense in a way.

on edit- Ah! Yes! Not every machine has to be Disabled-Compliant. Save $.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #101
137. Not only would it SAVE MONEY,
but it would reduce the number of DREs. It would make the vote more secure and verifiable. It might even allow us to support this bill. I'm still waiting to hear something on this. We should NOT allow non-disabled voters to cast their vote in a manner that is subject to tampering.

The whole issue has been framed incorrectly. The disabled folks have been told only the positive aspects of e-voting, and not the negatives. They think the certification process finds all the bugs, glitches and security holes. It seems that it has not. They have been fed a line.

We are now being demonized for being anti-disabled! It's downright Orwellian. I warned about this on Jan 26. If this ever gets on the MSM, THIS is how it will be spun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #137
139. I know all about certification.
it is a sham...a farce...a ploy. Shawn Southworth "does not test for it if it is not in the FEC standards"...That was his response when asked if the Diebold TSX machines had wireless capabilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. OK but
you are still talking about individual voting MACHINES for everybody.

I'm not really talking about voting machines. I have voted all my life on paper ballots--the cardstock kind you flop into a simple scanning device. Nothing fancy, nothing much to break down. Now I agree that there are problems with central tabulators that need to be made transparent, but from the voter's point of view, this system is so simple and easy. Why do we want to make it so much more complicated and expensive? From the VOTER'S perspective you may be creating as many negatives as you are attempting to eliminate. Just ask all those people who saw "Kerry" become "Bush" on their touchscreens.

It seems you are saying that HAVA has mandated "machines" and nothing else. Why go along with that? I am advocating NO machines, other than simple counters (checked with hand-counting). With the exception of specialized machines for the disabled, one at every precinct (more if a large population requires it), which have a paper printout for verification.

So what I'm hearing you say is that you feel compelled to go along with HAVA on the installation of "e-voting systems" (DREs)everywhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #96
102. You'd need at least one Disabled-Compliant machine at each precinct.
The other machines don't have to be Disabled-Compliant.

I really think we can find a solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. We can...
but it MUST be bipartisan, must mandate paper NOW.

Anything less and we are selling ourselves short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #102
108. Not talking machines at all, except for disabled---
WHAT "other machines"? have you ever voted with paper ballots read by a scanner before? Use a special pen--same simple technology as test forms. There are no individual machines and the voting goes very quickly, even in larger precincts. You can have an infinite number of NON electronic voting booths. Never worry about not having enough machines.

I hope we can find a solution. But they are going to lose me on the wholesale DRE thing enhanced by HAVA, and not questioned by this bill. I wish if they're going to "shoot for the moon" they would go for it all. There seems to be some obstacle--they feel they have to support DREs in order to get the ones for the disabled. Doesnt add up to me.

Read what Land shark posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Is this a solution?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #108
131. Thanks for catching that.
The term "polling station" would have been better.

And another great catch when you wrote...

"There seems to be some obstacle--they feel they have to support DREs in order to get the ones for the disabled. Doesnt add up to me."

Read this, and :cry: :

<http://www.aapd-dc.org/dvpmain/paperballot/aapdballots.... >

Just started poking around the web and it seems the "disabilities" issue probably IS what's driving the bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. It sure is!
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 01:24 PM by Bill Bored
We need to resolve this ASAP. That's why I posted the thread on Jan 26, mentioned above. But it seems that some politicians have already made up their minds about it, based on this lobbying effort.

I think if they are allowed to vote in any precinct at a particular POLLING PLACE, they should have ONE of these Multimedia machines at each polling place, reserved for use by only those who can't sign the poll book without assistance. They know who they are and so do the poll workers.

There is no need for any cumbersome legal definition of who is disabled and who isn't. Make this an option for those who truly need it, and make everyone else vote with the VVPB.

I just got online and haven't seen the rest of the thread yet, but I can't emphasize this point enough. Let the disabled eat cake, so to speak, but don't take away the bread from the rest of us.

THE VOTE MUST BE VERIFIABLE!!!

Teddy, would it help if we show you some links about the DRE and tabulator vulnerabilities? You ask for public code, but the vulnerabilities are well known now even without public code. They can be seen by just running a copy of the program or reading the user manuals. I'm in the process of doing just that, and others have done it already. You cannot afford to neglect this issue.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #96
133. the following language is from HAVA and remains in effect
if Conyers bill passes:

(2) Protection of paper ballot voting systems.--For purposes
of subsection (a)(1)(A)(i), the term ``verify'' may not be
defined in a manner that makes it impossible for a paper ballot
voting system to meet the requirements of such subsection or to
be modified to meet such requirements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. And how would you gage the support for Ensign's bill at this point?
Who will introduce a house version? Could it be Holt, or is it King?
(I hope it's not PETER King! He'd probably introduce a bill to count the votes before the election!) ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #80
88. All I can say are there are several influential Democrats...
that are supporting it over the Dodd Conyers Bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-05 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
98. Don't give up! Let's continue this tomorrow!
Edited on Thu Feb-03-05 11:53 PM by Bill Bored
First of all, I hope that you feel better Andy. It's not pleasant to have to deal with issues like this when you're under the weather. See if you can eat some yogurt or something to replace all the "good" bacteria that the Cipro will kill along with the bad! It might help your recovery.

Teddy, I'm personally very glad you decided to join us. Keep in mind that we have no idea who you really are, but you do seem to have Mr. Conyers' ear and to us, that's very important. Understand that, except for Andy who's actually spoken to you, we are trusting you with almost blind faith. For all we know, YOU could be an intelligent computer of some kind -- no offense!

No one wants a repetition of what happened in Ohio. Without Mr. Conyers, we might not even know about it, although there were certainly some local activists such as Fitrakis and Wasserman, and yes, even the Kerry people, who were on top of it. I hope you get somewhere with Sensenbrenner. I personally wrote to him and urged others here to do so to ask him to hold hearings. So please stick around.

I don't know Andy that well either, except by reputation, but he has only good intentions as far as I can tell, and so do the rest of us!

That said, this issue of DREs and e-voting in general needs some resolution. If this bill doesn't provide enough safeguards, it's hard for some of us to support it.

But we should not be so inflexible that we can't work something out that would preserve the spirit and intent of the rest of the bill, and help the disabled vote too.

Why don't we all take some time off and regroup tomorrow, read through the whole thread again, and answer any unanswered or lingering questions, objections, etc. while avoiding any personal attacks?

I'm surprised there aren't even more posts on this thread, but if people think we're doing a reasonable job of speaking their minds, I guess that's OK.

So how about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocky Top Donating Member (53 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #98
110.  kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #110
111. Welcome to DU Rocky nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #111
117. I second that welcome...
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #117
121. Yogurt.
When you get off the anti-biotic, yogurt is good for repopulating your tummy with the good bugs.

It'll take a few weeks. FP is bad news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #121
125. yes it is...and now...
I am off to bed.

gnite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #98
116. Bill...I am sure Ted has the best of intentions!!!
he was very polite on the phone yesterday and we were having a good discussion when I had to go. Had it not been for the salmonella ghirdia or whatever it was I had...I would have called him back.

I truly would like to find a middle ground...and there is one. But the mere thought of DRE's being deployed across the nation to steal more and more votes...well...makes my blood boil. So Ted please understand...I am not trying to be hateful or intractable. I have a huge stake in all of this and I want the absolute best solution we can come up with. I am skeptical on the electronic route...you are not...on this point we will have to agree to disagree.

Pehaps it is time to reach across the asile to Republicans and work something out. Because if we don't...we are all (in the words of Gore Vidal to me)...Fucked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #116
120. Andy, what about tabulators! The bill doesn't even mention them! Argh...
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 12:34 AM by Amaryllis
I know the bill already takes on a lot, but don't we have to deal with the e-tabulating if we are ever going to win another election???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #120
123. And the tabulators are a huge problem...
one that needs to be dealt with.

At a minimun=m they should not be connected to any phone internet or wireless device.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #123
134. Exactly my thoughts. Any bill that doesn't at least do that is missing the
biggest problem. And all the info should be uploaded to two independent sources!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #134
140. That is whay we need a paper ballot.
No Paper...No Proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #140
154. Yes, but that won't solve the fact that the paper ballot ONLY factors in
if there is a recount, and therefore is no help as long as you are using machines and tabulators that can rig the election. We all know how far we got with recounts in suspect states this election. And FL was rigged so much that a recount wasn't even a question because the margin was so wide. So, we are right back to we have to get rid of the machines and tabulators, or at least get rid of proprietary software and build in a whole lot more security features in the form of checks and balances than we have now if we MUST have the damn machines, and I don't see this bill doing that. Not that Ensign does eihter but it isn't claiming to be a comprehensive reform bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #154
156. That is where mandatory and
propper audits come in. Check the paper against machine counts in at a minimum of 6% of the precincts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #156
166. And my understanding is you need to do ALL the precincts within a county
to really detect fraud in the tabulation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #166
168. Not really
6% of a random sample is good enuf to detect fraud.

By random I mean the Democrat and Republican choose the pct to be checked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #168
173. Hey Andy, how you feeling today? Better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #116
122. JUST FYI
Andy, don't bother replying to this message--but I wish you would read this proposal by landshark today, on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

There are a lot of people who are hanging up on the idea of DRE's "being deployed across the nation" at this point. Not only at DU either. Git well...2B cont--I am signing off now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #98
128. Bill, can you look over at Holt Bill? The link is up top.
Looks like it will be re-intoduced. And it speaks to auditing.

Can you take a whiff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #128
138. Not seeing link to Holt. You mean HB 2239 from last congress? Here is link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #128
141. Host bill is much better!
Link (add the colon if it doesn't work):
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.2239: >

`(2) VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(A) VOTER-VERIFICATION IN GENERAL- The voting system shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system, as further specified in subparagraph (B).

`(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY-

`(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record, each individual paper record of which shall be made available for inspection and verification by the voter at the time the vote is cast, and preserved within the polling place in the manner in which all other paper ballots are preserved within the polling place on Election Day for later use in any manual audit.

`(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to correct any error made by the system before the permanent record is preserved for use in any manual audit.

`(iii) The voter verified paper record produced under subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph shall be available as an official record and shall be the official record used for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.

Here's the disability clause:

(b) VOTER VERIFICATION OF RESULTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES- Section 301(a)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 15481(a)(3) is amended--

(1) in the heading, by inserting `AND VOTER-VERIFICATION OF RESULTS' after `ACCESSIBILITY';

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking `; and' and inserting the following: `, and such voting system shall provide a mechanism for voter-verification of results which separates the function of vote generation from the function of vote casting in a manner analogous to that described in section 4 with respect to the separation of paper ballot generation and paper ballot verification and preservation, but does not require the use of paper."

This is much better because it says the Multimedia stuff has to be separate from the vote counting stuff! Now we can argue over semantics, but I think this is MUCH clearer than the language in Dodd/Conyers. Of course, it will still require hardware and software engineering professionals to audit the designs. So now you need not only public source code, but public schematics of the hardware as well to prove that the ballot and the counting are separate. At least Holt they tries to make it separate and mandates the paper FIRST and appears to restrict the use of the Multimedia stuff to the disabled.

Holt also says:

`(C) SOFTWARE AND MODEMS-

`(i) No voting system shall at any time contain or use undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

`(ii) No voting system shall contain any wireless communication device at all.

`(iii) All software and hardware used in any electronic voting system shall be certified by laboratories accredited by the Commission as meeting the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii).'.

And there's this:

(b) INTERIM PAPER SYSTEM- Each State and jurisdiction that certifies in the manner described in section 102(a)(3)(B) that it shall be unable to comply with the requirements of section 301 in time for the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office to be held in November 2004 shall receive a paper voting system, based on paper systems in use in the jurisdiction, if any, at the expense of the Commission that shall be deemed compliant with section 301 by the Commission for use in the November 2004 general elections.

Here's the auditing clause:

"The Election Assistance Commission shall conduct manual mandatory surprise recounts of the voter-verified records of each election for Federal office (and, at the option of the State or jurisdiction involved, of elections for State and local office) in .5 percent of the jurisdictions in each State and .5 percent of the overseas jurisdictions in which voter-verified records are preserved in accordance with this section immediately following each general election for Federal office, and shall promptly publish the results of those recounts. The treatment of the results of the recount shall be governed by applicable Federal, State, or local law, except that any individual who is a citizen of the jurisdiction involved may file an appeal with the Commission if the individual believes that such law does not provide a fair remedy."

Well 0.5% is a bit sparse, but in principle, it looks OK. Make it 5% and we'd probably be in good shape.

Now, remember this bill was introduced way back in May 2003! It died in committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. Here is the rub I see.
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 02:26 PM by Andy_Stephenson
"(ii) No voting system shall contain any wireless communication device at all."

It does not say anything about telephone or internet connections. Right now the Accuvote machines are not wirelessly connected to anything...but at the end of the day they are connected to a phone line to transmit vote totals to the central count computer. The vote totals are transmitted straight ASCII text to an unpatched windows 2000 or XP computer. Holts bill needs to go a bit further. These machines should never be hooked up to a modem or the internet at all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #143
145. Correct. I'll be back later. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #141
144. If we don't hear from Teddy by Monday
Edited on Fri Feb-04-05 02:29 PM by Bill Bored
we should probably start a new thread calling for some changes in the VVPB/Multimedia sections of this bill. We'll have to go via the usual route to Conyers and Dodd: letters.

I think for purposes of making the point, the phrase "Multimedia E-Voting Machines for the disabled" should be used to frame the issue. It's the not the disabled we have a problem with, it's the hackability of the machines! The changes would be:

1. Restrict the use of these machines to those incapable of using paper ballots without assistance.

2. All others must use VVPBs.

3. Allow the use of Optical Scan or hand counting for all VVPBs.

4. Multimedia ballots can either be audited/recounted on the machines, or a hand-counted PB mirroring the Multimedia Ballot must be generated and used as the ballot of record.

Comments please? If this issue continues to be trivialized by members of our own party who we otherwise support wholeheartedly, we will have to take some action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #144
146. If I had my druthers...
I'd ruther we all use optical scan ballots. Including the visually impaird and handicapped. They can be pictoral, tactile...and braile. I think optiscans are the best compromise. The only verification models we wonn't have are audio and electronic...which by me is fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. Show us a braille machine, Andy n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #148
151. here is some information
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. Thanks.
So RI can do it.

I wonder if the Disabilities Community is satisfied with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teddyk23 Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #144
149. I don't know what you are waiting to hear back from me about
My purpose in posting here was to answer questions about the bill. I think I have answered all of the questions posed as much as I can and to the best of my ability. I think we have had a complete airing of what the bill does and doesn't do from my perspective and the perspective of others. In my view, it has been a useful exercise that has narrowed the issues.

I came to this group because I had followed it closely before and after the election and knew of the great interest in this topic and the unbelievable support of Conyers during his ongoing Ohio election investigation.

I am uncomfortable that we have jumped to a discussion about what changes need to be made in the bill. It is beyond any authority I have to promise changes in the bill. No one elected me to anything. It is also premature. Changes can't be made in a bill until there is some later step in the legislative process that gives an opportunity to amend it. However, I will be sure to make Mr. Conyers is aware of the concerns expressed here and the constructive ideas that were provided.

At this point, I have spent a great deal of my personal time making myself available to answer questions. I did so, not as part of my job (because it isn't), but because of my personal commitment to the issue and admiration for all of you. I think you would agree that making myself available in this way is unprecedented (how can that be "trivializing" this?) I work long hours, have a three week old baby, and have to move on to other things.

I would agree with the recommendation that you write the offices and express your concerns (though, as I said, I will make sure they are known).

I hope you agree this has been useful. Good bye and good luck!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #149
150. Hang on, Teddy.
From my view this has been extremely useful.

I'll tell you what seems to be trivialized. And that is the disabilities communities needs/our need to dialogue with them so that they and us Paper Pushers might come closer.

That you thought it an interesting idea to have Paper generated in addition to the Voters Verif. choice is the sort of thing I hope we'd work together on.

I don't want to ask for more of your time, but I have too.

I'm not happy with all the legislative bullets, but I'm now so much more familiar with it as a result of this discussion, in general, and your input in particular.

Tuck in the kid. Catch your breath. Come back soon and often.

Wilms
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #149
162. Teddy, the only thing that seems to be trivialized or not appreciated
in this bill is the inherent lack of security of paperless electronic voting systems, esp. the DRE type, which seems to be what it's advocating or mandating for the disabled voters, and making available to all voters.

If this is the best we can do for the disabled community, or they want it so badly for some reason, I can understand why Mr. Conyers and Mr. Dodd think they should have it, but we disagree. If you or they can not be convinced, that's OK, but then for all the reasons outlined thus far, I think that the use of machines without VVPBs should be limited to those who feel they really need them, and not be made available to the voting public at large as this bill seems to do in its present form, which Ensign's certainly does not. I think this bill can be easily fixed though if the authors want to fix it.

I know there are a host of other issues that others have given more thought to than I have at this point. I appreciate the comprehensive nature of the bill. I've already gone on record for the national holiday and against the early voting. The registration and other ballot issues are not my area of expertise. I'd say we should do something to get people to register and VERIFY that they are registered well before an election though. Andy's 18th birthday idea has some merit, unless one happens to be born in early November!

I do appreciate your time Teddy. I have kids too. They were nearly visually impaired in fact, but because we had pretty good health insurance and we were proactive, they are OK. Long story, but the point is I know where you're coming from with the little one.

Stick around and see what develops here. It has been an education for us too. And BTW, DU has become a "day job" for a number of us since Nov. 2, in case you haven't noticed.

And also BTW, has anyone noticed that there is a DU Disability Issues and Activism Forum? Might be worth a visit there to see what they think about this e-voting stuff. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #144
159. Totally agree with your points bill
These are the main ones for me. Would you put this list out as a separate thread to use for letter writing and discussion? I am ready to write to Conyers on this. But as you say maybe wait awhile for input from Teddy?

What do you think about the idea of adding the argument that the
COST of DREs over VVPB cannot be justified. I was astounded to read today that Snohomish Co WA paid $5 million for voting machines to handle 32% of the votes in that county, and that figure was only for hardware.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #159
163. I think the cost issue is probably huge!
I just don't have the figures myself. Bet Andy does though.

Funny, I just heard on Air America today that Diebold has finally come out with a DRE with paper! Some coincidence huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #163
164. Check this out
Have you read this latest update posted today--"Mythbreakers"
by voters unite--it's a 70 page pdf. I thought it was so good I downloaded it and printed it out. Really excellent, and deals with these things we've been talking about. Check it out. Somebody from VU probably already has sent this to Conyers, but it wouldn't hurt to include the link in every email we send--just to make the point. This is required reading for ANYONE concerned about DREs vs VVPB!

http://www.votersunite.org/MB2.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #141
155. It died because Delay wouldn't give it a hearing. It had 157 co-sponsors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #155
158. 157 co-sponsors and Delay killed it!
Some Democracy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #158
165. He wouldn't even give it a hearing. This is what Tubbs-Jones was talking
about; Tubbs-Jones and Boxer both referred to this I think in the press conferences on Jan. 6 (might have been in Boxer's speech on senate floor but I think it was press conf) that one of the reasons they were forcing the issue with challenging the Ohio electors was that they couldn't even get hearings on election reform bills.

Senate Bill 1980 (Graham-Clinton) and House Bill 2239 (Holt) were designed to amend HAVA to provide security measures and prevent many of the problems we had this election. THey were designed to go into effect by this last election but sat around for over a year and were not even granted HEARINGS by Delay in house and I believe Lott in senate.

This is one reason why the Ensign bill may be necessary as an emergency measure so we can keep from getting more DREs by 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #165
167. Perhaps also a reason for us to keep pushing on all fronts...
...until we get an opening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #167
171. Yep, every front we can find. Check out the threads on Shelley; this is a
very important front right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #165
169. I think this is about right. This is why I say they brought the Ohio
Edited on Sat Feb-05-05 12:49 AM by Bill Bored
objection on themselves.

Holt and Graham had some good bills. These were the first ones to address the VVPB issue. The Committees are House Admin. and Senate Rules, Chaired by Ney and Lott respectively. After that, you have DeLay and Hastert in the House and McConnell and Frist in the Senate to get through. Then it can be voted for on the floor. So any of these 6 guys can block any legislation as far as I know.

This is another reason to back Ensign's bill I think. It's minimal, but it's a good first step. Still waiting for the House version.

Meanwhile, there are other ways to get around SOME of the other problems. For one thing, everyone who had their registrations trashed or had to use a provisional ballot in 2004 should re-register NOW and VERIFY their registration!

Imagine if we had verified voting and verified registration too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #169
170. "Nay" and "Delay"
Isn't it ironic :grr:

Yep. Registration issues need DU attention.

Unregistered Poor seems like a huge problem.

And it be great to "DU the Polling Places" by signing up as workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #169
172. This is my thinking on Ensign also. And, my senator said it will take a
massive grass roots effort to get election reform but that we can do it if we can get that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #158
180. Here is list of sponsors:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #180
181. Wow. Any idea how many Republicans on the list.
A few I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-06-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #181
182. I just heard "some influential repubs" but don't know reps well enough to
know who. Point is, with all that suppport, they still couldn't even get Delay to grant a hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #155
160. Right! And I just realized I wrote "Host" bill, Should be Holt's bill! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amaryllis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #141
157. assume you mean Holt bill not Host bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #157
161. yes sorry nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 01:54 AM
Response to Original message
126. I am confused and concerned
If there's no requirement for a paper ballot, it just seems to be missing the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #126
127. Have you read it Gary?
I agree but of course, there's more than one point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #127
129. it's hard for me to get past that one point
that's the first place I went to. I looked at the 3 paged summary, right were it talks about verified ballots. I was pretty disappointed.

I guess, from reading more in this thread than the actual bill, that the reasons for the wording are:

1) because they want to give the voter the choice of having a paper ballot or not

and

2) to accomodate disabled voters who would not find a paper ballot helpful.

To me, neither of these reasons are valid. They are just loop holes that could be taken advantage of.

I've heard others talk about the vitues of the Ensign bill, but I'm worried that if that one passes, they'll say everything's fixed now so we don't need any other bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #129
130. Gary. Let me try to summarize.
As it now stands...

Every polling place has to have, at least one, but also as many as a BOE would like, disabled friendly machine.

Anyone walking in could choose to use that machine.

If they use it, they get, also, to choose the "verification means". While paper is one of the choices, there are, at least, two others. An "audio recording". A picture displayed on a screen, and the pix becomes the record. Both electronic. Both hackable.

But even if every machine was disabled friendly, how many user would not choose paper?

So there are problems. But I don't know if we can't refine this. Look at the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-04-05 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
147. OK what the hell is Conyers thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
175. OMG!...Max Cleland!
Edited on Sat Feb-05-05 01:41 AM by Bill Bored
He would be someone to talk to on this issue! It's believed by many that he lost his election in 2002 because of DREs. I don't know if he believes it or not. I think I've heard that he doesn't. But does anyone know his views on the issue of black box voting for the disabled?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #175
177. I googled
<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+disability+voter&num... >


Then I grabbed this:

<http://www.wcdd.org/dawn/votebackground/nyt_article.cfm >


Funny, this one is about Georgia DRE's and Cleland getting robbed by them:

<http://www.roadwomen.com/ballot_fraud.htm >


Here's Jim Cherry:

Advocate (would-be, at least) delagate, from GA.

<http://www.blogfordemocracy.org/archives/2004/04/conven... >


And here's some Senate doc.

<http://www.constitutionproject.org/eri/SenDODauthorizat... >



Importantly, I think Cleland hung with Dodd.

But then he got HUNG by GRE/Diebold Disability-Friendly machines.

Hey, that's fair. Why discriminate against the disability community.
Steal their vote, too. :grr: :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-05-05 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
176. I am glad they are still dealing with it, I hope they get it straight
:kick:
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 Sat Apr 20th 2019, 01:37 AM
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