PDA to support H.R. 550 along with H.R. 533

[Kevin Spidel]

H.R. 550:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/bills/?bill=6979696

H.R. 533:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/bills/?bill=6929776

We will be crafting talking points, articles, letter to the editor action, and more action alerts. Until then, please take action here:

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=6942056

[keepthemhonest]

1. kevin have they

taken the time to look at clinton and boxer's bill yet?Also I thought that conyers was going to make it so that we's right to vote as citizens.

[Kevin Spidel]

2. "Count Every Vote" Act and "Voter Ammendment" Act...

count every vote still under review.

but we are supporting the Voter Ammendment Act as well.

Take a peek at this action alert on that Act:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/bills/?bill=6772061


Please download this activist kit on the ammendment and pass around far and wide:
http://www.pdamerica.org/tools/issues/VRA-Kit-draft2.pdf

[keepthemhonest]

3. oh yeah it was Jesse Jackson

who was going to do that one, Thanks.It is all so confusing still.I've printed out some ofthe different bills and read them, but can't keep it all straight.

[Kevin Spidel]

4. we hope to make it easier...

with an article, action alert, and campaign for a group of bills. Soon to roll out.

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. Kevin

I still cannot support Conyers Bill. The verification is too late and the methods unless they are all paper ballots are not good enough.

Sick or not...I will not have the wool pulled over my eyes.

if it does not say Voter Verified Paper Ballots...then it is not a voter verified paper ballot. Paper Records and trails are not sufficient and leave wiggle room for the machine manufacturers.

Conyers bill is ok but it could be far far better. If I was not so damned tired and weak I would love to debate you on it. I fear PDA is starting out on the wrong foot here. Just my opinion...so take it for what it's worth.

[Kevin Spidel]

6. that is why 550 AND 533...

Your opinion is very much important as a friend and ally.

We are working to support these two offices. You see Conyers bill is the ONLY bill that effectivly addresses the Civil Rights issues. NO OTHER BILL DOES THIS.

THAT is why we are supporting this bill. We have a huge base in civil right community pushing us to support this bill. WE are not just a group of PDA advisors making this. THIS IS OUR GRASSROOTS. This is a Civil Rights movement bill.

We also have folks (like yourself) pushing us to support paper verified. Hence the support of 550.

More documentation on all this to come out soon.

We will not support a bill used as a trojan horse by the republicans to distract this community from the prize.

We are brining the pro-democracy base together with the civil right base y supporting these two.

More coming this week, in a large campaign effort.

[Andy_Stephenson]

7. Even Holt's bill calls it a record.

Nothing short of a voter verified paper ballot will do. I am non-negotiable on that point.

Call it what it is. Ask for what you want.

[Kevin Spidel]

8. but you will support ensign's bill?

do you know his record on voting rights?
do you know this is going to be gutted in committee?
do you know the Republicans will pour so much pork into this?
also a distraction from bills that will get movement, and we are able to organize around.

take a peek at his record on this issue:
http://www.progressivepunch.org/record.jsp?member=NVI&district=At%20large&issue=R1

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=NVI&district=At%20large&issue=R0

http://www.progressivepunch.org/record.jsp?member=NVI&district=At%20large&issue=M3

[Bill Bored]

12. Even if he has a lousy record, the language in this particular bill is

crystal clear. Not so in the other bills with respect to the VVPB (and yes I know this isn't the ONLY issue).

Holt's isn't too bad though. Andy may be splitting hairs on that, I'm not sure.

But as legislators, if they want verifiable voting, in addition to the voting rights issues, why don't they just suck it up and use the language that works? You'd think it's been copyrighted or something!

[bush_is_wacko]

61. Kevin I'm with you on the bills', but how difficult is it to get them to

change the wording to "VOTER VERIFIED PAPER TRAIL"? That is what they are asking for isn't it. I am not one to split hairs on this issue but it seems to be a make or break for a lot of people and MOST of those people are computer geeks. it makes sense to word it this way rather than paper record. The government has paper records on it's accounting...that does NOT mean it's accounting is accurate. do you see what I mean?

I happen to be very close to several government employees and I can claim my statement about the federal government's "record's" with 100% accuracy. If you give them any wiggle room they are going to run with it. I'm sure Conyers of all people realizes this is the case. I thought he said he was open to comment on the issue. I know he is, so, is he seeing this thread?

[marions ghost]

19. Holt's bill is flawed

and does not satisfy advocates of Voter-Verified Paper Ballots. You are misleading people when you say:
"We also have folks (like yourself) pushing us to support paper verified. Hence the support of 550."
"Paper-verified" still leaves it open for election officials to present machine tallies as equivalent to original paper ballots. Machine tallies do not preserve the individual voter's record.

OK, Conyers Bill is great on Civil rights. Wish they would delete the part about e-voting and leave it open to better solutions on that, so that we COULD support Conyers Bill. Since the Conyers Bill proposes the widespread use of DREs, it does not satisfy advocates of Voter-Verified Paper Ballots.

Your goal to "bring the pro-democracy base together with the civil rights base" is strange. Isn't pro-Democracy the same as pro-Civil rights?? Who is the "Pro-Democracy base"--people who simply want their votes to be counted?

Please don't throw bones to us. Give us a bill we can support.
PAPER BALLOTS.

[Kevin Spidel]

24. IMPORTANT: Ballot Integrity Project supports Holt's bill...

The stance of the Ballot Integrity Project is that Holt's language is BETTER than VVFB because he actually defines everything rather than simply using a term like VVFB.

The Ballot Integrity group supports Holt (and, importantly, understands our support of Conyers) as well.

The Conyers bill is not cast in stone. We are messaging that we support the civil rights in Conyers and the paper record, etc., language of Holt.

We are also not done with our package... we are still putting more forward to support!

Again.. stay tuned!

Keep this work funded as well!

[Amaryllis]

26. Ditto to everything you said. I cannot support anything that promotes

widespread use of DREs. Why can't they just take out the e-vtoing stuff and just deal with the civil righte stuff? The way Conyers deals with e-voting does not improve matters and actually I think will make it worse because of promoting widespread use of DREs.

I have to say that as much as I admire and respect Conyers, I am almost shocked that he would come up with a bill like this after all the testimony he heard about vote shifting, Triad reps with remote access, etc. etc.

Kevin, is it too late to change those parts, or take them out?

[Wilms]

29. MG. I read Holt way different.

You said:

"Paper-verified" still leaves it open for election officials to present machine tallies as equivalent to original paper ballots."

Here's what Holt's bill says:

Sec 2 (a)(2)(B)(ii)"Each paper record produced pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of a paper ballot voting system.

And follows with:

(iii) In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic records and the individual permanent paper records, the individual permanent paper records shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast.


Let me know what you think.

[marions ghost]

34. Holding out for the hard-core

I'm just saying that if we really want Voter-Verified Paper Ballots, we have to lobby for that all important word, "ballots." This is the hardcore anti-DRE (in any form) position, with the obvious exception of appropriate technology for the disabled. The Holt Bill STILL leaves the door wide open for the immediate proliferation of DREs, as does the Conyers Bill, which literally mandates them. Nobody has convinced me that DREs are better, more efficient, cheaper, safer, less trouble. So, therefore--why...?! They did not pass the "beta test" in my opinion, and 2002 and 2004 were major beta tests! I see no advantage to them for the purpose of voting since you must have a paper "ballot" for auditing anyway. I'm saying that the DREs that currently exist are not acceptable and should not be encouraged. Whether or not the existing ones can be successfully retrofitted for paper printouts which detail the individual voter's exact transaction, I'm skeptical. Why add a bunch of printers to print ballot "equivalents" you could mass produce in the first place?

Therefore I argue that
"paper record...suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of a paper ballot voting system"
--is not specific enough language without further description. (I could imagine some legal hair-splitting possible in that one sentence--Land Shark are u there?). I'm no technical whiz, but my consultants on this are a statistician and a computer engineer, who think that the Holt language is vague enough to still allow a loophole for officials to provide paper "records" which are not an exact facsimile of the voter's transaction. It may be possible to make this language more specific.

So for you, Wilms, the language at this point is good enough? You can support Holt? I respect your opinion, I know you have read it all.
-----------------------------
OTHER THOUGHTS after reading the full Holt HR 550 text:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-550

***(Note that the Holt Bill DOES specify open source code--a plus)
---------------------
***The following is an interesting feature of the Holt Bill--the mandate for the Election Assistance Commission to hand count a percentage of precincts from any state (all the more reason why the VV paper "records" must be specific):
---------------
16 -- SEC. 4. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.

SEC. 5. REQUIREMENT FOR MANDATORY MANUAL AUDITS BY HAND COUNT.

16 (a) MANDATORY AUDITS RANDOM PRECINCTS.--
IN
17 (1) IN GENERAL.--The Election Assistance
18 Commission shall conduct random, unannounced,
19 hand counts of the voter-verified records required to
20 be produced and preserved pursuant to section
21 301(a)(2) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (as
22 amended by section 2) for each general election for
23 Federal office (and, at the option of the State or ju-
24 risdiction involved, of elections for State and local
25 office held at the same time as such an election for

HR 550 IH
17
1 Federal office) in at least 2 percent of the precincts
2 (or equivalent locations) in each State.
3 (2) PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING AUDITS.--The
4 Commission shall conduct an audit under this sec-
5 tion of the results of an election in accordance with
6 the following procedures:
7 (A) Not later than 24 hours after a State
8 announces the final vote count in each precinct
9 in the State, the Commission shall determine
10 and then announce the precincts in the State in
11 which it will conduct the audits.
12 (B) With respect to votes cast at the pre-
13 cinct or equivalent location on or before the
14 date of the election (other than provisional bal-
15 lots described in subparagraph (C)), the Com-
16 mission shall count by hand the voter-verified
17 records required to be produced and preserved
18 under section 301(a)(2)(A) of the Help America
19 Vote Act of 2002 (as amended by section 2)
20 and compare those records with the count of
21 such votes as announced by the State

******
This SOUNDS good, and I agree with the idea of up-front election oversight rather than after the fact. But there is a question as to whether the 2% (random) sample size for state audit would be large enough--it might work if known "problem" (ie. targeted) precincts could also be sampled. There is a possibility that such a small random sample may not show problems in other parts of the state. As we all know by now the counties in any one state are not consistent--and so this sample percentage may be an inherently flawed concept.

Also, how do we trust the Election Assistance Commission?--They are Bush appointees. Obviously a partisan situation. What do you think about that? mg

[Wilms]

38. Thanks for sharing the thoughts, MG.

I need to have another look at Conyers bill. Does it "...literally mandate..." DRE's as you mention??

And it doesn't matter if any of the current crop of DRE's can't print a ballot. They'd be de-certified as a result of Holt/Conyers/Ensign, (and perhaps others, too).

Perhaps it's semantically awkward (I'm no lawyer), but a "paper record...suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of a paper ballot voting system" sounds like the real deal to me, especially because it has to be voter-verified. Perhaps the term 'record' could be changed to 'ballot' to put all at ease over this important aspect.

And I too, think that 2% is inadequate. I wonder if we can get a larger number AND some language as to what happens if the ballots and the DRE tally fail to match. Right now, Holt merely calls for the hand-count to be supreme. But I want to know why the DRE screwed-up, and if any other DRE of the type also had problems.

I'm not sophisticated enough to say, "Hey, I 'support' this or that bill". I'm just squinting my eyes, rubbing my chin, and kicking the tires.

[marions ghost]

50. To answer your points, Wilms

CONYERS BILL: Here's an interesting analyis re. Conyers bill. Explains why Conyers bill is unacceptable to verified voting.org based on the ballot issues. http://verifiedvoting.org/downloads/Conyers_Dodd_comparison.pdf

***It is my understanding that because the Conyers Bill stipulates that ALL voters must use electronic machines that are disabled access--this is in fact a mandate for DREs.

HOLT BILL: "record" vs. "ballot"--yes I think the wording on that is crucial. It still is a question of whether ANY DREs are acceptible at this time. If not, then "record" must be changed to "ballot." Otherwise it's a green light for DREs. I want to see the red flag. But no legislators want to oppose the voting machine manufacturers on this.

QUESTION: Why do you say "the current crop of DREs will be de-certified..." ??

HAND COUNTS: Here's a good argument about why 2% random hand counts is inadequate from a computer professional (posted earlier by Amaryllis). See whole statement at:

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/ElectionLawDec20.htm

I too am a regular citizen merely asking questions. Some volunteer experience in elections. Have a writer/librarian head so I like to synthesize info, get technical and legal opinions. Am just trying to inform others about the specifics and help lawmakers make decisions. I think that all voters need to know what's going on now, in general terms. Vigilance is necessary. Our basic rights are threatened.

[Wilms]

53. Please say more, MG.

MG, please show me exactly where "...the Conyers Bill stipulates that ALL voters must use electronic machines that are disabled access..."

I missed that and you've referred to that idea a number of times. Let's get the actual Section # and check it out.

Re: QUESTION: Why do you say "the current crop of DREs will be de-certified..." ??

I say that because these bills; Conyers/Holt/Ensign, and maybe others, require a voter-verified ballot/record to be printed. If a machine can't do that, it seems it's use would be disallowed as a result of provisions in these bills.

Marion, you've expressed/taken a strong enough position to warrant your reading the entire bill, and relying on your own analysis. I'm aware of verifiedvoting.org recommendations. I'm asking for yours.


A quote from Granny D.

“Trust your sensibilities toward justice and fairness and toward the environment and peace. Understand that your value judgments in these areas are better because they have not been beaten down or crusted over. Information overload can make us insensitive. While your eyes are wide open--and so also your heart--trust what you see. Do not hang back from involvement in addressing the problems of the world, waiting to become an expert. You are expert enough. You are our annual re-supply of new eyes and fresh hearts to give our sorry species its best hope for improvement and survival. Take your part in the great dramas and the great struggles now still in their opening acts in this world. It is the part where you storm on stage with a confused but mischievous look and the audience cheers you madly. Don't wait to know the part too well, or the moment will pass without you.”

- Doris Haddock, September 05 2003

[marions ghost]

54. IMO...

Section #5 Conyers Bill--where Conyers bill stipulates Voter Verification "choices" (paper, audio, pictorial, electronic)

1. These are voter verification choices, not BALLOT choices. A DRE can produce a paper "record" but does not use a paper "ballot." So this does not limit the wholesale use of DREs.

2. Andy said re Conyers: (quote) "at a minimum it will require all jurisdictions to purchase DREs--because how will you accomplish
giving the voter a choice between pictorial, paper, audio or elctronic unless you mandate electronic voting?" This is how I read the Conyers bill also (before even seeing Andy's comment).

Reference:
"Conyers Introduces VOTER Bill"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=314989&mesg_id=314989

[teddyk23]

55. not quite right

You are reading the bill, but not the law it amends and the provisions from that law it leaves in place.

This amends HAVA's requirement for "voting systems" and requires that all voters have a choice within the "voting system". HAVA makes clear that "voting system" means all of the voting machines in aggregate at the polling place. Therefore, under the Conyers bill the "voting system" must provide those choices for verification meaning that, in aggregate, all of the machines must collectively provide those verification choices. This, read in conjunction with hAVA's (1) reqt of one DRE that is disability accessible and (2) specific language that no provision can be read to bar the use of paper ballot systems, means that if there is at least one machine that provides audio or electronic (paper could easily provide pictoral -- and likely audio as well), that satisfies the requirement. One DRE would meet the requirement....

I think, from one perspective, it is fair to criticize the bill for allowing electronic verification at all, but the rest of this stuff is, in my view, a stretch.

Also, getting out of the weeds, the Repugs have found many many ways to keep our voters from getting to the machines in the first place. Not to be a broken record, but unless we deal with that, the cheating will go on and on (even with the best paper ballot system in the world)....

[marions ghost]

57. OK, trying again...

A. I am VERY supportive of the Conyers Bill re. the issues of obstruction, intimidation and suppression. I am familiar with how that works and have seen various forms of it at close range. Personally I would like to see a much stronger response by the legal system on that. There are no realistic protections against it that I am aware of. The Conyers team seems to be on top of this gross injustice to all American voters, at least my reading of the bill indicates that. I do not see disenfranchisement as a racially limited issue--I see it as something that can happen to any citizen. It's obvious that diverse groups are targeted, and it hurts us all, wherever it happens. So are there any areas you feel the bill is still inadequate re. the access/suppression issues? Or does HR 533 cover it well enough?

B. I am NOT supportive of the Conyers Bill where it addresses the
issues relating to e-voting, and sorry, but the Holt Bill is not adequate in current form either. My reading of Conyers is this--regardless of how the Conyers Bill links into HAVA, it STIPULATES the choice of electronic verification. Therefore it encourages (and comes close to mandating) the use of DREs. I don't really understand why Conyers wants to do this, but I imagine there are reasons. I can't see the logic behind all this effort to pander to the forces which have given us the travesty of auditless e-voting via HAVA.

So is there any point in lobbying our case for modifying the Conyers Bill re. e-voting at this point, or is it set in stone now? Thanks for your input.

[teddyk23]

60. thanks, I understand where you are coming from better now

Let me address "b" first: you and I disagree about whether the bill in its current form encourages DRE's more than current law. That said, Conyers does not want his bill to do that and it is clear that reasonable minds can differ about whether it does. He would like to have at least one machine that is fully accessible to disabled voters at each polling place, and no mandate (other than VVPB) on the other machines. Therefore, I think you should be lobbying for changes to every single bill. Bills are always improved in the legislative process, and citizen input is key to that. It is listened to and valued.

As to "A", I work for Conyers and obviously think the bill is very good in those areas.

[Andy_Stephenson]

63. Teddy not to pick at nits here however...

"you and I disagree about whether the bill in its current form encourages DRE's more than current law. That said, Conyers does not want his bill to do that and it is clear that reasonable minds can differ about whether it does."

This is the reason we have what we have now. Interpretation of the law can differ from one person to the next or from one voting machine company to the next. Ther should be no ambiguity on this issue. Your read may say...Oh DRE's are not mandated...but get a Diebold, Sequoia or ES&S salesman in there and he will sure as hell be saying DRE's are mandated because...we have to give the voter options as to the type of ballot they get. This is the same ploy they have used up to this point to sell the DRE's we have now.

STOP THE INSANITY! Mandate a voter verified paper ballot as the ballot of record...from ALL voting systems. Ther are at least 3 ways this can be done for the visually disabled. The resistance to this is astounding! There are options which allow the blind to vote unaided, and produce a vvpb. We have shown you those options right here on DU. There is no reason to offer multiple ballot choices.

I want to shut the door to further shenanigans by the vendors. Conyers provisions IMHO provides a wide, paved with gold road for them. I want a voter verified paper ballot as ballot of record...nothing more nothing less. If Mr Conyers changes his bill to accomodate that I would support it...until then it is a non starter for me. I would reccomed you look at the Georgis legislation...I am...and it looks far better than anything I have seen to date from Congress.

Andy

[Wilms]

65. Andy. Gives us names/links for the three units you're referring to.

I'm guessing one is the AutoMark.

Do any of them address the needs of the mobility disabled?? That's apparently one of the sticking points.

Remember, the blind are but a fraction of those with disabilities we need to accommodate. And Braille reading blind people are a fraction of the total blind population.

That said, let the manufacturers engineer/build what we want if they don't already have it.

We the People are paying the contract!

[Andy_Stephenson]

67. OK here

Automark
http://www.vogueelection.com/products_automark.html

Tactile Ballots
http://www.corps.state.ri.us/ELECTIONS/faqs/braille_or_tactile.htm

DRE's that produce a VVPB
page 46 Myth Breakers www.votersunite.org

[Wilms]

70. That's what I was afraid of.

These machines won't necessarily work for mobility-limited folk.

[Andy_Stephenson]

71. Sure they will

The Auto mark and DRE are made for mobility limited people.

[Wilms]

72. I've heard that some folk can't remove the completed ballot.

And I'm assuming, from there, can't put it into a seperate ballot checker.

That's where the "Access with Privacy" logjam is that we need to address or I'm afraid...

[Andy_Stephenson]

73. here is a quote

"The AutoMark voter assist terminal has been developed with input from election authorities and disability organizations, and meets all of the requirements of “The Help America Vote Act of 2002.”"

[Wilms]

75. Is Jim Dickson (asbestos suit on!) ok with the AutoMark??? n/t

[Andy_Stephenson]

76. Ummm

Not exactly.


Edit: And apparently Conyers isn't either.

Man...I wonder what would happen...if I suddenly came out in favor of all paper ballots...all hand counted in the precinct?

[Wilms]

78. What has Dickson said about his concerns with the available equipment.

Man...I wonder what would happen...if we, including Dickson, suddenly came out with specification we all agreed to.

[Andy_Stephenson]

79. I could care less what Dixon has to say

He is tainted by Diebold money.

[Wilms]

81. Conversation over then.

That tactic won't work.

Besides, as far as Dickson may go, we're tainted because we post here!!!

We need to be...dare I say(?), PROGRESSIVE.

[Andy_Stephenson]

82. Yes we do...

but why not do wht the Gerogia activists did...and get the Christian Coalition on our side?

[Wilms]

83. Excellent point.

How did they accommodate those with disabilities??

-on edit-

I did some reading and there wasn't any spefic referrence to the disabilities community.

<http://www.voterchoice.org/legislation/ballot_access.pdf?PHPSESSID=6633078f05b79f72680788f04c0173e1>


From:

<http://www.voterchoice.org/>

[Andy_Stephenson]

74. Tactile ballots are for the Blind only not for

the mobility disabled...And DRE's with a paper Ballot printer...need not have the ballot removed. Problems solved.

[Wilms]

84. When you say ,"Tactile Ballots", do you mean Braille??

Most blind people don't read Braille.

If we're going to have a VVPB for certain disabilities I thought the ballot has to come out of the DRE so it can be run through an independent "Ballot Verifier". Is that not right? :shrug:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. So Conyers' bill is companion to Dodd's? No wonder

If Conyers bill = Dodd's bill, then no wonder it leaves things wide open.

Dodd is against voter verified paper ballots, helped create HAVA, fought against Holts amendment to require VVPB.

This makes sense - leaving the language open to allow private companies to be the ones to "verify" the vote by video camera or audio recording is just another way to keep us in the dark.

Ted Selker is working with Hart Intercivic on marketing his little audio verifier now.

Sorry to see Conyers isn't alert to this risk.

[Amaryllis]

86. I know a statistician who says it's the how it's done rather than the

percentage amount that is crucial; whether it's a scientifically chosen sample or not (not sure if I am using the right tech words here). That's what he said when I raised the same issue about it needing to be higher than 2%.

[Wilms]

87. Some interesting discussion on sample size, here.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x329602>

[Amaryllis]

85. I read it the same way you do.

[mod mom]

18. Andy, Conyers is perhaps our greatest ally, I hope you will work with him,

and recommend charges rather than against him!

[Kevin Spidel]

21. The fundamental difference here is...

priorities. We all understand your argument on the paper. BUT... no one in this forum has addressed the reality of the civil rights aspects. This is the split from the technical side versus civil rights side. Both are important. But we are moving forward on a rainbow of communities supporting a civil rights movement.

Conyers on Civil Rights, Holt on the technical side.

Suppression and Disenfranchisement is JUST as important! You all were advocating this when members of the CBC stood up on that issue. Now you choose not to make it a main point.

It is that community in which Conyers addresses. Understand that. That is why PDA supports it.

[Amaryllis]

27. So can Conyers take out the parts that address technical issues and just

leave the civil rights parts? We can hardly promote the bill if we are saying "we support this part but not this part."

[garybeck]

35. NO SINGLE BILL BY ITSELF IS ADEQUATE

none of the bills is perfect on its own. we need a combination of bills to get what we want.

Ensign gives us the VVPB but it has no provisions for use of the VVPB. Alone, this legislation is very bad. The paper ballots never get counted. They sit there in a box "in case" someone wants to do a recount. VERY BAD.

I believe a combination of Conyers bill and Ensign's bill will get us very close.

but I have to disagree with Andy's assertion that we should not support the Conyers bill. if it is combined with Ensign, it gets us close.

[Wilms]

36. A note, Gary.

Holt calls for a random mandatory hand recount of 2% of the precincts.

I think the % needs to be more, but it's a start.

[Andy_Stephenson]

39. I would like to see 10%

but 6 would be fine.

[Wilms]

40. Thanks for that, Andy.

Though, I wish it would go further to say that a descrepency in any DRE vs. VVPB count immediately call for the recount of any and every DRE of the variety in question.

[Andy_Stephenson]

44. I agree...

and should widen the audit as well.

[marions ghost]

49. Re. the percentage required for random hand counts:

Have u read this post by Amaryllis? A good argument against
small percentages for random hand counts, by a computer professional. Good comparison with the banking/finance verification situation. Interested in your thoughts about this:

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/ElectionLawDec20.htm

(excerpt) "Many people understand that 100% audits with 100% accuracy are needed to prevent or detect financial fraud, but don't carry this idea over into the world of elections. In my professional opinion, audits are needed in both worlds for the same reason."

[garybeck]

41. that is good! MMRA !

VVPB
MMRA

they go hand in hand. one without the other is nothing

[Wilms]

9. Looking forward to the analysis.

No need to rush, though.

I've seen endorsements and hit-pieces, veiled as analysis, on bills that were yet to be introduced. :eyes:

Thanks, I'll just wait.

[sacxtra]

10. IT IS HOPELESS. . . California will be next on the Death Cult list.

March 8th We here in Sacramento, California, get to go to a *SPECIAL ELECTION* to vote to replace Matsui (Who died.)

When we show up at our local precints and see the electronic scanners again. How will we know that our votes actually make it to the central tabulator.

HAVA doesn't kick in yet. (When it does kick it IS NOT going to address the issue that electronic packets and data can be hacked and changed with no trace. Frankly that was something that I've been pissed off about Shelly, who IGNORES this issue.)

Secretary of State Shelly, who resigned, will be out on March 1.

These BASTARDS that put forth bills that ALLOW electronic voting machines ARE THE ENEMY!!

I have the fastest litimus test there is.

Ask one question. Should the electronic voting machines be destroyed?

YES = Friend
NO = Enemy

It's THAT SIMPLE!

DAMN IT. WAKE THE HELL UP!!!

[Amaryllis]

11. Thanks, Kevin. This is very timely for me. Working on a presentation

on election reform.

[Bill Bored]

13. Here's how HR550 attempts to solve the verification/accessibility dilemma:

This is how Holt's bill fixes the VVPB vs. Multimedia Ballot verification problem discussed at length in all those threads about the Conyers/Dodd bills. HR550 says that the disabled-accessible machine:

`(I) if strictly electronic, physically separates the function of vote generation from the functions of vote verification and casting,

`(II) allows the voter to verify and cast the permanent record on paper or on another individualized, permanent medium privately and independently, and

`(III) ensures that the entire process of voter verification and vote casting is accessible to the voter.'.

In other words, the machine (process) that counts the votes ain't the machine that casts the votes. The vote casting machine must offer the voter various means to verify the vote, as Conyers/Dodd does, BUT HR550 says that these other means of verification cannot be part of the COUNTING process. I think this can work in principle, but what about in practice?

Does this mean the voter-verified multimedia ballots can't be hacked? I don't know, but at least it makes the distinction between vote casting and vote counting which is a step in the right direction. I don't think Conyers/Dodd does this at all. If I'm wrong, please cite from those bills.

Meanwhile Conyers has co-sponsored HR550. The plot thickens!

[Wilms]

14. Excellent and most interesting comments.

But I'm getting used to that from you. :)

[Andy_Stephenson]

17. Bill is very thorough

he has been a good student. But then...so have you.

BTW I am just up...so I have a few hours this AM before I tire and have to go back to bed.

[Bill Bored]

20. Thanks Andy

I'll actually be away for while so if you and Wilms and Hedda Foil can work on this, it would be great.

There was an email for someone who appears to be a Holt staffer in another thread:

[email protected]

I contacted her a while back and she answered me almost immediately.
Maybe you can talk to her along with Teddy from Conyers' office and see if anything can be resolved with these bills. Since there's no companion for Ensign's in the House yet, we have nothing to lose.

I know Holt doesn't say "VVPB", but perhaps there is other equivalent language such as "the paper record will be the ballot of record", etc.

VerifiedVoting.org has analyzed these two bills along with S.17 on their site. Worth a read.

Anyway, hope you get better soon Andy and do have your bilirubin rechecked! If it's coming down this may pass, but be careful.

Take care. See you next week.

[Wilms]

30. What's a student without a teacher? n/t

[Wilms]

31. Bill, I think these "Accessibilities and Voter Verification need a tweak.

Holt's:

Sec 2 (b)(1)(B)(ii)

`(I) if strictly electronic, physically separates the function of vote generation from the functions of vote verification and casting,

`(II) allows the voter to verify and cast the permanent record on paper or on another individualized, permanent medium privately and independently, and

`(III) ensures that the entire process of voter verification and vote casting is accessible to the voter.'.


I like (I)&(III), a lot. But I'm concerned about (II) "...or on another individualized, permanent medium ..."

[Andy_Stephenson]

37. Section II bothers me

I is worrisome as well.

I still say...if it is not a voter verified paper ballot. It is not a voterverified paper ballot. WE MUST have a record that is permanent and not electronic.

[Wilms]

43. Actually, (I) seemed surprisingly good.

`(I) if strictly electronic, physically separates the function of vote generation from the functions of vote verification and casting,

But the next one...

`(II) allows the voter to verify and cast the permanent record on paper or on another individualized, permanent medium privately and independently, and

...is a bit scary. I'm emailing to ask Holt for an example of "...another individualized, permanent medium...".

It reads like a patent application where the author wishes to increase wiggle room. We want to REDUCE it!

[GetTheRightVote]

15. Make my vote count and be able to be recounted

:kick:

[marions ghost]

16. Nope sorry, Kevin of PDAmerica...

1. Holt Bill (HR 550) = calls for a "permanent paper record." NOWHERE is this specified to be an exact facsimile of each voter's electronic page. A voter-verified paper "ballot" is the only acceptable wording.

2. Conyers Bill (HR 533) = actually promotes the wholesale use of DREs in all states, which is so incredibly misguided that it would be better if Conyers Bill didn't address it at all. From your summary on the PDA website: "The Conyers Bill... requires the option of a voter-verified paper ballot so that voters can verify their selection and results can be audited when discrepancies occur."
"THE OPTION OF" in this sentence really boggles the mind. It negates the possibility of a complete and consistant audit, and just THINK of the confusion at polling places. It is also an example of VERY misleading language--the reader at your website will see the word "ballot" and think everything is OK.

******Bottom Line is: NEITHER of these bills address the real problems with DREs. I cannot support Conyers, Holt or PDA until
you all realize that there is no way to make touchscreen voting safe and secure under current conditions. A moratorium on DREs is what is needed. Right now the only sensible way to restore voter confidence is to use paper ballots with opti-scan, incorporating random hand counts, and make the central tabulators open to independent inspection.

I had hoped that PDA would be a strong advocacy group for Voter-Verified Paper Ballots (VVPB). Apparently you are not.

[Carolab]

25. I agree with you. We must get rid of touchscreen NOW.

Optiscan isn't "foolproof" either, but with proper safeguards, as you point out, we can improve its reliability. I'd like to see these gone too, but that (apparently) is just TOO much to ask for...

[Wilms]

32. Holt (and perhaps Conyers) call for mandatory random audits.

That's mandatory random audits of DRE's vs the generated voter verified paper "record". Handcounted, too. But only in 2 percent of the states precincts.

What do think (short of 100%) would be a better sample size?

[Carolab]

58. I don't know but I'm wondering who, if anyone is advising them on this.

I know Andy has been participating, but who else?

[Wilms]

59. Re: "I'm wondering who, if anyone is advising them on this"

We are.

That's why I think it's good for us to take every opportunity to offer constructive criticism.

[Andy_Stephenson]

64. AMEN!

you go!

[Peace Patriot]

22. If Conyers can't see the utter stupidity of pushing electronic voting...

...after what happened in 2004, THEN SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG IN DC!

And who the hell is going to enforce all of this--Alberto Gonzales??!!

We just lost one of the few Secretaries of State in the nation who knew what was what--Kevin Shelley--to an all out shark feed led by...guess who? the Calif. DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP!!!!!!

The BushCons are a thousand steps ahead of us. They know this is a STATE BY STATE fight. And they have already bought or blackmailed everybody they need to win it.

The BushCons in Congress took away our right to vote. They are not going to give it back. Ever! They will gut whatever bill you present them with--and if they are presented with an already gutted bill, like the Conyers bill--then they don't have to work as hard to stop the majority in this country from ever again having a say about their government.

They are not embarrassable. They are not decent people. They don't care what anybody thinks. They know they have blockaded democracy, and if you try to unblockade it, they will block it more, they will kill it, it will never see the light of day. But they might...they just might come out and endorse the Conyers bill, and use the black civil rights movement to their utterly nefarious purposes, as they used...

...Condoleeza Rice's RACE AND SEX, saying that she should be approved BECAUSE OF IT...

...and Andy Young (of all people--former aide to Martin Luther King) and C. Dolores Tucker (black women professionals) to SAY JUST THAT in the halls of Congress... approve her BECAUSE she's a black woman...

... and Alberto Gonzales' Hispanic heritage, and here they actually SAID on the floor of the Senate that they INTEND TO MAKE INROADS IN THE HISPANIC VOTE by appointing Mr. Torture Memo to be AG.

Shameless, utterly hypocritical, disgusting, venomous Pod People playing the race card!

And don't think they aren't going to use it on this, the absolutely most important element of their grip on power.

I can see it now. Jesse Jackson and John Conyers out there in the Rose Garden with Bush, all swaying together, singing, "We Shall Overcome"!

Beware! Beware! Beware! And get on down to the STATE LEVEL where this fight is going to be won or lost.

[Amaryllis]

28. I am thinking the same thing; HOW can Conyers put together a bill

that promotes DREs after all the hours of testimony he sat through (Arnebeck, for one)? I just don't get it! I WANT to support him but this is really creating a hell of a lot of cognitive dissonace for me.

THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE.....

[garybeck]

51. how is he PUSHING electronic voting?

As I understand it, Conyers bill allows for the voter to decide. I've heard reps from his office state that they believe most people will choose a paper ballot.

[marions ghost]

56. I'd like to get some consensus on this point

as it seems to be causing a lot of confusion--me included.

My reading of Conyers bill is that it says nothing about choice of BALLOTS. It calls for the voter to decide what VERIFICATION choice (paper, audio, pictorial, electronic) s/he wants.

This is very different from specifying the type of ballot, and leaves it open for DREs to proliferate, in order to satisfy the verification choice. This in effect, promotes DREs.

If anyone can shed any more light on this, I'd appreciate it. Until then I don't think I can support Conyers Bill in its current form, unfortunately.

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. Your read is the same as mine

I can't deny it.

[Wilms]

80. I read it differently. But I might have missed something.

The "VERIFICATION choice" would be the legal "bottom line", so I took that to mean ballot.

But, of course, the DRE is making a tally that's used unless an audit or recount, mandatory or otherwise, is triggered. And I, if I may, would like to suggest that there lies one of your complaints. If I'm right about that, dig in here and see what can be suggested.


I was wondering, if we could get a scenario where Touch Screens are available, but only as Ballot Markers with every concievable disabilities enabling function we could dream of.

From there, the ballot could be mechanically shuttled (for the mobility-limited voter) to a "Ballot Reader", again, with with every concievable disabilities enabling function we could dream of.

Finally, the Ballot drops into a lock-box.


The machine would be very expensive, but we only need one per precinct, and the rest of us can use pen and paper, if only because there no money left to buy DRE's!

Spend the money providing access, privacy and security for the disabilities community.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

68. Verifiable is a no-no

the ballot is to be verified by the voter before cast.

There is a big difference.

Also, audio verification should never take the place of voter verified paper ballots.

Only blind would need audio verification, and even HAVA only requires 1 disabled accessible system per precinct.

Banks, accountants, hospitals, businesses, etc do not use audio verification for auditing their books.

Neither should we.

This is just exactly what Ted Selker and Hart Intercivic want, something that is not transparent, and not permenant.

[marions ghost]

88. right

to give every voter 4 choices in how to verify their ballots is cumbersome and will drive election officials crazy. Nobody (not the disabled either) should accept electronic verification. Electronic
verification is not desirable for anybody. WHY would this be a choice if there is no advantage in it for the voter?

I hate to keep harping on this point, but I think we have to keeping saying it over and over. Paper Ballots.

[Cocoa]

23. thanks, PDA

that's a great site you have there, very informative, user-friendly, and most important, credible. You're doing good work, a small donation is headed your way.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[garybeck]

42. Here is a collection of info on the bills, summaries, comparisons

I'm trying to collect all the info, links, comparisons, summaries, etc on all the legislation. Here is what I have so far. Please help out and give me more links to this stuff if you have any.

http://www.solarbus.org/election/links.shtml#legislation

[Wilms]

45. Text of Holt H.R.550

<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./temp/~c109oR4JH7:e1626:>

[garybeck]

46. thanks, I added it!

:yourock:

[trudyco]

47. How does do the national bills compare to state efforts?

I just recently got an email from CommonCauseColorado. They seem to have crafted a bill for our state that had everything I was looking for - short of dumping computers and having voting/hand counting of votes in plexiglass rooms by precinct.

Here's what they claim to have:

Senate Bill 05-079 requires that a permanent paper record be created and voter verified before the vote is cast. Colorado voters deserve to know their vote was cast as they intended.


Other key points in the bill:

o Mandates that the voter verified paper record be an official record of the election
o Requires a mandatory audit following each election
o Prohibits remote access to voting machines
o Requires that the hardware, software and source codes on electronic voting machines be made available for inspection
o Requires that the permanent paper records will be used in a recount

The only thing I see missing are tough penalties for officials or third parties like vendors caught not following the law.


So how would supporting these national laws upsurp the good of my state law efforts? I don't want to support the national laws if they weaken the state law.

trudyco

[Wilms]

48. What you cite is also in Holt's Bill. n/t

[garybeck]

52. Holt's bill looks good so far but 2% is too low for audits

[bush_is_wacko]

62. Kevin, contacted all my Reps and Senators..Letter here...

None of them are EVEN addressing this issue, despite the fact I know MANY Coloradoans want them to! The following letter is the Republican version. I wrote a different version to the Dem's. Basically the wording is changed to let them know it's time to start coming together with their party and work to get this done.

Dear XXXX,

I am very disappointed to see NO Colorado Senator or Representative has cosponsored ANY bill on election reform.

I have lived in Colorado all my life and know many Coloradoans that believe this is the SINGLE most important issue for our elected officials to address.

I am including links to the Progressive Democrats of America website that lists MANY of these bills and is supporting at least two of them. They have assured me they are ALSO looking into the bill Senators Boxer and Clinton are working on.

This is the job you were elected to perform for your constituents. Coloradoans are a unique group of individuals, as I'm sure you know. Despite their liberal leanings on environmental issues they are willing to elect Republican representatives to local, state, and federal positions. I am certain you also realize our last election sent a very powerful message to the Republican party. Coloradoans will no longer tolerate Republicans that do not represent their liberal values along with their conservative values. It is time Republicans act in a TRULY bipartisan manner along with the Democrats and fix our broken election system.

Here are the links:

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/bills/?bill=6772061&cs_party=all&cs_status=C&cs_state=ALL

http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/bills/?bill=6929776

Sincerely,
XXXX

[teddyk23]

66. Andy, when you get with Ensign..

This is what you will also get.(from another thread)..

Steven Duffield of the Senate Republican Policy Committee emails: The Senate Republican Policy Committee has released a new Policy Paper, "Putting an End to Voter Fraud: the Need for New Federal Reforms." It argues for voter identification requirements at the polls, adjustments to the “Motor Voter� law so that states can protect against fraudulent and duplicate voter registrations, more protections to ensure that only Americans vote in American elections, and greater examination of fraud risks in early and absentee voting.

The executive summary of the plan contains the following points:

First, Congress should require that voters at the polls show photo identification.

Second, Congress should examine the integrity of the voter registration process and the ongoing failures of states to maintain accurate voter lists.

Third, Congress should examine the extent to which early and absentee voting increases the likelihood of fraudulent votes being cast.

No election-related legislation should proceed in this Congress unless these issues receive a thorough examination