Can elections heal themselves??? (Why Conyers' bill is not flawed per se)

[Land Shark]

1. Did we ever think we could use elections to fix elections? (this relates to why courts MUST STRICTLY POLICE ELECTIONS, otherwise the "error correction feedback loop" of democracy is destroyed and we head off to disaster...)

2. Let's play some JEOPARDY: Legal Claims for 300 Alex: IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS AND REGULATORY TAKINGS CLAIMS. Uh, What are constitutional claims voting companies may make if activists succeed in CHANGING the law in the legislature or Congress in order to cancel voting machine purchase contracts or force the disclosure of trade secrets? ALEX TREBECK: CORRECT!!

3. On the other hand, since these DREs always have been illegal institutions of secret vote casting (even to the voter) and secret vote counting, when a court finds the purchase contracts void as illegal contracts under the law that existed when they were signed because they attempt to change democratic rights through a mere contract rather than even a law passed by the legislature (which still could not unduly burden the right to vote), the voting companies are SOL because the law at the time a contract is signed is deemed to be part of the contract itself.

4. "reform" legislation is, and always has been, a foolish approach, unless you can guarantee a home run in a legislative system based on compromise. In the end the majority will amend every bill and make everyone sorry they ever wrote their representative to support things like the Holt or Ensign bill. If passed, these bills as amended will just make the system seem more secure when it is not, and make it even harder to publicize data suggesting big problems because of all the supposed "checks and balances" in place. (actually, these bills AS IS would do the same because they build on a foundation of DREs)

5. On the other hand, even partial additional transparency and mandating the disclosure of additional election data are good things. But those are likely to come packaged with "reforms" that will do more harm than good.

Don't line up to hit this election reform golf ball until you are confident you can hit it out of the park.

Until then, don't expect HAVA II to be any better than HAVA I.

Conyers is right if he's suggesting that the smart position right now would be to OPPOSE the passage of any legislation in the "reform" area, yet if we can get civil rights or additional data, then that's worth it.

Surprise surprise, Conyers bill is strong on civil rights and "weak" on reform.

JUSTIFIABLY SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Conyers knows what he's doing....

[Wilms]

1. Brilliant post, Jaws.

Gee, I hope you don't mind me calling you Jaws. I do so affectionatley.


That said:

1. Interested parties should print this piece out and read it thoughtfully.

2. NOMINATED.

[Bill Bored]

2. Jaws, you've done it again! AND PLEASE SEE THIS THREAD!

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=341483&mesg_id=341483>

[Bill Bored]

3. Now that I got that out of my system,

there is some legislation in progress in NY that may ALMOST get it right, if you accept that precinct count Op Scans can be verified through the use of things like large test decks of ballots that can be hand counted to ensure the machines' integrity.

While the above isn't explicitly mandated in the bill, which has still not been finalized, it is possible and there's language about not allowing ANY DEVICE OR FUNCTIONALITY POTENTIALLY CAPABLE OF EXTERNALLY TRANSMITTING OR RECEIVING DATA VIA THE INTERNET OR VIA RADIO WAVES OR VIA OTHER MEANS WHILE THE MACHINE IS IN OPERATION DURING AN ELECTION. (I don't mean to yell, the upper case is from the bill's web page.)

While some of the language is a bit weak and other parts are vague, it only requires DREs to be used for access by the disabled and only one machine per polling place. There is also a little paper shuffling procedure at the polling place that would discourage people from using the DRE who don't really need to for accessibility reasons. This was missing from Conyers' bill which basically gave every voter a choice of every type of ballot or any machine willy-nilly. I'm not saying anyone has to prove they are disabled to use the DRE, they just have to make sure their vote will be counted in the precinct where the DRE actually resides at the polling place and this requires a little paperwork, the correct ballot, etc. So those who can use paper ballts, will likely opt for that instead. The VVPBs in these DREs could be 100% hand counted too, since their won't be that many of them, which would prevent hacking of the disabled vote.

Now you say that legislation may not be the way to go, but I believe if this bill can be tweaked a bit, it might be OK for now. Keep in mind we do not have ballot referendums here, so that part of the feedback loop isn't even available, so it's either "regular" legislation or taking it to the courts as you are doing.

I want to try to make this legislation as acceptable as possible (as if it were all up to little old me!) as a fall back position in case you and others who attempt what you are doing happen to fail (no offense!). Strange things have happened in the courts lately, including SCOTUS and in Ohio. I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from with this. Any comments appreciated as always.

[Wilms]

10. Thoughts on yours

I think Jaws was saying that federal legislation was problematic. I don't know that he wasdiscouraging efforts on the state level.

Though, he seems to be saying (and I agree) that it's pointless to "pick a team" and start cheerleading. Make noise about what you want in effort to get the legislation modified AND supported to meet the goals.

I like what you said about the deterant to use the DRE's that seems inherint to the proposed NY legislation.

Re:

"I'm not saying anyone has to prove they are disabled to use the DRE"

I recall giving grief about this some time ago. I had argued that no one should have to prove a disability. And I thought that was law. I was wrong. I've seen posts on the disabilities forum suggesting, indeed, one must prove a disability. So do note that.

All this aside, any legislation YOU put forth has my support, Bill!

[Bill Bored]

15. No proof of disability required here. But they get a "temporary transfer"

to the precinct where the DRE is, usually across the room it it's not in their own precinct. This requires paperwork, poll book notations, etc. so it's not going to be done frivolously. I think it works, although in some precincts the DRE will be native and no transfer will be necessary. I'd prefer to see it gathering dust in the corner though!

I am not overly optimistic, but there is still a chance to get this right in NY.

[Wilms]

19. I agree with all that.

I think, because of $, complexity, etc., this easily could be the natural direction things want to take given the circumstance.

So what does everyone else get to use then? Hand marked ballots? "Touch Screen Ballot Markers"?

[Land Shark]

17. If you really think the election system is messed up

and you REALLY want to be effective.....

then it's insanity to try to use elections to heal themselves.

==================

It's a special form of insanity to preserve a barrier between the voter and the ballot.

You know what a paper receipt or even a paper ballot printed off a touch screen MEANS?

It is equivalent to the corrupt cashier who gives you the wrong amount of change, and if you catch it, he just says "oops", or even blames it on the CUSTOMER.

But for those who don't catch the mistake, once the customer/voter walks out of the store/polling place, the cheater is truly home free, and it's a field day for fraud. Some activists are (with all good intent) working night and day to institutionalize election fraud in the above manner.

Trying to "amend" or "reform" DREs is like negotiating to PAY a person to remove their hand after they just stuck their hand all the way down into your pants pocket, but thinking it's not "realistic" to ask that person to completely remove their hand, and that paying them to take it only half way out is really the only tenable and "pragmatic" "solution".

In reality, and thinking clearly, the only pragmatic answer is to ask them to remove their hand completely before you call the cops and a posse of neighbors. It follows inthe DRE context that anything that comes between a voter and her ballot needs to be removed, period. The longer that trespassing hand stays there, the more it is violating our vote and diddling democracy.

[Bill Bored]

32. LS, I'm not sure how messed up it is in my state.

We have mechanical lever machines which are the easiest machines on which to detect fraud. I know our election wasn't perfect, but these machines, if maintained properly, can be trusted. Their counts are checked 2 or 3 times every election, every machine. So despite the numerous incident reports, which were dupes in some cases and also quite low considering our large population here, I still believe that our system is relatively safe at the moment. And NO, I don't know much about the central tabulators. My hunch is there aren't any but I will try to find this out!

In any case, I am opposing DREs and if the system isn't broken, the duly elected legislature should be able to act on our behalf. So I haven't given up yet, at least not at the state level. We have two houses, one Dem, the other Repub, both equal in standing.

I agree Congress seems hopeless at the moment but Jan. 6 didn't happen by accident either. There may be room for some improvement; any voter-verified paper is better than no paper, but I do agree that there should be standards regarding the number of machines per precinct, etc. to avoid long lines and discrimination.

I support what you are doing in WA and I hope you succeed, but I do not trust the courts enough to put all my eggs in that basket. Judges have political agendas, even those who were never elected by ANYONE. You do make a persuasive case though and because of the closeness of the Gov. race in your state, the timing is perfect. But what occurred in Ohio is reason enough not to trust the courts.

I'm surprised you haven't commented directly on my anti-DRE thread that showed how simple configuration errors, or deliberate misconfiguration could be used to disenfranchise voters. This may not be the bombshell I thought it was, but it was inspired in part by your Bump-in-the-Sidewalk analogy. It may also apply to some of your irregularities in Snohomish. (I finally read your entire study and found it very compelling.)

If no one picks up the ball on the misconfiguration issue, I might as well go back to writing letters and making calls to my state legislature because at the moment, I think this is the best I can do. But I think this area of research should be continued and I haven't seen it emphasized elsewhere. Perhaps I am still uninformed.

I am just trying to make clear that there doesn't have to be hacking (unauthorized alteration of code or vote totals) to screw up a vote count. It can be done by a simple configuration error, or a deliberate misconfiguration. This may seem arcane to those who have never "configured" anything, but there is a huge difference between programming and configuration, although both have the potential to cause similar problems.

Perhaps I am not yet well-read on the subject, but most of the literature I've seen is focusing only on the potential for hacking, security flaws, alteration of hardware and software, etc. -- not the user-level interface. This is where I'm at right now.

One more point about Snohomish is that while there may not have been any networking of the machines there, the machines in each precinct may have been configured from the same floppy disk or CD files, using "sneakernet." This could account for the problems seen on multiple machines, particularly in a given precinct or polling place. This possibility wasn't mentioned in your paper.

Good luck and please keep us informed!

[Land Shark]

35. Well, the lever machines might well be operating properly

in your district, but distinct possibilities are only as good as the extent of the investigation behind them. I don't expect to see serious reports of irregularities in the media because they will fear the wrath of the other half of their readership, and if it isn't "partisan" enough to affect the result, then it's not "news".

I agree with you wholeheartedly that it matters little or not at all whether an irregularity is deliberate: the election totals are still off, and therefore deceptive and fraudulent to the average citizen. Specific intent matters mostly to possible criminal sanctions and punitive damages for intentional torts, in states that allow those. But if an election is substantially off, it's not "OK" if that error appears to be caused by negligence or malfunction rather than intentional behavior.

In other words, why try to prove fraud when it's completely unnecessary to prove the intent element in there?

I'll think about and consider the rest of your points. Thank you.

[Bill Bored]

37. Right, no proof of fraud may be necessary.

But there can still be deliberate improper configuration of the machines. It just requires less expertise to do this than to hack the source code a la Clint Curtis. This should strengthen your case. See that article from Wisconsin that confirms what I and some others are suggesting independently. Some coincidence huh?

[Amaryllis]

4. Totally see your point; however, how do we work,, and for what, to remedy

the situation, then? Get a whole bunch of lawsuits going like what you are doing? What action steps are we to take?

[Land Shark]

18. If the political system is broken

you lobby people that have never been lobbied before.

For example: I'd seriously consider starting a campaign to stop bugging our poor overworked legislators and instead start calling the voting companies and asking them to fix the potholes in front of the house. If they want to have the privileges of acting in a purely governmental function and secretly counting votes, and even giving our government instructions to quash the subpoenas of citizens who dare to inquire, well then these "companies" need to take some governmental responsibility as well.

When you call the voting companies, tell them you're tracing your fucking vote and can't see where it went past the VC (voting company) hard drive. Ask them for a tracking number and insist on talking to the manager if you get an operator with insufficient knowledge or training. Try technical support if the operator doesn't understand your point about hard drives and tracing....

This could be a lot of fun.

Let's face it, it ain't all that easy to be "accountable" and so if we can't verify that electoral accountability extends directly up to every single politician, well then the accountability has shifted to somewhere in between and that's where we need to focus our lobbying efforts.

An easy start: Go to www.velvetrevolution.us and start by using the email form there to send emails to nine VC, from Diebold to Danaher to ES&S.

[Bill Bored]

20. Actually, I was talking about Op Scans and the disabled.

However, reading the VR blurb, it seems as if they are trying to reform DREs too!

And if these companies are privately held, how can we divest from them? I know Diebold is public, but on which stock exchanges are ES&S and the rest listed? You can't divest what you don't own or can't buy in the first place. The education campaign is fine though. We do need that!

[Land Shark]

22. Divestment is just one of various strategies

under the banner of "don't put your eggs in one basket". I think VR is also talking about boycotts and various other options if voting companies don't agree to comply with existing law and completely reform as well as education, not just divestment.

So while you are correct that divestment would typically only apply with force to publicly held companies, yet one can still urge stockholders holding stock in any company, even a privately held one, to sell or divest, if you can find out how to reach them. So technically divestment is not restricted just to publicly held companies.

[Amaryllis]

23. I don't see that as being effective. THey are corrupt from the top down;

they have a monopoly, and don't give a rip about our "rights." Gotta do better than that, Jaws. Not saying it isn't worthwhile; maybe if enough of us did it that we jammed their fax and phone lines. But there has to be other ways of taking it on.

[Land Shark]

27. I'm all in favor of taking this all very seriously,

I'd be the first to say that. But at the same time, we should have some fun along the way. You are correct that I am not posting above a completely seriously or completely complete answer to the question of what actions to take.

I do think that an "ecology" of actions is best: If everybody takes the type of actions they are most motivated to make after their own consideration of strategy and values, I think it will work out in th end.

[Amaryllis]

5. IS Conyers suggesting we don't pass reform legislation?

[mod mom]

7. No Conyers is realistically saying it isn't going to happen with this

congress. I hope you've had a chance to go to Rep Conyers blog. As only a real leader would do, he is NOT putting all his eggs in one basket.

[Amaryllis]

8. I read it every couple of days. He is a visionary, and a good writer; very

articulate. I hope he makes it more interactive at some point so we can ask questions.

[mod mom]

21. GREAT IDEA-Interactive Conyers Blog. I hope one of his aides read DU nt

[Amaryllis]

24. When he first started his blog he said his goal was to have it be more

interactive eventually.

[Amaryllis]

6. What is Alex Trebeck? Or should I say, who is Alex Trebeck?

[Bill Bored]

9. Some Canadian guy

who hosts Jeopardy on American TV.

[Wilms]

11. I think she was inquiring about Jaw's pedigree.

:shrug:

[Amaryllis]

12. I'm trying to figure out the reference to Alex Trebeck; don't get it, or

its significance. I have contact with Jaws in real life so I am not worried about his pedigree!

[Wilms]

13. !Oh!

:)

I think he was providing a stage in which to share the concept.

The CONTESTANT says: "Legal Claims for ($)300 Alex"


ALEX TREBECK: "(And the answer is...) IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS AND REGULATORY TAKINGS CLAIMS"


CONTESTANT: "Uh, What are constitutional claims voting companies may make if activists succeed in CHANGING the law in the legislature or Congress in order to cancel voting machine purchase contracts or force the disclosure of trade secrets?"


ALEX TREBECK: CORRECT!! (For $300)


But perhaps LandShark had something else in mind. :shrug: :)

[Land Shark]

14. You got it Wilms! vague to Jeopardy, but only for one paragraph

LAND SHARK: Legal Claims for $400 Alex!

TREBECK: Answer: A formula, recipe or method that's not necessarily original enough to patent, and not necesarily expressive enough to copyright, that's created simply by the "owner" claiming a competitive advantage from something not generally known, and then engaging in a practice of kicking off "trespassers" from this form of "property" sometimes called "policing".

LAND SHARK: What is... a trade secret?

TREBECK: Correct!!

[Amaryllis]

26. Thanks, Wilms, got it! So Alex is just a fictious game show contestant?

[Bill Bored]

16. Are you insinuating that DU isn't REAL LIFE? nt

[Amaryllis]

25. How about virtual life, compared to life where we see, or talk to, each

other with our voices?

[kster]

28. Kick..........nt

[kster]

29. Landshark question

If John Kerry runs in 2008 and I make a copy of my voters card,across that copy I write "I vote for John Kerry for President" and I will no longer let a machine between me and my vote, I put my tel no#, I have it notorized ,then I send it certified mail to John Kerry's headqaurters,with a return receipt to me that it was delivered. John Kerry can count the vote,s as they come in,lets say he gets 60 70 million ,then all he has to do is tell the other candidate on election day is "TRY ME", as he's standing in front of the millions of votes. Would that work?

[Wilms]

30. Sounds like you just voted in the wrong precinct. n/t

[kster]

31. DOH !!!!.............NT

[Land Shark]

34. Works well as a political argument, but the other side

would likely say they're not legal "ballots" and suggest massive "voter fraud", as usual.

[fasttense]

33. No amount of legislations is going to fix the fraud problem.

The only thing that will "fix" it is if thousand marched in the street not against the illegal war but against the illegal presidential selection. Nothing anyone does is going to matter until we show them what we are made of. But that ain't going to happen because not enough people care.

[Land Shark]

36. Well, I'm still voting because only close elections can be stolen

but even landslides will get taken by the other side if too many people drop out.

"Obvious" errors are the only ones caught and corrected. Anything that is conceivably "realistic" will stand. So, it's like elections develop a de facto supermajority requirementL you win only if you can get over 60% support such that everyone automatically smells a rat if it comes out otherwise. However, with a compliant media marginalizing liberals, this 60% figure can be stretched upward most likely.

I strongly feel we need to work on the media to report all points of view fairly. That freedom of the press and "we report, you decide" seems like the only philosophy strong enough to oppose the conservative propensity for censoring alternative points of view as "bias" when in fact it's a sign of a (still partially) free press.