Anti HR 811 Group Endorses Hillary Clinton

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Well, now we know how good their advice is:

Co-Founder of Democracy for NH Supports Clinton

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 8, 2007
Contact: Kathleen Strand, [phone]
[email protected]

Co-founder of Democracy for New Hampshire

Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

Leader in NH's Progressive Community Cites Leadership, Experience

MANCHESTER, NH- With the DemocracyFest weekend in Bedford kicking off tomorrow, the New Hampshire for Hillary campaign is pleased to announce the endorsement of progressive leader and noted grassroots activist Roger Goun.

“Senator Clinton is clearly the most qualified candidate to lead our country into a much needed period of change," said Goun. "She has unparalleled experience in both the national and international arenas and her strong leadership skills will enable her to be effective the moment she steps into the Oval Office."

http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/index.cfm?ID=1072

So much for providing "non partisan" advice on election integrity or any other matter.

“It's all over

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. Dem for NH also "underwrites" this

Democracy for New Hampshire also helps pay the expenses for this:

EAC, Certification, and Federal Legislative Liaison -- Nancy Tobi
This section will present Nancy Tobi's reports on meetings with state and federal election administrators and elected representatives, on topics concerning the EAC, voting machine certification, and pending federal legislation.

Recent meetings Nancy has attended on behalf of the election integrity movement include:

-- National Association of Secretaries of State conference

--EAC Standards Board meeting, Washington DC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The expenses Nancy incurs traveling to these important meetings to observe election policy in formation are underwritten by Election Defense Alliance and allied election integrity organizations including Blackboxvoting.org and Democracy for New Hampshire

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/Tobi_liaison

[fooj]

5. Nancy Tobi? Bev's Nancy Tobi?

And they think they're so clever...

The shit is seeping out from every angle, isn't it?

At this point, we know FACTUALLY that these rat bastards have imbedded themselves throughout every part of our government. To believe that they haven't done the same re: Election Reform is foolish, imo.

Democrats want to stuff the ballot box which involves less emphasis
on voter authentication, and rig the machines.

~Bev Harris 5/9/07

Note that the Democratic Party urgently needs to control and steer election
reform issues, both for fund-raising reasons (can't muddy the message, need to make it us against the bad Republicans) and because they don't want the attention to shift to their embarrassing role in crafting and pushing HAVA through. Added to that, they want to make sure that any reforms made are things that will benefit the Democrats but not the Republicans.

~Bev Harris 5/9/07

Where have we heard "can't muddy the message" recently. Google is your friend.

Think about it. Who the f*ck is "they"???

[papau]

20. Tobi/Bev Harris are against what Dem for NH/Hillary are for - the amended HR811 n/t

n/t

[troubleinwinter]

21. That's truly funny

Nanci Tobi is co-founder of Democracy for New Hampshire, and opposes HR-811.

[papau]

27. Sorry to inform you - but BlackBox(David) is for amended HR811 - Bev is not as her Blackbox notes n/

n/t

[troubleinwinter]

36. Lots of muddying

The issue has certainly been "muddied", very often deliberately by misrepresenting and perpetually refering to the earlier version of the bill, and sometimes by those listening to and being confused by the mud.

David Allen of BlackBoxVoting.COM does indeed support HR-811.

Kathy Dopp of National Election Data Archive and US Count Votes supports HR-811.

Nancy Toby of Democracy for New Hampshire works to scuttle it.

Bev Harris of Black Box Voting.ORG fights to kill it. In fact, apparently she opposes ANY and ALL federal legislation that would move us toward safeguarding our vote, saying in her fax to 2,299 elections officials:

We did do this second fax as you (Nancy Tobi) requested. Here is what I sent to 2,299 elections officials:

"Dear Elections Chief, March 30, 2007..... the only appropriate use of federal legislation over elections, we believe, is in the area of protecting civil rights – not federal meddling with local mechanics and procedures."

~Bev Harris – Director – Black Box Voting

[papau]

52. All true - and also true is that the endorser of Hillary is not active in any anti-HR811 stuff n/t

n/t

[troubleinwinter]

60. yay.

The endorser is the cofounder and Board Member of an organization that "does not do non-local endorsements", but hosts and sponsors a strictly anti-HR-811 stance.

So they don't endorse non-local issues, just trash and smear them?

The organization opposes the work of a Democratic congressman who spent several years working with election reform activists to write a bill that garnered strong support of 216 cosponsors, an actual step forward for election reform.

The endorser picks a DLC candidate.

yay.

[papau]

73. yep - the endorser is not the organization is the point. n/t

n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

79. Wally O'Dell tried to make the same argument

when he promised to deliver Ohio to Bush.

[Kelvin Mace]

80. To avoid any muddying

I do indeed support HR-811.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

23. "She is co-founder of Democracy for New Hampshire"

Tobi IS a co-founder:

Nancy Tobi is the author of numerous articles on election integrity, including "The Gifts of HAVA: Time to Ask for a Refund," "What's Wrong with the Holt Bill," and the newly released "We're Counting the Votes: An Election Preparedness Kit." She is co-founder of Democracy for New Hampshire and Chair of the Democracy for New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee
http://wecount2006.org/SpeakerTobi

[papau]

28. Does not change the fact that she is at odds with the Dem for NH position - or she split from Bev n/

n/t

[troubleinwinter]

42. Where do you get this stuff (mud)?

What in the world makes you think that either of these are true?

"at odds with DFNH"? The articles on DFNH site are all anti-HR-811. Many written by Nancy Tobi.

A video posted by Tobi opposing HR-811 featuring Vicki Karp (Member of the Board of BlackBoxVoting.org).

What says she "split from Bev"? They are joined at the hip.

Do you just make this stuff up?

[papau]

51. Per one of the Board - Roger who is the OP name - DFNH does not do non-local endorsements - but

you are correct the website trashes HR811.

Roger is on the Board of DFNH and could not explain why that is so.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. what makes you think DFNH supports 811 as amended?

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/

I see them sponsoring talks by Bev Harris, Paul Lehto, and Mark Crispin Miller, all fervent opponents of 811, and posting critical op-eds by Nancy Tobi. I don't see any evidence that they even admit the existence of reasonable debate on 811, much less are "for" it. Am I missing something?

[papau]

29. Appears I misunderstood a Dopp email? - a visit to the DFNH site indicates you're right - but I

read in the Dopps emails that Roger - a founder of DFNH - was for the amended HR811.(I should have visited the web site for DFNH before starting this thread response - rather than depending on memory of emails).

Indeed - I may have Roger's position wrong too.

I'll make a few phone calls after I take the grandkids to breakfast.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

40. Kathy Dopp is in Utah, DFNH site has new anti HR 811 stuff on it

See all of the anti HR 811 stuff here, all recent

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com

[Kelvin Mace]

81. The only problem I have

with any of this is:

I am very leery of anyone supported by, or supporting Bev Dudley (aka Harris) and I have a problem with folks claiming not to do endorsements, endorsing people.

As you point out, we are entitled to support who we please, regardless of our "job". But such things should be done discretely and it should in be made clear we are not speaking for an organization, but for ourself.

[papau]

30. I just spoke to Roger - the OP's reason for posting - and he says that

he is but one of 8 directors of Dem for NH - and that Dem for NH does not usually take positions on National issues but the Board as a whole makes decisions for Dem for NH - he does not.

He also said he is not against the amended HR811 - but has also not read or studied or come to a conclusions as to being for the amended HR811. He is aware of Hillary's position and has indeed endorsed her - but that endorsement says nothing apparently as to his position - or as it turns out his lack of a position - on the amended HR811.

I should have contact him earlier - or just posted refutation of the Hillary is against the amended HR811 and a note that Roger's position was not defined by what was on Dem for NH -

But I doubt the contact sport that is DU's smear of candidates one is against would have changed much if I had done so. I'll post a mea culpa blog about this after breakfast.

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. thanks for the clarification

The OP title appears to be incorrect: I have seen no evidence that DFNH the group has made any endorsement in the presidential race.

For what it's worth, I take no sides in the primary debate. I don't think my opinions about Hillary Clinton's stance on the war have any relevance to the ER board.

[fooj]

35. Why would a "non-partisan" group endorse a candidate?

[fooj]

34. Just STOP IT!

I want a PUBLIC DEBATE with REAL authentic experts who can discuss BOTH the pros and cons of this bill. I'm sick to death of this propagandistic bullshit spewed daily.

What the hell is a "non partisan" voting group doing endorsing a candidate anyway? An "active member" of a non-partisan group? Enough said.

[Bill Bored]

56. Public Debate

Well, here's one for ya in the interest of fairness:

Lehto and others have asked for such a debate and they have been turned down by some supporters of HR811.

I'm not sure if it's possible to have a constructive debate with some of the anti-HR811 crowd, based on their seeming intractability on the issue of HCPBs, EAC, DREs, certain types of audits, and other issues. But I agree that such a debate might be useful and should have taken place months ago when the bill was being drafted.

I am sure that at the very least, even if both sides had agreed to disagree, a better bill would have been introduced ot the House and there might have been less animosity and disinformation at this point in the process.

[troubleinwinter]

63. Staying out of the stye

"Lehto and others have asked for such a debate and they have been turned down by some supporters of HR811." Please post what you know of this. From what I know this idea was hurled out there roughly a week ago, and without a response within several hours to the drama posturing, "Lehto and others" have posted all around the web that they have been "turned down by some supporters".

Maybe a legitimate debate could have been had some time ago. I don't know.

"Lehto and others", opponents to HR811, have called the bill a 'Tojan horse', a 'ponzi scheme', a 'mutant', 'bait and switch'; called for Democratic Rep. Holt's ouster, called him a "F*CKING PR*CK"; called anyone who supports the bill 'anti-democracy', 'unpatriotic', etc.; the smearing of activists and organizations...

There appears to have been a deliberate campaign of using uncivil and inflamatory words so that civil exchange and debate has been rendered impossible.... NOW they call for a debate, when it's obvious that no one cares to lay down in that stye with them and get further smeared.

FWIW, there has been intense debate on many ER lists for a long time, with participants from both sides. It certainly has been discussed and debated and weighed and argued at tremendous length. "Debate in public" may be high drama, but I doubt it would lend much clarity to the issues. A debate challenge at this point looks more like tactics, PR & drama than a genuine desire for truthful thoughtful public discussion.

[Wilms]

67. Let's not paint to broadly here.

There's been a lot of uncomplimentary behavior surrounding this bill. But to include in the anti-811 group posters who show up and write "F*CKING PR*CK" may not be fair.

I doubt many, if any, of the anti-811 group condone or appreciate that kind of post anymore than pro-811 people.

I think it's fair to disregard such utterances.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. you mean "F*CKING PR*CK" is nicer than "fascist"

so, which is meant more to intimidate and coerce, "F*CKING PR*CK"
or to say that HR 811 is "the patriot act of elections"?

I think the former is less insidious than the latter.

It was the "patriotism" and flag waving crap that cowed our media into
submission pre -Iraq invasion.

The former is just someone vomiting or crapping on us, the other is to
intimidate and smear.

[Wilms]

72. I can't argue with what your saying.

But I'd want to be sure I wasn't cowed or intimidated into responding emotionally to that form of attack.

When I was young my folks wanted me to cut my hair. I wanted none of that, feeling it was controlling...which it probably was. So I let "my freak flag fly" so to speak (ref: David Crosby). Years later, I realized my hair length was more a reaction to my parents wishes than a response to my own. Kind of subtle, but I think you'll follow.

It's tricky ground. Watch your step.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

103. if you will notice

R/e "It's tricky ground. Watch your step."

If you will notice, I endorse neither cursing someone out and calling them a F'ing p----
or trying to smear someone as supporting the Patriot Act of Election Law.

Both are meant to intimidate people.

This could be interpreted as meant to intimidate too:

"It's tricky ground. Watch your step."

[Wilms]

107. I was afraid of that.

Though I hoped you would have regarded it as a friend holding the arm of a friend while walking on a dark and rocky path.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

133. well, less subtlety might work

Sometimes things float over my head, and the internet, messages and emails leave out
important cues like tone of voice and facial expression.

Does that make sense?

I haven't learned how to "read between the lines" in some of your messages.

:shrug:

I will try, but OnTheOtherHand or folks may have to "interpret".

[OnTheOtherHand]

125. on the last, no way

Wilms is the quintessential stand-up guy. (Of course, the way this board goes, it takes a special kind of person to accept a character recommendation from me.)

Wilms is saying that people shouldn't let being anti-Bev determine all their actions. I think it's a fair point. I've watched "sunshinekathy" take a looooong series of wild shots at me, friends, and innocent bystanders (as when FogerRox asked a question about stratified random samples that rubbed her the wrong way), but I would be in trouble if I tried to disagree with her on every issue.

That said, I find aspects of the anti-811 campaign truly alarming. Despite Bev's odd prominence -- there she is on the EDA front page with that bizarre PATRIOT Act analogy -- I don't think she is responsible for the tone that has afflicted much of the campaign. I think that comes from a habit of mind shared by several of the principals. It's a sort of giddy apocalyptic good-versus-evil frame. I imagine that it's very exciting to live in that frame.

And it is hard as the dickens to respond to, because it tends to evoke its like ("we're not Evil, They are Evil!"), and because people most attuned to that danger tend to be too polite. As you know, I sometimes think that you go too far, but I still give you great kudos, because you are engaging a real problem within the movement and you are still open to real give-and-take. And, of course, because you've done a hell of a lot of work that I haven't.

I literally work in an ivy-covered building. My only excuse is that maybe sometimes my friendly distance gives me different, complementary insights. I'm still cautiously optimistic that the stubbornly sane people in this movement aren't going to hand it over to the Manichaeans (of all stripes) just because in the short run, the Manichaeans make more noise. I'm sure as hell not talking about 811 supporters versus 811 opponents.

Interesting times.

[BradBlog]

144. That's a strawman -- and disingenous -- question

You said:

so, which is meant more to intimidate and coerce, "F*CKING PR*CK"
or to say that HR 811 is "the patriot act of elections"?

"F*CKING PR*CK" is an ad hominem, personal attack that I would condemn no matter who made it (and I've not seen any such attack, despite the claim made here).

Referring to the bill as the "patriot act of elections" is an opinion, and one based in some truth on a number of levels, even if you may disagree with that assessment and the reasons presented for it.

Personally, as it's currently written, I believe HR811 to be a grave danger to Electoral Integrity in America. If you feel otherwise, so be it. A case can be made for both view points.

IT would be nice if such cases were made honestly, and based on evidence and beliefs as opposed to the personal attacks and deceptive tactics were are seeing. Exemplified, in fact, by the dishonest and misleading title of the original post in this thread.

[troubleinwinter]

71. Uncomplimentary, to say the least.

One might disregard the utterance, but when public figures in the anti-811 group lead the way by using ugly accusatory rhetoric, claiming supporters of 811 are not patriotic, are against democracy, and support the criminals, this sort of thing is bound to follow and the blame can be laid at the feet of those who set the example of such a tone.

When this is the tone and these are the words used against legitimate dedicated activists, why would such activists care to "debate" on that level?

As they say, "You should not wrestle a pig. It just gets you smeared with mud and entertains the pig."

[Wilms]

75. That may be the best approach.

Just say, "others may see it differently, and I'm willing to listen to any reasoned ideas, and I have confidence in my position and would like to share it".

[Kelvin Mace]

83. You need to go back to the archives

and read some of the exchanges by the leaders of the anti-811 posters. They also get very bent out of shape when you question Bev's accounting practices.

[Wilms]

86. To what end?

For the most part, I find it best to ignore her. I understand it's different for you in that she burned you.

Appreciate that is one of the reasons I do ignore her.

[Kelvin Mace]

89. No, I meant the archives vis-a-vis

debates with Lehto and other anti-811 folk.

[Wilms]

90. Oh, that.

Well I kindof remember that.

I read somewhere that a good way to keep people from warring is for them to meet one another. I'm sure it doesn't always work out, but it may help.

I don't agree with all of Paul's ideas and tactics, but I do appreciate him as a serious person. Did it help that I spent an afternoon with him? Probably.

Again, I'm sure it doesn't always help, but if more of the sworn enemies met to hear one another out, perhaps it would help file off the rougher edges and assist us in approaching the important issues in a less emotional--while still impassioned manner.

[Kelvin Mace]

97. I don't consider Paul (or Brad) sworn enemies

I am simply VERY disappointed in their take on the issue, and their insistence that I, and other people who are harshly critical of Bev, should suspend those criticisms publicly. Brad, for example, has publicly condemned my remarks about Bev, but refuses to make similar harsh criticisms of Bev.

I pretty much have stopped posting here and have stayed out of the issue since so much deference has been given to Bev's view. The anti-811 group have pretty much chosen Bev as their standard bearer, and refuse to see the damage they are doing to their credibility.

If we do not get 811 passed, we will either pass NOTHING, and the issue will continue to fester, of we will see a bill FAR worse than 811 passed, which will favor Diebold et al.

[troubleinwinter]

99. NOTHING

is what Bev and Lehto want. They both oppose legislation. Not just 811, any federal legislation, period.

[Kelvin Mace]

102. That seems to be the case

which is pretty naive if you ask me. (I am assuming no ill intent on Paul's part)

The same argument AGAINST a federal law was made against the Civil Rights Act. The states were supposed to be more than capable of protecting minority rights, except when they didn't.

Only a FEDERAL LAW will protect us from paperless voting. State laws will still be needed to augment that law, but without a FEDERAL law, the status quo will prevail.

[Wilms]

101. Actually, very little deference is afforded Bev here.

Quite the contrary.

Paul doesn't post here often. Neither does Brad. And in fact, I can't remember a time in the last two years when you posted here except to slam Bev.

It's pretty obvious, so you know.

[Kelvin Mace]

110. Actually, I post on many other topics

but Bev tends to come up here, and when she does, my name usually follows, which mean I show up to make sure my views are accurately represented.

There was a intense debate on the issue of the Holt bill about a year ago, but I have pretty much given up on the issue as a lost cause. Paul and Brad were posting quite a bit at the time, I have no idea how ofter they do these days as I don't read the forum any more unless summoned.

[OnTheOtherHand]

129. I can vouch for that

You had some great posts on HCPB -- although perhaps your highest-impact post was the poll where you asked whether ER members were supporting HR 550. It really drove home the message that the people who make the most noise aren't always in the majority.

[Kelvin Mace]

138. As you can see from several posts here on the issue

the HCPB side refuses to deal with the facts that surround the issue. Instead they want to tell us how smart Americans are and how we hate their children and democracy.

Imagine if we were arguing about fuel economy:

Hand Tune Only Mechanics: You can't trust a computer to properly tune a car engine.

Sensible Mechanic: Uh, actually, given the complexity of modern internal combustion engines, it is impossible to tune a modern engine without a computer.

HTOM: That's nonsense. Tuning a car is just a matter of adjusting the carburetor and the timing of the ignition rotors.

SM: Modern engines no longer have either carburetors or ignition rotors, both were replaced by electronic ignition system.

HTOM: Well, we need to go back to that simpler design so that we don't need computers.

SM: If you go back to the older system, you will get worse gas mileage and more pollution.

HTOM: Let me say this slower since you don't want to understand. "We need to go back to that simpler design so that we don't need computers." Look, some people in New Hampshire have cars and trucks with carburetors and ignition rotors and the air seems pretty clean to me.

SM: There are more cars in many metropolitan areas in this country than than there are in the ENTIRE state of New Hampshire. If you force the entire country to go back to that type of engine, you will double or triple the cost of auto operation, you will consume more oil, air pollution will worsen to catastrophic levels, and prices for food and other commodities will rise drastically.

HTOM: So you want our kids to have to drive cars run by computers because you think our kids are too stupid to understand how to adjust a carburetor?

SM: Uh, no, actually that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. We are talking about the cost to the environment, to human health and to the economy of trying to implement your "solution".

HTOM: Why do you hate democracy? Do you work for Intel? Have Microsoft and GM paid you off?

SM: Actually, is there any possibility I could explain this to your five year-old?

[BradBlog]

146. You are misleading on the "several posts" you refer to...

Kelvin Mace said:

the HCPB side refuses to deal with the facts that surround the issue. Instead they want to tell us how smart Americans are and how we hate their children and democracy.

You make the point that I've tried to make in other posts upthread perfectly.

I've seen NO such posts that suggest you, or anybody else here "hate their children and democracy".

It is that kind of overblown, under-supported, non-evidenced rhetoric that does nobody any good and has now overtaken this entire debate, unfortunately. It's a debate, btw, which should be had. The country deserves one.

Suggesting non-existent posts says that anybody "hates their children and democracy" does NOT get us closer to such a debate, but rather continues to poison the already toxic well.

[Kelvin Mace]

150. Brad, do not presume to tell me what has and hasn't been said

on various threads. First, I was making a point for humorous affect, not commenting about specific accusations in this thread. Second, I these kind of remarks have been made in the past. I have most certainly has my commitment to democracy questioned in the past while discussing this issue and other BBV issues. Your good friend Bev Dudley (aka Harris) and her lackeys have even accused me of working for Diebold. Kster is always prattling on about the children and how we imply Americans are too stupid to know how to count, when we have said no such thing.

I have invited REPEATEDLY for HCPB to demonstrate how they will pull of their program given the realities of our electoral situation (one example here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=444974 )

But no one wants to address the facts of the debate.

There are plenty of posts of the nature I mention. They can be found by anyone spending a little time finding them.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BradBlog]

145. Speaking of inappropriate insinuations...

Kelvin Mace said:

I don't consider Paul (or Brad) sworn enemies
I am simply VERY disappointed in their take on the issue, and their insistence that I, and other people who are harshly critical of Bev, should suspend those criticisms publicly. Brad, for example, has publicly condemned my remarks about Bev, but refuses to make similar harsh criticisms of Bev.

I have "condemned" your remarks when you've made repeated assertions, knowingly, which are untrue. As you did concerning Bev's involvement in the Stephen Heller matter, claiming that she "ratted out Heller" when in fact she spoke to law enforcement AT HELLER'S REQUEST. And that she refused to cut him into the qui tam law suit, when in fact, HELLER DECLINED TO JOIN IT. All of that, Despite Heller's repeated and public corrections to your claims, which he was forced to make here even while under indictment for 3 felonies and under orders by his attorneys not to speak publicly.

He has refuted then, and in great detail later, various claims you have made about Bev Harris that had to do with him. You knew that he refuted such claims, and yet you continued to make them. I condemned you for that. First privately, and then when you continued to do it publicly, I had no choice but to do so publicly.

I have done the same with Bev when she has done something similar. Many times over the years. Including recently when she took a shot at David Dill which I felt was inappropriate and not germane to the discussion at hand.

While her expressed points might have been correct (I don't know, any more than I know if your claims about concerns of her c3 reporting are accurate), they were not germane to the conversation, were seen, by me, as an unfair and inappropriate attack against David Dill (who I disagree with on several issues personally) and should not have been made.

In that same way, when you Anti-Bev folks decide to trash her on a personal level in an attempt to discredit her demonstrable pro-Election Integrity WORK (such as the Hursti I and Hursti II reports, etc.) such personal attacks, which have no bearing on the WORK and EVIDENCE unearthed by her or her organization, are inappropriate, in my opinion.

The anti-811 group have pretty much chosen Bev as their standard bearer, and refuse to see the damage they are doing to their credibility.

For the record, nobody is my "standard bearer". I speak for myself and for my own beliefs. Since you mentioned me in the subject line, before writing the above, I feel it's necessary to point that out.

If we do not get 811 passed, we will either pass NOTHING, and the issue will continue to fester, of we will see a bill FAR worse than 811 passed, which will favor Diebold et al.

I disagree, of course, believe such comments are without evidence (but come directly out of Holt's office) but that's not the point of this particular post.

[Kelvin Mace]

157. Ah, no

I have NEVER said something I have known to be untrue.

Vis-a-vis Heller, A person claiming to be Heller posted here. However, my invitation for that person to establish their identity off-line was repeatedly ignored. So, the validity of those posts has NEVER been established.

While the person may have been Heller, it still did not change my opinion of the issue as I stated at the time. Whether Heller believed he was burned by Bev does not change the fact that he was. Sorry, you don't get to call me a liar and walk away.

As to Bev, you have refused to call her on the lies she has told, and you have refused to take even the most basic steps to determine that her accounting is HIGHLY suspect. As a person who plays at being a reporter, you seem to have an allergy to ascertaining the truth when it comes to Bev. You are goddamned quick to make allegations like the one above when it comes to me. 30 minutes with any competent accountant would establish that Bev's filings reek of mismanagement and possible fraud. But such facts are inconvenient to your narrative, which is why you make no attempt to investigate the issue.

You have made your bed with Bev and backed her without any meaningful question. In my book, she is your standard bearer.

I disagree, of course, believe such comments are without evidence (but come directly out of Holt's office) but that's not the point of this particular post.

I am stating my opinion of the issue. I am not aware that this now requires me to provide evidence to support my opinion. My opinions do not "come from Holt's office" and I resent the insinuation as I have never spoken to the man or ANYONE in his office.

Again, this type of snide innuendo is the kind of crap Bev has been pulling for years. She's rubbing off on you.

[troubleinwinter]

158. Well there are questions...

such as why Bev prominently and publicly promised to post the canceled Qui Tam check, but didn't; claims a $10,000 donation to Heller, but nobody I know looking at the tax filings has been able to locate any such an item; why accusations are hurled at other organizations about donations but she does not disclose the source of a $20,000 donation, and then there's the $30,000 donation; not a nickel or a penny is claimed toward fund raising.

Nobody seems to care to be concerned enough to wonder if we have rats in our midst.

Brad, when asked publicly about Brett Kimberlin, the response was "He's my partner (co-founder Velvet Revolution)."

Brad, do you think the time has come to explain your alliance with an unrepentant serial bomber, sentenced to 51 years in federal prison, who placed eight bombs, one in a schoolyard during a school ball game that devastatingly injured a man and his wife?

Brad, if Kimberlin has suddenly "turned over a new a new leaf", perhaps bringing these facts into the open and admitting them would be a beginning?

Is it appropriate, Brad, for the election reform movement to be associated with a self-confessed drug smuggler/dealer to focus his energy on recruiting and associating with youths and linking his site to instructions on how to grow illegal drugs?

Brad, do you know if the $1.6m civil judgment against him by his victims has been paid?

I suppose there could be redemption, repentance, regret, apology, turning over of a new leaf. But there appears to be denial and bullshit and lies.

Brad, talk about these issues and let the people who care about this movement decide if they want to be aligned with such a person as the co-founder and your partner in VR.

Rats.

I want the truth for a change.

EDIT: Apologies. This should have been addressed to Brad. I'll give him a link. Pfft.

[Kelvin Mace]

168. S'alright

I'd love answers to these questions too.

[steveheller]

171. Once again, John Allen lies about my case and Bev's role therein

I thought I had put this to rest on Dec. 4, 2006 with a post going into detail and refuting the LIES told about my case and Bev Harris' role therein. So rather than waste my time typing another response, I'm just going to post what I posted back in December of last year.

And before I do, Brad Friedman can vouch for my identity; I'm not going to play these baby-ass games with John Allen any more. He's a liar and a fool. DU people, don't you let him make a fool of you, too, by believing his lies about my case.

Now, here's my post from last December....

I am tired, damn sick and tired, of the Bev Bashers who continue to use my case to attack her. I neither know nor care what their ulterior motives are, but these people like Kelvin (David) are deliberately lying and distorting the facts of my case in order to attack Bev.

As I have said on DU on at least 3 previous occasions, Bev Harris never did anything to harm me or my legal defense. In fact, Bev Harris went out of her way to help me and my lawyers defend me, and she never did ANYTHING to harm me in any way. This is MY CASE, I know the details, and I am telling you the facts. If you believe "Kelvin" over me, you're a fool. Again, this is MY CASE and I KNOW THE FACTS of my own case!!! Bev Harris never did anything to harm me. To me personally, Bev Harris is a hero. To me as a voter and taxpayer in California, she is a hero. I can only form an opinion about a person by my own experience with them, and all of my experiences and interactions with Bev Harris lead me to believe she is a person of great integrity and loyalty.

Regarding me joining the qui tam lawsuit. Bev asked me, during a phone call in fall of 2004 (shortly after I found out I was under criminal investigation), if I would join the suit as a co-plaintiff with her and Jim March. I asked my lawyer about it, thinking it might be a way to pay my legal bills. My lawyer told me that I could not under any circumstances join that lawsuit. My lawyer said one of the strongest legal defenses I had was that I was a "defendant with clean hands" (my lawyer's phrase). I had not done anything for my own profit, and had not done anything to try to make a profit off the situation. My lawyer told me that joining a civil suit with a potential for a cash payoff for me would greatly damage my defense. She told me that I must not do ANYTHING to give the appearance of trying to profit from my case. As some of you may know, I am an actor, and a number of friends from the entertainment industry approached me with ideas for book and movie deals, but I had to steer clear of such things in order to remain a defendant with clean hands (although I don't need to steer clear of such offers any more, and in fact serious interest has been expressed by legitimate players in Hollywood, and I have a meeting with one of the said legit Hollywood players this coming Friday morning. Hopefully something will come of that soon, but that's another story). But let me make this clear: Bev Harris DID invite me to join the qui tam suit, and on the advice of my attorney I did not join it. But Bev DID give $10,000 to my legal defense fund, by far the largest single donation the fund received. And she gave it immediately after my wife started the defense fund, when we were most in need of immediate cash. That $10,000 of seed money, so to speak, allowed me to continue my criminal defense at a very critical time. In addition, Bev made several pleas on my behalf to her contact list, and those pleas generated thousands more dollars in donations.

Regarding what the D.A.'s office has said since my case was resolved: First of all, Ms. Gibbons, the spokesperson for the D.A.'s office, is spinning faster than a plate spinner at a Russian circus. The DA's office received a lot of criticism for prosecuting me, and their spin is that "if he'd only come to us first." Bullshit. Let's examine the possible scenarios, shall we?

If I'd walked into the DA's office and said, "Hey, I'm temping at a law firm, and here's what I saw in confidential, attorney-client privileged documents," they would have arrested me on the spot for breaking attorney-client privilege.

If I'd walked in and said, "I have reason to believe the integrity our elections, and thus of our democracy, is being undermined, but I can't tell you why I know this or where I saw the information about it," they'd have just laughed at me.

If I'd gone in and arranged some kind of immunity and then told them what I saw, they wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing about it because the information I would have given them was attorney-client privileged information and they would have been prevented by law from acting on it. What would you expect the DA to do, get a search warrant on Jones Day's offices? No judge would grant them a warrant for attorney-client privileged documents, especially on the hear-say evidence of a temp word processor. Plus, the "necessity defense" law in California says that attorney-client privilege can only be broken in the case of "imminent bodily harm." At a hearing on October 20, 2006, my lawyers argued that in my case the imminent bodily harm was not to a person but to the entire nation, because Diebold was using crooked, illegal software in their voting machines, and with a presidential election only months away (from the time of my theft of the documents) the potential for harm to the very underpinnings of our democracy was real and imminent, that such harm was of a much more serious nature than bodily harm to any one individual, and thus the necessity defense should be allowed. The judge ruled that a trial court at his level (technically, his court is called an Inferior Court, as opposed to a Superior Court) cannot expand the definition and limitations of the necessity defense and that only an appellate court could decide whether or not the necessity defense should be expanded to include "imminent bodily harm" to the nation. And so, the judge did not allow my attorneys to use the necessity defense, and this same interpretation of the law would have prevented the DA from acting on the attorney-client privileged information that I might have given them while under a grant of immunity.

A piece of advice: don't listen to the DA spin on my case, or any case. They will spin it in their favor every time. When they say that I could have been protected if I'd come to them first, they are saying something that is not true. It's irritating, because what they say makes me look stupid, and also because the last thing the judge said at the hearing where we reached the plea agreement was "I hope the parties involved with not spin this case on the blogs or in the press." The DA's office has decided to ignore the judge's request. Shame on them.

Also, here is another point I have made, yet this point is ignored by the Bev Bashers because it is in their own interest to ignore it. Read this slowly and carefully, because it is the truth. The DA knew long before they had even heard of Bev Harris that I was the one who stole the documents. One truthful thing the DA's office said is that I left behind the "perfect electronic trail." I did indeed. Let me explain. Jones Day, along with most large law offices, uses a program called iManage to manage documents on a large system. The only way to open documents on the system is to go through iManage. I'm sure there is a way to hack into the system without using iManage, but while I am an expert with Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint, I don't know the first thing about networks or hacking. So to open and print the documents I stole I used iManage to search for and find docs on the system using the client-matter number Jones Day assigned to Diebold, then opened them, read them, printed them out and took them home. And every time I used iManage to open, print, download, email, save, create, revise, etc. a document, I left an electronic trail. The law firm did their own internal investigation and found that someone using the temp login I was given when I came to work there, during the hours I worked there, at the computer to which I was assigned, opened and printed in one night every document with the Diebold client matter number. They gave their report to the DA who conducted their own investigation, and the DA confirmed everything Jones Day had found. The DA even had security photos of me coming into and going out of the building on the night in question, the electronic records of the key card I was given to get into and out of the parking garage and access to the elevator and the locked doors of the Jones Day office, and the time sheets from my temp agency to prove I was working on the night the docs were taken.

So as I've posted on DU and elsewhere, Bev Harris DID NOT GIVE ME UP TO THE COPS. The cops already knew I was the one who stole the documents!!! I'll say it again, please remember this and pass the word around. Bev Harris DID NOT GIVE ME UP TO THE COPS. The cops already knew I was the one who stole the documents!!!

The only reason Bev Harris met with the DA was because my lawyer asked her to. She made a special trip to Los Angeles to do so, at her own expense, on her own time. At my lawyer's request Bev went over the docs I stole with the DA to show them what was important in the docs, and why I was thus a whistleblower and not a criminal. Again, my lawyer asked Bev to meet with the DA and tell them what she knew about the docs, because the DA already knew I was the one who stole the docs. At that point we weren't trying to convince the DA they had the wrong man, or didn't have enough proof to charge me. We knew they had the proof, and they knew they had the right man. What we were trying to do was convince them that in the interests of justice they should not charge me, and at my lawyer's request Bev tried to help us do that. It is my belief that Jones Day exerted a lot of pressure on the DA to charge me with felonies rather than misdemeanors, and to come down on me as hard as possible. Jones Day is a very powerful, very rich law firm with political connections to the highest levels of power in Los Angeles, and indeed in Washington. Their power over the DA far outweighed mine, and thus I was charged with 3 felonies.

Just please remember, whatever else you may hear, Bev Harris did not harm me or my legal defense in any way. And since I'm the horse, you're hearing it from the horse's mouth.

Also, please remember whatever "Kelvin" (David) says about Bev Harris in relation to my case is a lie. I don't know who he is or what his affiliations are, but he is desperately trying to smear Bev Harris. I don't know why, and I don't care why. Just please don't believe him, at least in regards to my case. I know what happened in my case, "Kelvin" does not, and please take my word for it on any matters that relate to my case.

In general, I would like to thank the DU community for all the support, donations, encouragement and kind words you-all have thrown my way.

Steve Heller

[Kelvin Mace]

173. 1) The name's David, not John

2) You have yet to establish your identity to me. Ms. Harris has impersonated people on numerous occasions, frequently here at DU, so my request was not unreasonable.

3) Bev gave the papers to the police and verified they came from you. If she did so on the advice of your lawyer, I have serious questions about his competence. If the DA had an airtight case against you, there would have been no reason to talk to Bev. All I know is that NO ONE with any integrity would EVER have fingered you to the police. And yes, by telling them she got the papers from you, she fingered you. If the case had gone to trial Bev would have been called as a PROSECUTION witness.

4) Bev claims and you have supposedly verified a $10,000 donation. Yet NO such donation is recorded on her organization's 990.

These are my interpretations of evidence. Bev has provided no proof of her donation, nor can anyone validly dispute she would have been a prosecution witness had the case gone to trial.

Bev Dudely (aka Harris) has show herself to be a liar, a cheat, a grossly incompetent manager and an immoral opportunist.

The more she and her allies post here, the more this issue with all the requisite evidence, will be brought up.

I am sorry you ever spoke to this woman. Had you gone to a real reporter, things might have turned out differently. I admire your courage, but question your judgment.

One thing that is undeniably true, you gave Bev the evidence she needed to make herself $76,000 richer, which just goes to show what inflation has done to the traditional 30 pieces of silver.

[steveheller]

175. You're a lying idiot

and you don't know what you're talking about. I'm done with you.

[Kelvin Mace]

178. And good night to you.

[BradBlog]

202. Your behavior is abhorrent, David...

You said to Stephen Heller:

You have yet to establish your identity to me. Ms. Harris has impersonated people on numerous occasions, frequently here at DU, so my request was not unreasonable.

Stephen posted his originally note refuting your nonsense in Dec. of '06. Have YOU tried to authenticate him? Have YOU called him?

Have YOU bothered to read and/or listen to any number of public record comments from Steve on this? As when he was in studio with me, live, on Air America confirming all of the above?

Beyond that, Steve's right. Your tactics are abhorrent. So, no doubt, it's time to bring on the personal attacks on me as well. Enjoy yourself. I've got better things to do, and more serious people to talk to and/or debate with, than to play with you. I've tried my best.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

205. its sad

I remember when Andy Stephenson used to defend Bev.

I remember what happened to him, too.

[troubleinwinter]

181. Can you please address these contradictions?

Various versions of the story have been given:

Heller gave the docs to Bev.

A secret intermidary gave them to her.

Heller FedExed them to her.

Heller printed out 500 pages (2-1/2 REAMS of paper), but had never even heard of Harris until after having done this.

But she told him not to print these things.

[Kelvin Mace]

197. Also note

that the person posting here as "StephenHeller" made NO effort to document Bev's donation when the matter was brought up.

[troubleinwinter]

159. I mistakenly placed a post in the wrong place.

It is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=473748&mesg_id=473996

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

68. Lehto wants an endless debate, but no solution

I believe that one person responded to him that the only thing left to debate at this time was which choice do you want, HR 811 or NOTHING.

For anyone to debate Lehto on anything is to put them at his level, and I can't see that being a plus for most.

I think "debate" is code word for "publicity" which in term means "donations" and implied legitimacy.

[troubleinwinter]

95. No sense debating.

Lehto has said that he supports litigation, NOT legislation.

Goody. When elections go wrong again we can take up another collection for him to lose another lawsuit.

There is no sense debating pros or cons of 811 with Lehto or Harris. They oppose all federal legislation, period.

[BradBlog]

143. You're kidding right??

You said:

"Lehto and others", opponents to HR811, have called the bill a 'Tojan horse', a 'ponzi scheme', a 'mutant', 'bait and switch'; called for Democratic Rep. Holt's ouster, called him a "F*CKING PR*CK"; called anyone who supports the bill 'anti-democracy', 'unpatriotic', etc.; the smearing of activists and organizations...

There appears to have been a deliberate campaign of using uncivil and inflamatory words so that civil exchange and debate has been rendered impossible.... NOW they call for a debate, when it's obvious that no one cares to lay down in that stye with them and get further smeared.

I have had front row seats to the email discussions, debates that have raged on this.

I have seen the pro-Holt folks call heroes like Tom Courbat in Riverside County, CA an "idiot", I have been called "Hitlerian" by the mysterious new supporter of Holt calling herself Lisa Pease. Kathy Dopp has claimed that Nancy Tobi and Bev Harris are "moles for the electronic voting vendors."

Dopp has call me an idiot, a liar, claimed that I am trying to "undermine democracy" and much worse.

While I haven't seen the hate-fest spewed *against* pro-Holt folks in the same way on that personal level to that degree, I have certainly see it go the other way.

In any case, it needs to stop. Folks need to lobby for or against the bill, using *honest* tactics instead of ad hominem attacks and disingenous, misleading propaganda (eg. like it or not, HR 811 is NOT a "paper ballot bill" it does not "ban paperless electronic voting" any more than the "Clean Air Act" cleans the air)

If folks are in favor of the bill, so be it. ARgue for it. If you're against, argue against. But the deceptive Rightwing tactics I've seen, unfortunately, yes, from the pro-Holt side is very disheartening, indeed.

[Febble]

149. Can I suggest

That you simply ignore Kathy Dopp and Lisa Pease?

And that you do not generalise from either of them to the "pro-Holt" folks?

I think that the Holt bill as it steps is a big step forward, much as I'd like to see it better still. I think it represents a ratcheting back of unaccountable elections.

So to my discomfiture, I find myself on the same "side" as two people who have posted the same kind of ad hominem tripe against me as you've seen posted against you.

I think it's a tragedy that so much ill-considered invective has distorted the whole election integrity debate, although I suppose it's understandable, given the justified level of distrust in the integrity of American Elections. But, as you say, what matters is the argument, not the personalities of those that make them. The "pro-Holt folks" are not wrong because Kathy Dopp acts like a loon, any more than the "anti-Holt folks" are wrong because Bev Harris acts like a loon (and I've seen both).

So, I agree, it needs to stop, and that includes ascribing "Rightwing" tactics to either side.

[troubleinwinter]

153. What in my quote do you find to be a joke?

[Kelvin Mace]

82. I have publicly debated the issue

in its various incarnations multiple times on this board. When we have pointed out that the idea that you can have HCPB only in these elections is complete fantasy, and have gone to great lengths to point out the math behind the opinion, I have been accused of hating democracy and worse.

[Cookie wookie]

199. The best bill that could be introduced was introduced.

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

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

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

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

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

[Cookie wookie]

200. Need to add, since I included Microsoft in that "vendors"

paragraph which wasn't accurate. If they were at the table they may have gotten what they wanted since COTS software was exempted after the committee markup. However Microsoft's needs, if they did ask for those changes, were supported by some election integrity activists were seriously upset that COTS software wasn't exempted in the original bill -- called it a serious flaw in the bill if I remember correctly.

Also some activists didn't think open source code was that important, but I didn't see any celebration from those activists when it was removed in committee. No, but I'd imagine the vendors popped open the champagne.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

37. but isnt "Foger" from New Jersey?

not New Hampshire?

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. that's the other Roger ;)

The OP refers to Roger Goun, cofounder of DfNH -- not Roger Fox.

Sorry if that's now obvious, I'm just trying to fill in holes for any confused lurkers.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

38. "Democracy for New Hampshire is a nonpartisan big-tent..."

No one's saying Hillary Clinton is against a piece of legislation, we are saying that a
"non-partisan" organization (that is funding Nancy Tobi's efforts to derail federal election reform bill HR 811) is simlutaneously playing politics.

About DFNH
Our mission:

Democracy for New Hampshire is a nonpartisan big-tent organization that promotes grassroots community involvement in the democratic process in New Hampshire. DFNH works to protect the foundations of our democracy and the integrity of our political process and supports fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates who speak honestly about policy choices
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/607/

So right there you have it, a "non partisan" organization used to endorse a political candidate.

I suppose they know what's best for the "un-washed masses".

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

41. the press release emphasizes DFNH name

so I can see what you mean, that DFNH didn't itself endorse Clinton,
a member of the Clinton campaign used the organization's name in their press release.

That means that I am wrong to say the whole group endorses Clinton, just the Co-Founder.

I suppose that means that I, like others reading the press release - were misled by the use
of Democracy for New Hampshire's name in its subject and title line.

Co-Founder of Democracy for NH Supports Clinton

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 8, 2007
Contact: Kathleen Strand, [phone]
[email protected]

Co-founder of Democracy for New Hampshire
Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

Leader in NH's Progressive Community Cites Leadership, Experience

MANCHESTER, NH- With the DemocracyFest weekend in Bedford kicking off tomorrow, the New Hampshire for Hillary campaign is pleased to announce the endorsement of progressive leader and noted grassroots activist Roger Goun.

...
http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/index.cfm?ID=1072

That still leaves us with DFHA subsidizing Nancy Tobi's efforts and posting all of her anti HR 811 articls on their website.

My apologies, I was mis-led by the Clinton press release.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. yeah, bad press release

It isn't wrong (as far as I know!), but it certainly gives a misleading impression.

And, yes, we're still left with DfNH subsidizing Nancy Tobi's efforts.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

39. papau, they have a funny way of "supporting" it

Papau, I wish what you were saying was so, but if Democracy for New Hampshire supported HR 811,
why do they have Nancy Tobi's hit piece articles posted on their site?

Videos
Election deception: HR 811 (the Holt Bill)
more

Election Integrity

HR 811 (The Holt Bill): Time to put us out of its misery
The PFAW/Holt Bill Hoax
Former Holt consultant warns against passage of HR 811 (Holt Bill)


http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/607/

Papau, why do they help fund Nancy Tobi's work against HR 811?

[papau]

48. DFNH per Roger is about local issues - not National - but website does have anti-HR811 stuff - they

fund local activists - none as far as I can tell working on HR811 - but to be clear in my 10 minutes speaking with Roger I did not ask if they fund Nancy Tobi's work.

Their endorsement is valuable for the fund raising efforts of local activists per Roger - and the word was "local".

I now know more than when I started about DFNH - but the fact Hillary is the sponsor of the HR811 version in the Senate has not changed in the last few hours - and the idea that she was against election reform done correctly - or at least against doing it better than what Bev Harris wants - continues to be UN-TRUE! :-)

[Wilms]

49. Papau, BillBored already tried to point out that HRC's bill IS NOT the Senate companion to 811.

That would be Diane Feinstein's bill.

[papau]

50. Hillary -like Feinstein & Obama- sponsored S1487 - Hillary sponsored with Nelson S559 and

the Nelson bill is linked to HR811 in the government's Thomas system.

Diane's S1487 is the worst of the lot with the least change required http://electionmathematics.org/em-legislation/BallotIntegrityActAnalysis.pdf

Why folks want to pretend their election reform champions in the Senate do not include Hillary is a bit beyond me. Senator Dodd's S.730, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act and Senator Clinton's S.804, the Count Every Vote Act, are minor players in this but Diane mentions them but does not mention the HR811 senate clone by Nelson/Clinton S559.

I'll leave it to you to figure out why Diane did that.

S

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday, May 25, 2007
Senator Feinstein Introduces Comprehensive Reform Legislation to Ensure Accurate Counts in Federal Elections


Washington, DC – Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) have introduced legislation to help ensure the accuracy of vote counts in federal elections and institute important new reforms in the administration of elections. Other cosponsors include Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Barack Obama (D-IL), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Bernard Sanders (I-VT).

The Ballot Integrity Act of 2007 provides new safeguards to prevent errors and tampering at the polls, requires states to use voting systems with voter-verified paper records subject to public manual audits in the 2010 federal elections, takes steps to help increase the turnout in federal elections, and ensures that voters are not denied the right to vote by faulty purges of voting rolls.

“An accurate, reliable and transparent method to cast and count votes is fundamental to the democratic process. But we now have a patchwork of voting systems throughout the country, including five states -- Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland and South Carolina -- that have no voter-verified paper records to help ensure the accuracy and reliability of the vote count and eleven others in which large sections of their states have no such paper records,” said Senator Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which oversees federal elections.

“Experts testified at a Rules Committee hearing that about 56 percent of the voting systems now distributed throughout the states use optical scanners. The advantage of this system is that you have an individual voter-verified paper record without having to rely on a separate printer or other mechanism that could be subject to jams. This is simple and direct. I believe this is the way to go. But for those states that seek to continue using direct recording electronic voting systems, there needs to be way for the voter to verify the vote and for the electronic tally to be audited. The Ballot Integrity Act provides these safeguards.”

In addition to requiring that direct recording electronic voting systems provide voter-verified paper records by the 2010 federal elections, the Ballot Integrity Act would also:

* Impose an immediate moratorium on the purchase of new voting systems that don’t provide paper records;
* Require random, public audits of electronic tallies through hand counts of paper ballots by 2010;
* Authorize $600 million to replace and retrofit paperless electronic voting systems, and $3 million in a competitive grant to develop verifiable and widely accessible voting systems;
* Open voting system software to inspection by state and federal election officials, parties to litigation, and independent computer analysts certified by the federal Election Assistance Commission.

“As we developed this legislation and examined the time still needed to get it enacted into law, it became clear that we were rapidly approaching the deadline to prepare for the 2008 elections and there is insufficient time for states to invest in new technology. In fact, mandating that all states have voter-verified paper records and audits of these records for the 2008 election could be an invitation to chaos,” Senator Feinstein said. “Pushing the date back to the 2010 elections will give us more time to reach a bipartisan consensus with voting reform advocates and local and state officials to enact a new law that provides for increased accuracy and accountability at the polls without raising the specter of creating major new errors.”

Earlier this year, Senator Dodd introduced S.730, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights Act and Senator Clinton introduced S.804, the Count Every Vote Act. Both bills will be considered in hearings by the Rules Committee next month along with the Ballot Integrity Act.

And earlier this month, the House Administration Committee approved legislation by Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), which also requires voter-verified paper ballots and manual, public audits.

“Senator Dodd, Senator Clinton and Representative Holt have been working on these issues for several years and I appreciate their leadership and dedication,” Senator Feinstein said. “I look forward to working closely with them and the other cosponsors of this bill to bring the legislation forward.”


U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Summary
Ballot Integrity Act
May 24, 2007

Title I

* Immediately bans the purchase of any new direct recording election voting systems that do not provide an accessible, durable permanent voter-verified paper ballot.
* Establishes a $600 million grant program ($300 million in FY2008 and FY2009) to help states purchase voting systems that produce an accessible, durable, permanent paper ballot that can be verified by the voter and changed by the voter before the vote is finalized and help fund audits by the States. (funds are retroactive for costs incurred in 2007)
* Establishes a $3 million competitive grant program in FY2008 for the development of an electronic voting system that provides a voter-verified paper record and also provides full accessibility for the disabled community.

Title II

* Requires that all voting systems used in federal elections beginning in 2010 have a voter-verified paper ballot, which is the true record in the event of an audit or recount.
* Helps guarantee the vote count by requiring states to audit the electronic tallies with a hand count of paper ballots in a public, transparent, random sampling of 2 percent of the state’s precincts. (2010)
* Requires that every voting place be supplied with emergency paper ballots to offer voters if voting systems break down or other problems cause long delays. (2008)
* Requires that voting system software be available for inspection and analysis by state election officials and independent technological experts certified by the Election Assistant Commission. (2008)
* Prohibits wireless communication devices in voting systems, which are vulnerable to fraud and prohibits voting systems to be connected to the internet. (2008)
* Requires states to establish a system to monitor the chain of custody of voting systems and software leading up to the election. (2008)
* Prohibits conflicts of interest involving vendors and testing labs by halting direct payments between the vendors and labs and requiring the Election Assistance Commission to collect fees from the vendors and then independently select the labs that would do the testing. (2008)

Title III

* Campaign Activities of Election Officials: Prohibits chief state election officials from serving on political campaigns of federal candidates, publicly supporting federal candidates or soliciting contributions for federal candidates. (2008)
* Election Observers: Grants all official, legitimate domestic and international election observers access to the election process, provided that they accept election rules, do not interfere with the election process, respect the secrecy of the ballot and are accredited by the EAC. (2008)
* Third Party Voter Registration: Prohibits burdensome limits on third-party voter registration efforts, but allows States to protect against possible fraud. (2008)
* Poll Worker Training: Requires states to ensure that each person who works in a polling place during an election for public office receives training on state election procedures. (2008)
* Sets Purging Guidelines: Requires states to provide public notice before any Federal election of all names that have been removed from the voter registration list; and prohibits removing any individual from the voter registration list unless the individual is first provided notice in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner that is prescribed by the Election Assistant Commission. (2008)
* Absentee Voting: Requires states to permit any person who is otherwise qualified to vote in an election for federal office to vote absentee without having to provide excuses such as vacation or away on business to the jurisdiction. (2008)
* Minimum Required Voting Equipment: Directs Election Assistance Commission to set guidelines for states to provide sufficient voting equipment and election resources at polling places to avoid turning away voters because of long lines. (2010)
* Counting Provisional Ballots: Requires states to develop, according to guidelines established by the Election Assistance Commission, a timely process for counting provisional ballots and to count them without regard to the location at which the voter cast the provisional ballot. (2008)
* Military and Overseas Voters: Makes it easier for overseas and military voters to send in absentee ballot requests, absentee ballots and voter registration forms by prohibiting states from refusing to accept ballots and registration forms due to non-essential requirements. (2008)

[Wilms]

54. Pardon. You did say sponser.

Now, who's pretending what about Clinton's bill and/or lauding Feinstein's?

[papau]

70. Man -it is hard to get this accross it seems - The real HR811 in Senate is S559 - the Nelson bill

was introduced as Hillary/Nelson as the intinal co-sponsor was Hillary.

Hillary has her own bill that she is the sponsor of.

Dodd has his own bill that he is the sponsor of.

Feinstein has her own bill that she is the sponsor of.

Hillary is one of many co-sponsors, with Obama, on the Feinstein Bill - I do not know about the other bills as to co-sponsor but that is an easy look up if you are curious.

The Feinstein bill is the weakest of the lot but if the amended HR811 gets passed by the House and any of the above bills gets passed by the Senate, I believe we can get HR811 out of conference and into law.

The Nelson bill is the strongest and most like HR811 and is the Bill tied to HR811 in the system. Hillary was the first beside Nelson to get behind the Nelson bill.

Hillary is not the sponsor of any bill that is the "Bev Harris" bill. If you believe there is a "Bev Harris" bill in the Senate - or the House - please state what the number is.

[Wilms]

76. Thank you.

I saw Bill Bored's clarification below.

[troubleinwinter]

78. What the fuck ARE you smoking??!!

What "Bev Harris bill"?

Bev Harris opposes ANY and ALL federal legislation that would move us toward securing our votes.

March 30, 2007

...the only appropriate use of federal legislation over elections, we believe, is in the area of protecting civil rights – not federal meddling with local mechanics and procedures."

~Bev Harris – Director – Black Box Voting

I hereby award you, for accumulated efforts, "THE MUDDY" award for this thread.

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. wild -- where did Bev say that?

Fascinating stuff. The politics are just blowing my mind. Not just the partisan politics, although certainly that.

[papau]

31. The world of Bev is indeed interesting - I once had her phone number but tossed it

when I realized she was on the other side of the election reform issue.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. Smart move

you do not want anything to do with that woman.

:)

[troubleinwinter]

57. I have read them. I'll be damned...

I have read them. I'll be damned if I'll post links to her BULLSHIT propaganda insanity. I will PM them to you and anyone else that wants them. While we're at it, here's another:

I have explicitly been told by members of the Democratic Party that election reform is, and I quote, "A Gold Mine Issue."

Translation: We can raise funds with this. That means: Don't entirely solve the thing too quickly, we still need to raise a lot of funds, but make some half-steps, so we can brag about all the "reform" we're doing at our fundraisers."

-Bev Harris, Wed May 9, 2007

Imagine that! Bev has been "told" this by anonymous members of the Dem party! Wow! How many members of the Democratic party are there? Which ones said this to her (if any)? She smears Dems AGAIN without attribution.

WHO really has found election reform to be a gold mine to the tune of over a million dollars, raised funds, takes a fat salary of $90,000, doesn't want to solve the thing too quickly, still needs to raise a lot of funds and brag about what she's doing at fundraisers??????

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

66. Based on that statement

then based on Bev's assumption that the e-voting issue is being used by democratic politicians to raise funds, then that would apply to Kucinich too, right?

Could Bev (albeit much of a believer in government) be doing this to raise funds?

And I don't get why someone who doesn't believe much in government even bothers with election issues.

[Kelvin Mace]

85. When Bev was getting money and publicity

here, she was all about liberal politics. When her past caught up with her (Clinton cigar) and when folks here started calling BS, she marched right over to Free Republic and started hanging with her homies, dissing DU, Kerry and the Dems.

[papau]

53. I totally agree with you about Bev - and I regret trying to help her organizing efforts 3 yrs ago -

but Hillary is not Roger - Hillary is the sponsor of HR811 in the Senate

Roger is not DFNH - he is one of 8 running the org but he is not against HR811.

DFNH per Roger is not Bev or her friend Nancy - but here we run into the fact the DFNH web site has anti-HR811 crap on it. I asked Roger about that and he said the DFNH Board should perhaps look into that, but he promised nothing. Roger appears to be a nice guy and a straight arrow and I was not about to browbeat him about what a website he does not have total control over does.

In my world Bev has less than no credibility - she mis-represented (lied) about what her intent was when she was asking for volunteer help many years ago. She treated David Allen - a super nice activist - like shit. David's site also has the BlackBox name - since he was there first - but you couldn't find a nicer progressive activist.

[Wilms]

55. Try "Hillary is a co-sponser of Feinstein's bill which is the Senate companion of 811"

That may clear up some of the confusion.

[Bill Bored]

58. Good point, but this is only true because DiFei Chairs the Sen. Rules Comm.

Actually S599, Sen. Nelson of FL's bill is closer to HR811, pre-amended, than the others.

At this point, there is NO real equivalent to HR811 in the Senate IMO but DiFei's bill and Holt's bill are the 2 most likely to be passed in each house in one form or another.

[papau]

74. Well said - I'll take anything they pass into conference with a passed HR811 n/t

n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

65. I don't recommend browbeating, but

frankly, if the organization has publicly taken a stance on HR 811 that the board doesn't actually endorse, then it's time for board members to step up. That's what I would expect of a "straight arrow."

Bev Harris has said flat out, "Democracy for New Hampshire has publicly come out against the bill." True or false?!

[papau]

77. nancy tobi posted the video to the site - I see no issues page and no "publically come out against"

anything on the site.

I have found what Bev Harris has "flatly said" to be untrue in the past - so I will wait until someone contacts each Board Member and finds one or more that says they have come out against HR811.

I contacted one of the 8 and did not get a "we have come out against HR811".

[OnTheOtherHand]

128. I think you are missing the point

Any casual observer of the website will assume that DfNH has come out against 811.

If that isn't true, then in effect the board is sitting by while someone hijacks their website. (And their events, judging from what I've heard about DemocracyFest.)

So if you are on speaking terms with Roger Goun, you might want to find a gentle way to ask whether he is really thinking about what is going on with an organization that presumably he cares about more than either you or me. If the board hasn't come out against 811, then it seems to me that someone is way out of line here. And every board member shares responsibility for that. It's an integral consequence of serving on a board. Democratic governance only works when it is exercised.

[Kelvin Mace]

87. Thanks for the nice

words.

You are very kind.

[fooj]

2. Maybe they can pass out cigars, eh?

There must be tons of them left over from the Clinton bullshit. Follow the money.

[Bill Bored]

3. I guess they'll be endorsing the Count Every Vote Act then. nt

[papau]

4. The endorsement of Hillary - who is the sponsor of the Senate bill version of HR811 - by those

wanting changes to HR811 before it is passed, is bad in what way?


Democracy for NH is indeed part of the group urging changes to HR811 - AND THEY ARE on our side.

As Kathy Dopp has said in a press release (and I stand with Kathy):
http://www.uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=144&Itemid=41

"According to leaders of The National Election Data Archive, Black Box Voting, Democracy for New Hampshire, and Citizens’ Alliance for Secure Elections, OH, there are serious flaws in current election reform proposals proposed by U.S. Congressman Rush Holt and Senator Bill Nelson (HR 811 & S559) and by Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Senator Hillary Clinton (HR1381 & S804).

Some election officials agree. Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chair of the New York State Board of Elections in a March 20, 2007 email correspondence said: "Congress got it wrong when it passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 and there is a high probability that HR 811 in its current form could create another form of expensive mischief that could interfere with efficient administration of elections."

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) have also written a joint letter on March 19, 2007 urging members of Congress to oppose HR811/S559.

Yet, federal election reform legislation is critically needed in early 2007 if it is to be in effect in time to assure the accuracy and truth of 2008 federal elections.

Kathy Dopp, President of the National Election Data Archive with help from state and county election officials and other election integrity activists such as Bev Harris, Director of Black Box Voting; Nancy Tobi, Cofounder of Democracy for New Hampshire and Chair, NH Fair Elections Committee; and Phil Fry of Citizens’ Alliance for Accurate Secure Elections OH have authored a "One-Page Concept Proposal for Federal Election Reform Legislation". The key ideas of their proposals are 1) citizen oversight of elections, 2) sufficient manual counts of paper ballots to verify the accuracy of election outcomes, 3) prohibit and monitor voter disenfranchisement, and 4) well-planned, long-term improvement of voting systems. They are also recommending that the US Election Assistance Commission be dissolved.

According to Dopp, their “One-Page Concept Proposal for Federal Election Reform Legislation” has more reasonable time frames, enforceable requirements, provisions for citizen oversight, respect of states’ rights and flexibility, provides sufficient funding to cover its requirements, and is more cost-efficient and effective than current election reform proposals.

AS TO THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE DISABLED DEAN SUPPORTER ROGER GUNN - THERE IS ALSO NO PROBLEM - HERE IS HIS BIO FROM RUN FOR OFFICE INTERNET SITE:

http://www.rogergoun.org/



Roger Goun, 46, grew up in New York, where he attended schools for severely-disabled children. At the age of 16 he began attending the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, where he studied computer science and engineering.

Roger's software engineering career has included work on computer-aided design and compound document architecture at Digital Equipment Corp., distributed systems research in the JavaSoft division of Sun Microsystems, Internet email infrastructure in Lotus Notes/Domino for IBM, and marketing systems for large retailers at a small startup company.

His political activation came as a result of Gov. Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, for which Roger volunteered for seven months. Following the 2004 New Hampshire Primary, Roger was one of the co-founders of Democracy for New Hampshire, a state political action committee that supports socially progressive, fiscally responsible candidates. Roger was instrumental in Maggie Hassan's successful 2004 and 2006 State Senate campaigns.

In 2006 Roger founded ListenUp: NH, a non-partisan project that videotaped down-ballot candidates and put them on the Web for free. He currently serves as Technical Director and a member of the Board of Directors of Democracy for New Hampshire, co-chair of the NH Democratic Party's disability constituency caucus, and chair of the Brentwood Democratic Town Committee.

Roger lives in Brentwood with his wife of 21 years, Dr. Jody Kaufman, owner of Brentwood Country Animal Hospital.

[Bill Bored]

7. Dopp has since endorsed HR811.

Hard to tell the players without a scorecard ain't it?

And by the way, Clinton's bill is NOT the Senate Version of HR811, it's the Senate version of Stepahnie Tubbs Jones' bill, the Count Every Vote Act.

[papau]

16. Dopp endorsed the amended HR811 on 5/17 - she refers to HR811/S559 as the bills we

want to pass.

BlackBox(not the Bev Harris) version) also endorses the HR811/S559 - I assume everyone assumes that in conference the amendments to HR811 will be adopted in the final bill.

Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007

In the Senate section of the government bill tracking system called Thomas, 559: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent paper trail is on that Thomas system as tied to HR 811, and has S559 has this section:

SPECIAL CERTIFICATION OF BALLOT DURABILITY AND READABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR STATES NOT CURRENTLY USING PAPER BALLOTS- If any of the voting systems used in a State for the regularly scheduled 2006 general elections for Federal office did not operate by having voters cast votes on paper ballots (such as through the use of an optical scan voting system), the State shall certify to the Election Assistance Commission not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act that the State will be in compliance with the requirements of section 301(a)(13) of the Help America Vote of 2002, as added by paragraph (1), in accordance with the deadline established under this Act, and shall include in the certification the methods by which the State will meet the requirements.

Indeed S559 has not been changed since being introduced in Feb. The the Count Every Vote Act of 2007 is S804 for the 2007 year and was not introduced until March.

S450 of 2005 the Count Every Vote Act is the Kerry /Clinton effort of that year which is most likely what you are thinking of.

and you are correct that it is Hard to tell the players without a scorecard!

So I just follow Kathy!

[Bill Bored]

59. I think you have all this right now.

S559 has not been amended so should not be referred to as HR811/S559.

But explain one thing to me:

Why is Kathy supporting HR811 now? As you know, she is in favor of proper auditing and there has been no significant changes to HR811 in the auditing sections since its introduction.

[Melissa G]

155. It is my memory from another forum that Kathy had input on the auditing

and that was why she started supporting HR811. I'll go research that and pm you the links if I can find them.
mg

[Bill Bored]

213. That's a big negatory. She said the audit was ineffective. nt

[papau]

8. hERE IS A LIST OF FLAWS (in HR811) and sources and "one page" suggestions

The one page of suggestions goes on for 11 pages and is therefore not posted in its entirety.
============================================================================
The flaws in current election reform bills proposed by Holt, Nelson, Clinton, and Tubbs-Jones are discussed in these papers and articles:

"Federal Election Audit Costs" shows that the HR811/S559 and HR1381/S804 election audits would give as low as a 10% probability of detecting outcome-altering vote fraud and yet cost 50% to 94% MORE than an election audit with a 99% success rate, when applied to 2002 and 2004 US House and Senate races.
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/FederalAuditCosts.pdf

Much of the testimony that has been given before the House Administration Committee on Election Reform is available publicly here: http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/HearingTestimony/
or will be posted here: http://www.cha.house.gov

Doug Kellner, NYS Board of Elections Co-Chair’ comments: http://www.wheresthepaper.org/CommentDouglasAKellner.htm

Joint letter of National Association of Counties and National Conference of State Legislatures
http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/HearingTestimony/NCSL-NACoopposeHoltBill.pdf

“Fool Me Once: Checking Vote Count Integrity”
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/TierElectionAuditEval.pdf

DeForest Soaries says that “EAC and Federal efforts for election reform 'A Charade,' 'Travesty'!
http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-6.htm#soaries

"Why we must not Re-Authorize the EAC"
http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/EAC-DoNotReauthorize.pdf

"The US Election Assistance Commission Has Not Done its Job" http://www.votersunite.org/info/TestimonyTheisen03-13-07.pdf

“Avoid Another HAVA Train Wreck: Software Disclosure Requirements are a Good Long Term Goal but Need to Be Redrafted in Current Federal Election Integrity Legislation.” http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/dopp/VotingSystemSoftwareDisclosure.pdf
David Wagner, computer scientist’s testimony on election reform before the House Admin committee: http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/HearingTestimony/wagner.pdf

“Critical changes are needed to Holt’s HR811”
http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/ChangesNeeded2HR811.pdf

“Holt's HR 811, A Deceptive Boondoggle -- 10 Blunders to Fix” by Bruce O’Dell http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bruce_o__070221_holt_s_hr_811_a_dece.htm

“What's Wrong with Holt II (HR 811)” by Bev Harris of Black Box Voting http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bev_harr_070208_what_s_wrong_with_ho.htm

“Summary of E-Voting as a Ponzi Scheme” by Nancy Tobi of Democracy for New Hampshire http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3571 or http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/files/PonziSummary.pdf

“New Version of Holt Bill: A Giant Step Backwards” by Nancy Tobi of Democracy for New Hampshire
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_070207_new_version_of_holt_.htm

HR811 Review by Marian Beddill
http://noleakybuckets.org/holt811/holt811detail.shtml/

“Who is Supporting and Who is Opposing Current Election Reform Legislation?”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_kathy_do_070325_who_is_opposing_or_s.htm

Analysis of the proposed "Count Every Vote" bill (federal legislation)
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3609

What's wrong with the NEW Holt Bill (HR 811)?
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3572

Stopping H.R. 550 as written because we can't compromise on democracy
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3084

Joint Letter to Congress on HR811/S559 of the National Association of Counties and The National Conference of State Legislatures
http://electionarchive.net/docs_other/HearingTestimony/NCSL-NACoopposeHoltBill.pdf
========================================================================================
========================================================================================
========================================================================================

One-Page Concept Proposal for Federal Election Reform Legislation

We recommend splitting current election reform legislation into several separate bills which each address a few topicsi. We agree with the National Association of Secretaries of State “NASS Approach to Federal Legislation”ii. States should have flexibility in meeting or exceeding federal requirements.iii In the interest of brevity, a list of detailed comments follows this one-page list of recommendations.

Immediate Measures for True and Accurate Elections

1. Manual Audits: Require sufficient verifiable manual audits of election results to ensure that outcomes are correct for all federal races. Provide funds for Audits and Auditable Voting Systems. Require replacement of paperless un-auditable voting systems. Require State Election Audit and Recount Committees, and create a U.S. Election Audit and Recount Committee whose functions would include approving election audit and recount procedures for federal elections; and setting standards and reasonable time frames for state auditable, audit, and voter service reports (see item #5 and definitions).

2. Security Precautions: Outlaw Wide Area Network connections to, and wireless capability in, voting
equipment; prohibit voting or transferring any voted ballots through any electronic network; and require states to make their security procedures available for public review and input.

3. Prohibit Practices that Disenfranchise Voters: See a specific list in “Detailed comments” section.
Sunshine Provisions and States’ Rights

4. Public Oversight Of Elections: The public can help to ensure the integrity of elections and audits and prevent voter disenfranchisement only if the public has Access to Election Data and Records: In
reasonable time frames, require election officials to make publicly available in original paper and
electronic form all election data and election records that could reveal fraud or errors in elections or are necessary to verify voter service reports and manual audits, prior to certification of results; and Public Right to Observe: Require jurisdictions to allow citizens to observe all aspects of elections. Election Monitoring Website: Create a GAO website for publicly displaying the auditable, audit, and voter service reports from the states.

5. Voter Service Reports: Require states to submit timely reports of detailed election data that can be used to measure voter disenfranchisement and voter service levels.

6. Reallocate the Functions of the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC): Preserve states’ rights
and do not reauthorize the US EAC.

Long-Term Improvement Of Voting Systems

7. Require Voting Technology with Disclosed Software, Security, Audit-ability, Privacy, and
Independent Ballot Verification for Voters with Disabilities: Allow ample time for standards-setting
including public input and prioritization of possibly conflicting requirements; development of
enforcement, testing, and monitoring systems; and for development, purchase, and training cycles; and
for development and adoption of State Implementation Plans. To improve existing voting systems, the
entire sequential process of setting standards, product development and implementation could take five to ten years, and federal requirements should enable jurisdictions to budget for voting equipment lifespans of at least 10 to 20 years.

Enforcement
After reasonable time frames, provide swift and certain penalties when an election jurisdiction fails ina transparency, auditing, or reporting obligation; or disenfranchises its voters. The goal is for election records and auditable, audit, and voter service reports to be available for public review and oversight prior to certification of election results and prior to swearing in of federal office-holders.

P. 1 prepared by Kathy Dopp, National Election Data Archive, [email protected] 4/6/2007
Anyone may freely use, copy, or disseminate under the sole condition that it be properly attributed.
<snip>

[Bill Bored]

12. HR811 has FLAWS? Who would've thought?

Which version of HR811 is this vast compendium referring to exactly, and how many of the authors have read any of them?

You do realize that Dopp supports HR811 now right? What's up with THAT?

[Wilms]

15. This shit is getting old.

I'd be more than happy to get off the fence and join the anti-HR811 forces if they could assure me that they're looking at the current version of the bill.

[papau]

18. The current version of the bill HR811 is fine - Democracy for NH helped make it that way n/t

n/t

[fooj]

32. And that's why all of Bev's little soldiers are spewing anti-HR811 venom.

Look- we weren't born yesterday. It's all by design. Bev doesn't give a shit about Democracy. If she did, she wouldn't be doing EVERYTHING in her power (mixed with the powers that be) to derail the democratic process. I'm sure you are aware of the 2900+ faxes she sent to election officials. You can't have it both ways. Either can she.

You see, it's all about credibility. She HAS NONE. Can you explain to me why she accused the Dems of cheating in Washington State over and over again when there was NOTHING there to prosecute. Ask US Attorney McKay. I'm certain he would LOVE to share his take on this bullshit with you. Funny how he ended up on Rove's "bad attorney because they won't falsely prosecute Dems" list. Like I said, it's all about credibility.

[BradBlog]

147. Hardy. Please see...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4650

[BradBlog]

148. Indeed...However...

I will not speak for anybody but myself. I helped write the originally introduced legislation, and have read EVERY version since.

And, as it's currently written, I could not support this dangerous bill.

Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite.org highlights some of the reasons why -- with which I concur -- today right here:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4650

[papau]

17. I posted this to show what was on folks minds before HR811 was amended n/t

n/t

[Wilms]

22. Yet your post stated:

"The flaws in current election reform bills..."

Thanks for the confusion.

[papau]

26. True - but the OP was assumed to have a reason for saying Dem for NH was against HR811 -sorry - n/t

n/t

[Wilms]

45. You're sorry?

No, no. I'm sorry. Sorry that even after this you weren't finished putting up even more confusion causing posts on this thread, as evidenced above.

Do you like being wrong and having to post retractions. :shrug:

[troubleinwinter]

46. It's called

'muddying' the issue, or more accurately:

[Wilms]

47. Well, to be fair, it's easy to do.

Personally, I'm giving c- grades to activists on both sides of this issue.

The commentary hasn't been as academic as would be required to have reasoned discussion. From there the fire spreads.

Have you seen Bob Krall's Op-Ed piece from Friday? I think there may be some good points in it...somewhere...but it's a pile of he said, she said, without attribution. It's called "Reasons to Reject and Replace the Holt HR 811 Bill on Voting Integrity". But I'm not really seeing them.

In it he calls for activists to post comments against the bill. Nothing much, except notably, a link from Paul Lehto that doesn't work.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

61. its "Rob Kall", and he also says

Kall also says that he has not read the bill, but has "trusted advisors" to do that.

Its amazing given that he has written and said so much about the bill.

[troubleinwinter]

62. I saw the "piece"

I don't see anything there at all. Fancy title, I guess, but nothing behind it. It is entirely nonsensical to me:

There's no doubt that the concensus... that the Holt bill is a lost cause.

There are some who say otherwise...

There's another group...

It is absolutely essential that a solid law regulating elections be put in place which applies to the 2008 presidential elections and preferably, the primaries too.

I've started this article so that in the comments section, election integrity experts can, in one place, post their understanding of why the Holt Bill must be rejected, so it can be used as a single link for local activism.

WTF?

There's a consensus but there isn't.

He wants a law by 2008 but invites only comments that can be used for activism that will scuttle such a possibility.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. Bush(Reagan ) Clinton Clinton/Bush Bush/Clinton Clinton???

ok.

1) do we really want a dynasty ruling our country?

2) do we trust or really even care what Democracy for New Hampshire thinks?

3) New Hampshire has had way too much say over elections, and thats about to change.

4) An unapologetic Pro War candidate?

[Bill Bored]

6. Sen. Clinton's Remarks from Jan. 6, 2005:

http://thankyoupatriot.com/clinton.htm

Last spring, India, the largest democracy— we are the oldest democracy, so in that way we are real partners in this great enterprise of democracy—had an election. Mr. President, 550 million or so people voted, from the dot-com billionaire to the poor illiterate peasant. They all voted. They voted on electronic voting machines. They voted in a way that guaranteed the safety, security, and accuracy of their vote. They had uniform standards. They had a nonpartisan board that oversaw that election, and the result was shocking. They threw out the existing government. Nobody had predicted that. Yet they did it with integrity.

Gee, I sure hope they had some of them thar Exit Polls to tell 'em if them e-votin' machines were countin' them votes awrite! (Tell you what.)

[papau]

9. Here is the technology used in India that Hillary praised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_voting_machines

Technology

Indian voting machines use a two-piece system with a balloting unit presenting the voter with a button (momentary switch) for each choice connected by a cable to an electronic ballot box.

An EVM consists of two units:

* Control Unit
* Balloting Unit

The two units are joined by a five-meter cable. The Control Unit is with the Presiding Officer or a Polling Officer and the Balloting Unit is placed inside the voting compartment. Instead of issuing a ballot paper, the Polling Officer in-charge of the Control Unit will press the Ballot Button. This will enable the voter to cast his vote by pressing the blue button on the Balloting Unit against the candidate and symbol of his choice.

The microchip used in EVMs is manufactured in Japan and it is sealed at the time of import. It cannot be opened and any attempt to rewrite the program cannot be done without damaging the chip.

Features

* EVMs can be used in areas with no power connections as they can run on an ordinary 6 volt alkaline battery manufactured by Bharat Electronics Ltd., Bangalore and Electronic Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad.
* Currently, an EVM can record a maximum of 3840 votes.
* Currently, an EVM can cater to a maximum of 64 candidates. There is provision for 16 candidates in a Balloting Unit. If the total number of candidates exceeds 16, a second Balloting Unit can be linked parallel to the first Balloting Unit. Similarly, if the total number of candidates exceeds 32, a third Balloting Unit can be attached and if the total number of candidates exceeds 48, a fourth Balloting Unit can be attached to cater to a maximum of 64 candidates.
* It is not possible to vote more than once by pressing the button again and again.As soon as a particular button on the Balloting Unit is pressed, the vote is recorded for that particular candidate and the machine gets locked. Even if one presses that button further or any other button, no further vote will be recorded. This way the EVMs ensure the principle of "one man, one vote".

Benefits

* The cost per EVM (One Control Unit, one Balloting Unit and one battery) was Rs.5,500/- at the time the machines were purchased in 1989-90. Even though the initial investment was somewhat heavy, it was more than neutralized by the savings in the matter of production and printing of ballot papers in lakhs, their transportation, storage etc., and the substantial reduction in the counting staff and the remuneration paid to them.
* It will be easier to transport the EVMs compared to ballot boxes as EVMs are lighter, portable and come with polypropylene carrying cases.
* The vote-counting is very fast and the result can be declared within 2 to 3 hours as compared to 30-40 hours, on an average, under the ballot-paper system.
* In countries like India, where illiteracy is common, illiterate people find EVMs easier than ballot paper system, where one has to put the voting stamp on the symbol of the candidate of his/her choice, fold it first vertically and then horizontally and thereafter put it into the ballot box. In EVMs, the voter has to simply press the blue button against the candidate and symbol of his choice and the vote is recorded.
* Bogus voting can be greatly reduced by the use of EVMs. In case of ballot paper system, a bogus voter can stuff thousands of bogus ballot papers inside the ballot box. But, an EVM is programmed to record only five votes in a minute. This will frustrate the bogus voters.
* If an EVM goes out-of-order then, the Election Officer, in-charge of the polling booth, can replace the defunct EVM with a spare EVM. The votes recorded until the stage when the EVM went out of order remain safe in the memory of the Control Unit and it is not necessary to start the poll from the beginning.
* The Control Unit can store the result in its memory for 10 years and even more. The battery is required only to activate the EVMs at the time of polling and counting. As soon as the polling is over, the battery can be switched off and this will be required to be switched on only at the time of counting. The battery can be removed as soon as the result is taken and can be kept separately. Therefore, there is no question of battery leaking or otherwise damaging EVMs. Even when the battery is removed the memory in the microchip remains intact. If the Court orders a recount, the Control Unit can be reactivated by fixing the battery and it will display the result stored in the memory.
* Invalid votes can be avoided by use of EVMs. When ballot system was used in India, the number of invalid votes was more than the winning margin between the candidates in every general elections. With EVMs, there are no invalid votes.
* Since EVMs work on a 6-volt battery, there is absolutely no chance of any voter getting an electric shock.

Usage of an EVM

If the number of candidates is less than the maximum capacity of the EVM, the extra panels are masked before use.

Before the commencement of poll, the Presiding Officer demonstrates to the polling agents present that there are no hidden votes already recorded in the machine by pressing the result button. Thereafter, he/she conducts a mock poll by asking the polling agents to record their votes and presses the result button to satisfy them that the result shown is strictly according to the choice recorded by them. Thereafter, the clear button is pressed to clear the result of the mock poll before commencing the actual poll.

Each Control Unit has a unique ID Number, which is painted on each unit with a permanent marker. This ID Number will be allowed to be noted by the Polling Agents and will also be recorded in a Register maintained for the purpose by the Returning Officer. The address tag attached to the Control Unit also will indicate this ID Number. This is to avoid replacement of a genuine EVM by another one.

As soon as the voter presses the 'blue button' against the candidate and symbol of his choice, a tiny lamp on the left side of the symbol glows red and simultaneously a long beep sound is heard. Thus, there is both audio and visual indications for the voter to be assured that his vote has been recorded.

As soon as the last voter has voted, the Polling Officer in-charge of the Control Unit will press the 'Close' Button. Thereafter, the EVM will not accept any vote. Further, after the close of poll, the Balloting Unit is disconnected from the Control Unit and kept separately. Votes can be recorded only through the Balloting Unit. Again the Presiding officer, at the close of the poll, will hand over to each polling agent present an account of votes recorded. At the time of counting of votes, the total will be tallied with this account and if there is any discrepancy, this will be pointed out by the Counting Agents.

Limitations of electronic voting

A candidate can know people from which polling station voted for him and people from which did not. This problem was well-evident in Indian general elections, 2004; the day after the election results were declared, The Times of India, Mumbai carried statistics about which areas in Mumbai voted for which candidate. For e.g. people from Kandivali gave more votes to Govinda, while people from Borivali polled more votes for his opponent Ram Naik. The Election Commission of India argues that the mixing system of counting can avoid this. The result from each EVM can be fed into a Master Counting Machine and only the total result of an Assembly Constituency will be known and not the result in each individual polling station.

[Bill Bored]

10. This is reassuring!

"The microchip used in EVMs is manufactured in Japan and it is sealed at the time of import. It cannot be opened and any attempt to rewrite the program cannot be done without damaging the chip."

Sounds like Secret Vote Counting to me!

Surely DFNH would not condone this? And what? No hand counted paper ballots? I am shocked, SHOCKED! Actually SHOCKED!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. they lost gazillion of those machines

but any system can be foiled, baffled or thwarted.

I think it took weeks to get the results in even with elephants hauling those
EVMs all over the place.

But isn't it good to know that we are getting such sound advice?

[Bill Bored]

13. Can I buy one on EBay? nt

[papau]

19. The vote total is 5 times ours in a few hundred languages with most illiterate so a paper trail

would be a cruel joke.

I think they did well in their election.

[althecat]

64. Good lord!!!

[kster]

88. So, how long will it take for this Country to get back to Counting the Ballots by Hand

All this HR811-550, Bev Harris, Holt yada yada yada, it just gets silly, Don't ya think? We need Hand Counted Paper Ballots, we are all adults, we KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG.

OK one more time, I'll say it slower

We need Hand Counted Paper Ballots, we are all adults, we KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG. :)

[Kelvin Mace]

91. And we have addressed this issue at least a dozen times

Hand counting over 100 million ballots in 3,000+ jurisdictions isn't realistic, isn't practical, isn't cost effective and isn't accurate.

We have shown the math, explained the logistics, and documented the flawed logic.

I now await some one to bring up the very same discredited arguments to justify the plan.

[Wilms]

92. There are two problems with what you posted.

1. There are places in this country that still HCPB. Their model may not fit everywhere, but it may well fit in other jurisdictions of a similar demographic.

2. The other problem is you probably just pissed off kster. You are sooooo screwed! LOL!

[Bill Bored]

93. f-ck-ng pr-ck :) nt

[Wilms]

96. Rude New Yorker!

:rofl:

[kster]

120. You were slowly winning me over

UNTIL NOW.

[troubleinwinter]

121. I'd have thought you'd have been flattered that he quoted your wise words.

:shrug:

[kster]

122. F-ck-ng Pr-ck, is reserved for any one that is selling secret vote counting machine's

to OUR families,Friends and Neighbors and then telling our Families,Friends and Neighbors, that, the reason they need to buy these machines with their own money, is because they are to STUPID to count them ballots BY THEMSELVES, that my Friend is a F-CK-NG PR-CK!! And we all know it!! But some of us like to ACT DUMB!!!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

124. guess you will just LOVE Feinstein's bill

wonder what you will do to win her over?

[Wilms]

123. Dear Bill,

I am sorry for your recent loss.

I know how much your budding relationship with kster meant to you.

Don't despair. Someone new will come along to replace those happy moments of intellectual discourse the two of you enjoyed.

With love,

Wilms

[OnTheOtherHand]

127. LMAO! n/t

[kster]

162. See what happens when you take a chill pill and lighten up, that was good

see how easy that was, soon you will be the one liner king :rofl:

[Bill Bored]

214. Tell me again how I was winning you over.

Was it the hand counted paper ballot with Hitler on it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x474080

[Kelvin Mace]

100. Nope

I addressed that issue. I even addressed it in actual LAW.

The NC law we crafted allows ANY county to use HCPB. I personally have never opposed HCPB WHERE PRACTICAL.

The trouble is, such places are rare, but I am totally IN FAVOR of HCPB where they make sense.

As to pissing off Kster, occupational hazard.

[Wilms]

104. Thanks for that clarification.

Considering that so many think HAVA outlaws HCPB or mandates DRE's I think it important to keep the record straight.

As for the occupational hazard, you cracked me up. :toast:

[Kelvin Mace]

108. *sigh*

Yeah, people have lots of misconceptions. It is what happens when they they let other people read the law for them.

These days I stay out of the issue, except when my name is invoked (kind of like a demon in Dungeons & Dragons, which many people would claim is appropriate).

[troubleinwinter]

117. Not to piss off our friend, but...

I think most, if not ALL supporters of 811 support HCPB wherever it is chosen and can work. 811 actually brings HCPB closer by ridding us of paperless DREs. It isn't a gigantic leap from opscan to hand count. Killing 811 guarantees the paperless machines they claim to oppose.

I ran across an old post from another site:

Victory begets victory. Steps forward are opportunities to build organization and coalition. They make the next steps smaller than they'd need to be now, which makes them easier. And they take nothing away from the energy of an informed, active grassroots movement that wants to do more.

Your comment about "demographic" is interesting. Sufficient poll workers is a particular problem in urban, poor and minority areas. I did a lot of work to compare demographic statistics between Los Angeles County (where a lack of poll workers is an acknowleged problem) and New Hampshire(which uses some HCPB). Los Angeles (roughly eight times the population of the entire state of NH) has large populations of minority, poor and urban areas.

If HCPB ballots were forced before a proven system and logistics are in place and it failed into chaos, WHO WILL BE DISENFRANCHISED? The urban /poor /minorities AGAIN.

But HCPB ballots are not going to be happening across the country for a mighty long time. Scuttling 811 most likely sets HCPB back. Nope, derailing 811 will give the paperless DREs comfortable status now.

[kster]

118. You just keep it up, and you don't you care how silly you sound..

"811 actually brings HCPB closer" PLEASE..........

[Kelvin Mace]

126. And you keep up the fact free posts

[Wilms]

119. Excellent post!

kster's incisive critique notwithstanding.

[kster]

94. Us damn Mericans can't count, must use that there machine

to count that there ballots.

Thats very Lame to say the least. Give me a HUGE fucking break!!!

We need Hand Counted Paper Ballots, we are all adults, we KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG.

[Kelvin Mace]

98. Yep, same lame, fact free rhetoric

as before.

Simply make the same statement over and over again to make a point.

[kster]

105. YOU ARE CORRECT.nt

[troubleinwinter]

106. You forgot the kids.

[kster]

109. I never forget OUR kids, They need to see and/or Count the ballots by hand

WE BOTH KNOW THAT, its just that you have a silly story as to why they shouldn't.

[Kelvin Mace]

112. Yeah, and that silly story is called

"The Facts".

I am still waiting to see a draft, and ACTUAL draft of alternative legislation from you and your camp.

Still haven't seen word one.

[kster]

114. We convince Our kids to buy vote counting machine's because they are

incapable of counting the Ballots by themselves?

You are beyond making ANY sense.

[Wilms]

115. The problem here is parents who imagine reading things that weren't written by other posters.

It seems accepted fact that you are beyond making ANY sense.

If I wanted to discredit the ER movement, I'd hire you to post here.

[kster]

116. Good..nt

[Kelvin Mace]

137. Some day, when you actually want to address the MERITS

and FACTS of the argument instead of trying for rhetorical non-sequitors, let me know.

[troubleinwinter]

156. It actually would be a worthy discussion.

I have asked questions about the practical logistics of implementing HCPB over and over, with no response. It comes down to pretty slogans rather than a serious desire to work out the real-life implementation.

Whateryagonna do? :shrug:

Just stomp feet, CLAIM that "all HCPB" will work everywhere, don't answer the questions of logistics, let it all fall into fiasco and chaos, then proudly march over the smouldering ruins playing piccolos, waving flags and claiming victory.

[kster]

161. I WILL ANSWER YOU, FOR A SECOND TIME

HCPB for all federal races in the 2008 elections. This would mean hand counting just 1-3 races (the president and vice president; your U.S. senator if s/he is up for re-election; your U.S. Representative). Yes, we would need two ballots, one for these races and one for all other contests and questions on the ballots. Canada already uses an HCPB system for its federal races. Various states and municipalities already have protocols for HCPB, and one has been presented in this paper. These could easily be adapted from one jurisdiction to another.


http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/specials/article.2006-04-


This is where you can find my answer to the Last time you asked me this SAME question.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=456594&mesg_id=473995

You asked twice but yet you REMAIN SILENT :shrug:

[troubleinwinter]

167. Kucinich's HR-6200. It died with the last congress.

[Kelvin Mace]

111. Oh, yes, I forgot

I hate kids because I don't support universal HCPB,

[kster]

113. I am really sorry about that, Kelvin Mace..nt

[kiteinthewind]

130. But..but..hand counting--that just TOOOO hard..

Democracy, well we just have to compromise to make it easy. :sarcasm:

BTW, I agree with you totally, kpete! :toast:

[Kelvin Mace]

131. It is not an issue of being "too hard"

it is an issue of of being impractical, inaccurate and logistically unworkable.

[kiteinthewind]

132. I happen to disagree. We humans are a pretty capable species. What do you think we did before the

"Great 'Counting' Machines"? :eyes:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

134. balls in a bucket

before computerized machines (DREs starting in the 1980s) there were optical scanners for several decades, and before that lever machines since late 1800s.

HCPB was used when ballots were simple, and before the industrial age.
Still in use in less than 1% of the country, in places like 1/3 of New Hampshire and
in dozens of townships in Wisconsin.

HCPB can be rigged big time, just imagine some brownshirts like in Florida in 2000,
who controlled the recounting of the paper punch cards.

Or Mexico or Nigeria.

We could HCPB if we

reduced our ballots down to single contest items like in Australia, Canada, Germany, Mexico, Iraq,
the UK, Russia and others.

These countries vote for parliament, not president.

[kiteinthewind]

135. "HCPB can be rigged big time"--Not with proper oversight and chain of custody. You

are wasting your time with the tag-teaming, BTW. HCPB's is very do able and I won't be drawn into your attacks. It is clear you have a horse in the race. Good day.

[Kelvin Mace]

139. Really? And just exactly what horse does she have in the race

Pray, enlighten us!

[OnTheOtherHand]

140. I thought it was intended as satire

...I won't be drawn into your attacks. It is clear you have a horse in the race.

Leaving it to us to supply the antiphon: "Projection, much?"

[Kelvin Mace]

136. No matter how you slice it

you can't ACCURATELY count a multi-page ballot with 30-60 items, especially in jurisdictions (like mine) where they have to count 100,000+ ballots. We've done the math it just doesn't work. Pretending otherwise and sticking your fingers in your ears while singing so you can ignore the facts will not help matters.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

152. Glass globes

Before paper, and when there was paper, there were other systems too:

Glass globe ballot jar
Like the slot-top wooden ballot box, this 1884 box with a glass chamber
is typical of the devices used to secure single party tickets.
The image of the glass ballot box became a symbol of democratic self-government.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/vote/paperballots.html

Paperless voting in late 1800's

Popular Science Monthly cover
By 1920 the gear-and-lever voting machine had become the official voting method in New York, Minnesota, California, Connecticut, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Utah, Colorado, Montana, Illinois, Washington, Massachusetts, and Kansas. The voting machine, pictured in Popular Science Monthly with a contemplative voter, became a symbol of good government and progressive reform. http://americanhistory.si.edu/vote/votingmachine.html

[kster]

160. This Anti Hand Count group refuses to address this idea

HCPB for all federal races in the 2008 elections. This would mean hand counting just 1-3 races (the president and vice president; your U.S. senator if s/he is up for re-election; your U.S. Representative). Yes, we would need two ballots, one for these races and one for all other contests and questions on the ballots. Canada already uses an HCPB system for its federal races. Various states and municipalities already have protocols for HCPB, and one has been presented in this paper. These could easily be adapted from one jurisdiction to another.


http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/specials/article.2006-04-10.1693298872

It takes away ALL their SILLY ASS "our ballots are to complicated to hand count" debates.

Hang in there kiteinthewind :thumbsup:

[BradBlog]

141. Another misleading piece of propaganda from the Pro-Holt folks apparently...

Note the subject of the original post is (deceptively) "Anti HR 811 Group Endorses Hillary Clinton".

In fact, as the actual post shows, the endorser is a co-founder of the group, and the group itself has, to my knowledge, in no way endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Why the pro-Holt folks who could perfectly and legitimately make their case that Holt, even with it's flaws, is better than the various alternatives, feel it necessary to mislead about the bill and/or stuff like this is a continuing disappointment to see.

I'd expect such tactics from the Rightwing. I'm sorry to have seen it become so pervasive among the folks that I would otherwise consider to be "the good guys".

The subject of this post is a perfect example of it.

For an honest and non-misleading interpretation/opinion on Holt (and it's various dangers), please see the just posted: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4650 by Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite.org

[OnTheOtherHand]

142. how about you read the thread?!

We cleared that up by #41. You're calling out one hundred comments too late.

Thanks for stopping by.

[Kelvin Mace]

151. Another hit and run poster without all the facts

[kster]

163. Here's a hit and run question for ya, what do you think of this idea

HCPB for all federal races in the 2008 elections. This would mean hand counting just 1-3 races (the president and vice president; your U.S. senator if s/he is up for re-election; your U.S. Representative). Yes, we would need two ballots, one for these races and one for all other contests and questions on the ballots. Canada already uses an HCPB system for its federal races. Various states and municipalities already have protocols for HCPB, and one has been presented in this paper. These could easily be adapted from one jurisdiction to another.

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/specials/article.2006-04-10.1693298872


People keep asking me how do you count a complicated ballot, but everyone Remains Silent when I give them this idea. WHY? What do you think of this idea? Is it workable?

[Kelvin Mace]

169. To answer your question:

First, let me address this point:

People keep asking me how do you count a complicated ballot, but everyone Remains Silent when I give them this idea. WHY? What do you think of this idea? Is it workable?

First time I have seen it proposed. If you have asked me before and I missed it, then I apologize.

I would have NO problem in theory hand counting the Federal races if they were placed on a single ballot. I would still love to see the logistics of how this would be done, since you have just split the election process in half, something which I don't see election officials greeting with open arms.

If there are only THREE races on the ballot, then yes it would be possible to hand count accurately IF SUFFICIENT RESOURCES (PEOPLE, MONEY, FACILITIES) WERE DELEGATED TO THE TASK.

As to whether it is workable, that I have doubts about, since as I said, you have split the election in two. If you could somehow convince all 50 states to move state/local elections to a different day (good luck), you might have a chance. You would also have to have sufficient people to count, excellent chain of custody procedures and strict surveillance of the process.

I'd be happy to comment further when I see the legislation crafted.

Edited to update:

Also, are you saying that you would be happy to have state/local elections and issues counted by computer? Seems to me that far more mischief can be done at these levels. After all, the Right spent YEARS, DECADES even, getting themselves elected at the state and local level so they could influence the Federal elections.

[kster]

164. Surely you can answer this question,

HCPB for all federal races in the 2008 elections. This would mean hand counting just 1-3 races (the president and vice president; your U.S. senator if s/he is up for re-election; your U.S. Representative). Yes, we would need two ballots, one for these races and one for all other contests and questions on the ballots. Canada already uses an HCPB system for its federal races. Various states and municipalities already have protocols for HCPB, and one has been presented in this paper. These could easily be adapted from one jurisdiction to another.

http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/specials/article.2006-04...


People keep asking me how do you count a complicated ballot, but everyone Remains Silent when I give them this idea. WHY? What do you think of this idea? Is it workable?

I asked this question several time

HERE) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=473748&mesg_id=474003

HERE) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=473748&mesg_id=474001

And HERE) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=456594&mesg_id=473995

But all I get is ...



It doesn't seem like a complicated question, does it?

[OnTheOtherHand]

165. actually, it's irrelevant

kster, your response to "how are we count to hand-count all the votes?" is to suggest an alternative that doesn't call for hand-counting all the votes -- only the federal ones. How about all those other votes? do they count themselves?

Your supporting evidence, or whatever, is a broken link. Maybe it wasn't broken the first time you posted it, but after you spammed it a few times, it certainly is broken now.

If you seriously want to discuss a proposal that doesn't abolish the 'stealer machines,' by all means, seriously discuss it.

[kiteinthewind]

166. What a perfectly appropriate pic, kster! LOL!

:evilgrin:

[troubleinwinter]

170. From the article in your dead link:

"To begin a movement for HCPB, ordinary citizens, registered voters, must begin organizing door-to-door with their neighbors to petition their local election officers and demand HCPB in their city or town. Although organizing could also proceed on a state level, going municipality by municipality is a good way to start, depending on your state’s laws."

Seems reasonable. How's it going for you?

[kster]

172. Al Gore had a plan for Hand Counting the Ballots and

being as he has BEEN THERE DONE THAT, He should know BEST that it can indeed be done, if we use Al Gores plan to Hand Count all the Ballots from Florida 2000, and we KNOW going into the election 2008 that we are going to be Hand counting the ballots, we should be able to streamline Al Gores plan, and hand count not just one, but three races in couple of days.

HERES Al Gores statement...

Offer to Bush: Hand count, then meet to show unity
I propose a way to settle this matter with finality and justice.
First, we should complete hand counts already begun in Palm Beach, Dade, &
being as he has BEEN THERE DONE THAT...

Broward Counties to determine the true intentions based on an objective evaluation of their ballots. Observers and participants from both parties should be present in every counting room as required under Florida law. If this happens, I will abide by the result, and I will take no legal action to challenge the result.

I am also prepared, if Gov. Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida. I would also be willing to abide by that result. We believe the count can be completed within seven days of the time it starts.

Second, I propose that Gov. Bush and I meet personally, before the vote count is finished, not to negotiate, but to improve the tone of our dialogue in America.

Shortly after the results are known, we should both come together for another meeting to reaffirm our national unity.
Source: Statement by Al Gore on Florida recount Nov 15, 2000

http://www.issues2002.org/2008/Al_Gore_Principles_+_Values.htm#Florida_Recount

[Kelvin Mace]

174. For the record

I answered your question, but have seen nothing further from you on how you will put such a plan in action.

[kster]

176. Al Gore's plan would be far superior to any of my plans

Al Gore:

"I propose a way to settle this matter with finality and justice.
First, we should complete hand counts already begun in Palm Beach, Dade, & Broward Counties to determine the true intentions based on an objective evaluation of their ballots. Observers and participants from both parties should be present in every counting room as required under Florida law. If this happens, I will abide by the result, and I will take no legal action to challenge the result.

I am also prepared, if Gov. Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida. I would also be willing to abide by that result. We believe the count can be completed within seven days of the time it starts".



Was Al Gore not telling the truth? Lets say Dennis Kucinich gets HR6200 done, do you think he is going to be standing there saying "OH SHIT" how am I going to Hand Count all those ballots?

I can picture Kucinich after HR6200 passes



Dennis Kucinich video, We Count Votes
http://blip.tv/file/82767

Come on Kelvin.

[troubleinwinter]

179. Still, it is not a "plan"

it was a call for completing the "count".

Kucinich is not going to "get HR6200 done". It is DEAD. It died with the last congress.

[Kelvin Mace]

196. As pointed out,

this dealt with the recount, not a comprehensive plan for ongoing elections. This would have been a "one time" deal.

What is YOUR plan to implement this in ALL 50 states going forward? Show me the bill you wrote, helped craft, or are backing. You say "come on Kelvin" like I am somehow disagreeing with your plan (even when I agree with you, it's not enough). You have made a proposal. I have said I support your idea in theory, and that I want to see a concrete plan. You point to something Al Gore said about a recount that is not a law in the context we are discussing.

What have you ACTUALLY DONE to implement such a plan?

Again, what we have here seems to me to be people who have no actual plan, but rather an abstract concept, and an abstract concept they have made NO effort to render as a tangible plan. I spent two years of my life lobbying my home state, making calls, visiting legislators, speaking to groups across the state (at my own expense, on my own time), talking with the press, attending public hearings, election board meetings, writing letters to newspapers and making a nuisance of myself. While I was one small part of the effort, the end result was a law, unanimously passed by both parties in NC. Is the law perfect? No, we are STILL working on other changes, while at the same time fighting attempts by BBV makers and election officials to weaken, ignore or overturn the law.

So, again I ask, what are YOU doing to bring your concept of HCPB nationwide to fruition? Attacking me on this board doesn't seem to me to be advancing your cause.

[troubleinwinter]

177. There is no "PLAN for Hand Counting the Ballots"

The statements relate to continuing the count in FLA at the time.

IF you truly want hand counted ballots, I suggest you first support HR-811, then follow the advice offered in the article you posted, which advises "to petition their local election officers and demand HCPB in their city or town. Although organizing could also proceed on a state level, going municipality by municipality is a good way to start, depending on your state’s laws."

[kster]

180. So Al Gore was joking when he said he could Hand Count

the State of Florida in 7 days?

If he didn't have a plan on how to do the Hand count, I don't think he would have went public with the statement. Do you?

Maybe you you think this is how Al Gore would have collected all those ballots in order to do his Hand Count.



I THINK AL Gore had a better plan than this, don't you?

[troubleinwinter]

182. OHKAY!

You seem to understand the "plan" that you believe Gore laid out in 2000 better than we do.

Please lay the "plan" out for us, point by point.

[kster]

183. Al Gore, would not suggest something that he can't back up

If he says he can Hand Count the Ballots in the entire State of Florida in 7 days, YOU CAN REST ASSURED he can and will do it.

Thats the point, you say it can't be done, Al Gore says it can be done, let me think, who would the majority, of the DU bet on being correct, you or Al Gore?

[troubleinwinter]

185. I'm confused or dense or something. I hoped you would post "The Plan" for us.

[kster]

187. No your not, I don't know Al Gore personally , but,

I'm pretty sure if we ask him what his plan was, that he would share it with us. :)

[troubleinwinter]

188. Oh. I thought you were promoting his "PLAN" on these several threads.

So you don't know of any "plan" but claim its existence as support for your position?!!

I am just dumbfounded.

[kster]

190. Just want to remind you that there are people reading this

any REASONABLE person knows what you are doing. I want everyone in the USA to view the counting of ballots out in the open for everyone to see, Thats reasonable isn't it. What do you want?

[troubleinwinter]

192. I simply "want" you to lay out the "plan" you claim.

I ask you to explain what you are talking about.

"What do you want?" I would like you to tell us about 'the plan' that you claim Gore puts forth.

[Wilms]

193. I find myself in the uncomfortable position of appreciating aspects of each side in this debate.

I have to ask you, and others, if sitting back and considering how productive these "discussions" are is a possibility.

In peace.

[kster]

195. The best thing to happen to America in a very long time

you have high school dropouts to college graduates, discussing the issues, what can be better than that, I know you are not especially fond of this, but "we the people are gaining on these S-elected Politicians, it is indeed only a matter of time before everyone realizes that they (the Politicians) are not elected by the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, but that they are selected by corporate America, with corporate America's, secret vote counting machines.

My two cents

[Kelvin Mace]

198. As I point out in a post here and elsehwere

Here's what I would like from the HCPB advocates:

A detailed plan of HOW you intend to hand count ballots in all 50 states for a general election

And abstract discussion of a concept (HCPB for federal elections only) is NOT a plan. References to something Al Gore proposed doing in 2000 is NOT a plan. Attacks on other posters ethics, intelligence, etc, is NOT a plan.

A plan is:

1) The text of the bill you will introduce.
2) How you will get it introduced.
3) How much your plan will cost.
4) How many people your plan will need to implement at each level (local/state/national)
5) What safeguards you plan will institute and how those safeguards will work.
6) How you will maintain a chain of custody.
7) How you will handle recounts.
8) How you will deal with obstacles to making it a law (i.e. How you will deal with objections from vendors, election officials, party flacks, etc).
9) Who will endorse your plan.
10) How you will organize support for your plan at the various levels needed (local/state/federal election officials, election law, netroots, Main Street America, and politically.

I could go on with many other sub-levels of the above, but I'll settle for that.

It is damned easy for people like Brad, Bev, Paul, Kster, et al, to look at our efforts and simply bellow "no" over and over again, interspersed with cries of "Hand-counted paper ballots fuh-evah!", it is another to actually craft a solution. It is fine to say, "We don't want a federal law", but then you have to address how you will solve the problem on a state-by-state basis.

Joyce McCloy and her group in NC took action, addressed the issue, helped get a bill drafted, shepherded the bill through the legislature, and now defends the bill after the fact. In so doing, she asked only that people write/call their representatives. At no time did she ask for money.

Bev, Brad, Paul, and many others have come to DU soliciting money to solve the problem, they have raised LOTS of money, yet the problem still exists. Worse, we see no competent independent accounting for the money people have given. Worse still, when demands are made for such an accounting, the people doing so are viciously attacked and smeared by the people who received the money and their supporters.

What is wrong with this picture?

[BradBlog]

201. And as I correct you, apparently, yet again...

Kelvin Mace said:

It is damned easy for people like Brad, Bev, Paul, Kster, et al, to look at our efforts and simply bellow "no" over and over again, interspersed with cries of "Hand-counted paper ballots fuh-evah!", it is another to actually craft a solution. It is fine to say, "We don't want a federal law", but then you have to address how you will solve the problem on a state-by-state basis.

Apparently not nearly as easy as it is for you to misreport facts. Haven't "cried" for HCPB or against a federal law. In fact, I helped write the Holt bill.

Bev, Brad, Paul, and many others have come to DU soliciting money to solve the problem, they have raised LOTS of money, yet the problem still exists. Worse, we see no competent independent accounting for the money people have given. Worse still, when demands are made for such an accounting, the people doing so are viciously attacked and smeared by the people who received the money and their supporters.

What is wrong with this picture?

It's inaccurate and misleading, that's what wrong with it.

Brad

[kster]

204. Holy crap!! How did I get in your group

I'm not worthy

[Kelvin Mace]

216. uh, right

Haven't "cried" for HCPB or against a federal law.

Let me quote you on Holt:

"Personally, as it's currently written, I believe HR811 to be a grave danger to Electoral Integrity in America."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=473748&mesg_id=473973

And you said that in THIS VERY THREAD. I'm sorry, but my understanding of English leads me to understand you are against the bill.

In fact, I helped write the Holt bill.

Well, well you write something you could support?

But that aside, I'm afraid I need some actual hard evidence that you actually helped WRITE the Holt bill.

Then you can answer my question.

You can also answer TW's questions about being involved with a convicted bomber.

[OnTheOtherHand]

217. one clarification

Presumably Brad meant that he isn't opposed to a federal law in general, in the way that Harris and Tobi are. He wants a bill that would ban DREs outright (and do some other things).

As for the rest, maybe Brad will drive on back and illuminate it for us.

[Kelvin Mace]

218. Since we are discussing Holt

and he claimed to have helped write it, I assume he meant Holt.

I have looked around on the net for evidence of this, but found none. I would call Holt's office and inquire, but then I would be accused of taking orders from my masters.

And before anyone asks for proof from me, my name actually appears on the committee report to the NC General Assembly, and numerous news stories quote me on the committee.

I would assume that if Brad had some hand in the Holt bill, similar evidence would exist.

[OnTheOtherHand]

219. I don't think so -- consider the context

You: "It is fine to say, 'We don't want a federal law', but then you have to address how you will solve the problem on a state-by-state basis."

Brad: "Haven't 'cried' for HCPB or against a federal law. In fact, I helped write the Holt bill."

So, it seems, he isn't against a federal law in general, but he doesn't like the way the Holt bill turned out.

Now, as for "I helped write the Holt bill," I'm reminded of a song from Free to Be You and Me. But it's perfectly plausible that he was somehow "in the loop," and perhaps some of his suggestions found their way into the bill. As a passing comment, "helped write" could be reasonable.

I'm quite undelighted with how Brad has used his bully pulpit in this matter, but there does seem to be some clear distance between him and the others. It has some ironic consequences. For instance, as I remember it, in the course of a discussion thread, Brad once crossposted an article here about how HR 811 opponents were disingenuously claiming that all its opponents were HCPB advocates. The first response was kster saying something like, "HCPB Forever!" I don't know whether kster even noticed that he was disagreeing with Brad. I'm not a "DRE ban or bust" fellow, but it makes more sense to me than "HCPB or bust." I guess.

But, in my view, Brad has tended to enable a lot of intellectually slack stuff that he could have opposed, feeding the apocalyptic current of the movement. Also, his assertion that HR 811 allows "paperless voting" is a use of English of which I do not approve.

[Kelvin Mace]

221. I stand corrected

You clarify the point for me.

Thanks!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

222. maybe we all "helped" write the bill

Just like we are all Time Person of the Year.

There are some people who will think that Brad is saying he helped author the bill.

Is Brad saying that he wrote sections of the bill, or that he perhaps emailed some suggestions?

If the latter, again then many people or organizations may also have written parts of the bill.

And as for the zealous "anti's"I think people are aware that the "anti's" have
differing reasons.

And for the "DRE ban or nothing", well, that has similar effect as the "anti's", in
that it tells lawmakers that their best efforts aren't sufficient.

We saw this over and over in North Carolina, the "its my way or no way" ended up
not only NOT getting what they wanted, but getting something worse.

Go figure, thats just how it panned out.

Also, the groups that used the most outlandish rhetoric seemed to have the
least positive impact on their officials.

Before someone chides me for saying this, its just the way it proved out in 100 counties.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

223. Mission Accomplished, never the less

I'm quite undelighted with how Brad has used his bully pulpit in this matter, but there does seem to be some clear distance between him and the others.

Isn't the result the same?

Wont we still end up with "Mission Accomplished"?

[OnTheOtherHand]

224. yes, I think the result is the same

I see no practical difference between "HCPB or bust" or "DRE ban or bust." They both end up as "bust," and I don't support "bust."

(Of course, it's possible that HR 811 could be worse than nothing, but like you, I don't at all think that it is.)

That doesn't mean I think people should call Brad an HCPBer -- that's just confusing.

Sure, lots of people helped write 811. I assume Brad's point was not to take credit for writing a bill he opposes, but just to underscore that he isn't a knee-jerk opponent of any and all federal legislation. I disagree with Brad about a bunch of things; I don't need to go looking for more!

[kster]

203. Whats Holts plan? If his big 2% hand audit shows that the machine was manipulated

will he run them through the same machine again? Are you serious?

Holt or none of the (REMAIN SILENT ABOUT THE COUNTING MACHINE) Presidential Candidates don't have a plan to Hand Count the Paper Ballots, in the event there is a power failure, machine manipulation or human error?

I think your fibbing Kelvin

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

207. not 2% but audits of 3-10% of all precincts

From "HR 811: Separating Truth From Fiction in E-voting Reform" June 13, 2007

* Require manual audits of every federal election. HR 811 would not mandate (or forbid) the counting of VVPBs in all circumstances. Instead, HR 811 would require, for the first time in American history, across-the-board manual audits of federal elections. See proposed Sec. 321(a)(1): "ach State shall administer, without advance notice to the precincts selected, audits of the results of elections for Federal office held in the State (and, at the option of the State or jurisdiction involved, of elections for State and local office held at the same time as such election) consisting of random hand counts of the voter-verified paper ballots ..." Specifically, HR 811 would require audits of 3-10% of all precincts in every federal election (see proposed Sec. 322), depending on the apparent margin of victory and except in the case of landslide victories. This would be a breathtaking and unprecedented achievement. By contrast, federal law currently contains no audit requirement at all. States believing that initial hand counts or more robust audit protocols are more appropriate for their voters would have every right to impose such requirements.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005308.php#005308

But you are not prevented from lobbying your state to do more.

[kster]

208. If the 3-10% hand audit,, shows that the machines screwed up

the next step would be to Hand Count all the Paper Ballots, What is Holts plan to do that Hand Count? Thats all I was wondering.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

209. chosen at random.....

From "Your vote at risk: why you must care about HR 811"

Under Holt’s bill, in federal elections (e.g., races for Congress, for Senate seats, and for President), states would have to audit at least 3% of the precincts, chosen at random, in full.

In other words, under the supervision of an independent State election auditor, election officials would be required to recount 100% of the paper records in a minimum of 3% of the precincts. In closer races, that percentage goes as high as 10%.

Holt’s bill HR 811 makes it clear that the voter verified paper record, not the electronic record, will be considered the true and correct record of the voters vote in the case of discrepancies between the hand count and the electronic count.

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2007/05/your-vote-at-risk-why-you-must-care.html

Federal law currently permits the use of paperless DREs. Only 27 states currently require the use of voter-verified paper ballots (or voter-verified audit trails), and only 13 of those require audits.

[kster]

210. Holt plans on hand counting ALL THE BALLOTS in

3% or possible 10% of the precincts if the hand audit proves something wasn't right, there are people here that say that hand counting complicated ballots can't be done, how does Holt plan on doing the 100% Hand Count in those precincts? Is holt



Some people claim that Hand Counting the Ballots can not be done, but yet Holt will be able to DO IT.

Whats Holts secret?

"In other words, under the supervision of an independent State election auditor, election officials would be required to recount 100% of the paper records in a minimum of 3% of the precincts. In closer races, that percentage goes as high as 10%".

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

211. recounts of percentage verses initial manual counts

KSTER said:

"Some people claim that Hand Counting the Ballots can not be done, but yet Holt will be able to DO IT."

I dont think people are saying that Hand Counting CAN'T be done.

What people are are saying is that HCPB of full elections with large ballots CAN'T be done quickly, would require large amount of labor and would take extra time. The longer it takes, the less secure and transparent the election becomes, as it is less likely to be properly observed and monitored.

In HR 811, it is recounts of percents of the precincts.

If an audit leads to a full blown recount of the entire election, yes it will demand lots of labor, but this will be an extraordinary situation. The ballots have already been counted once prior to this "manual" count.

We have had recounts in my state, and they are exhausting and require lots of labor including party observers.

We have had random manual hand to eye audits, and they are not difficult and they do not take up more than a few hours.

[kster]

215. Thank You,, thats my point Hand Counting CAN BE DONE...nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

220. transparency tied to observability

KSTER, people know HCPB can be done, as long as you have a simple ballot.
But when you make elections complex,make ballots bigger, you encourage computerized vote tabulation.

Case in point - Scotland who USED to HCPB. They made their ballot more complex, and switched to computerized tabulation for their May election.

That is the point I was making here:

What people are are saying is that HCPB of full elections with large ballots CAN'T be done quickly, would require large amount of labor and would take extra time. The longer it takes, the less secure and transparent the election becomes, as it is less likely to be properly observed and monitored.

In HR 811, it is recounts of percents of the precincts.

If an audit leads to a full blown recount of the entire election, yes it will demand lots of labor, but this will be an extraordinary situation. The ballots have already been counted once prior to this "manual" count.

The point I am trying to make is that HCPB can be done with proper oversight, which means getting it done fairly quickly so that it can be observed. In North Carolina, we had 3 small counties counting the Nov 2004 General Election ballots by hand. These ballots had 24 contests on them.
These counties were not finished counting until late in the afternoon AFTER the election.

Just how observable is the counting of ballots that goes on over night and through the next day?

Lengthy complex ballots can not be counted quickly and accurately, and this impairs observation and transparency.

[Kelvin Mace]

212. Please state exactly how I am "fibbing"

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

206. its all or nothing for those who never passed legislation

Some want all or nothing. Some just want self promotion.

Here's some great reading on HR 811:

HR 811: Separating Truth From Fiction in E-voting Reform June 13, 2007 Matt Zimmerman
After years of painstaking lobbying, e-mail and phone campaigns, congressional hearings, and committee markups and amendments, Rep. Rush Holt's Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act finally appears poised for a floor vote in the House of Representatives. With an impressive 216 bipartisan co-sponsors, the bill has a real chance of passing. If signed into law, HR 811 would dramatically improve the electoral process in both the short and long term. While it would not solve the immense shortcomings in the current system, HR 811 would take a giant step towards returning much-needed transparency and accountability to the process

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005308.php#005308

The Campaign For Secure Elections By Lawrence Norden, The Brennan Center for Justice Under Law of New York University
VoteTrustUSA, CA - Holt's bill, the Election Assistance Commission will hold money for testing labs in escrow, and assign testing labs for machine certification at random.

As the presidential candidates' ramp up their campaigns, it's hard to resist asking, 'can't give us a break?' Didn't the last federal election cycle just end? Isn't November 2008 awfully far away?

Perhaps. But there is one campaign for all future federal elections that must begin in earnest immediately. And that is the campaign to make elections as secure and accurate as possible. After Florida's hanging chad debacle in 2000, voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004, and the mysterious loss of 18,000 votes in a House race in Sarasota in 2006, there is little room for another divisive national election marred by voting machine glitches....

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2487&Itemid=26

Rep. Rush Holt's VCIA Bill is Fair, Necessary and Overdue
VoteTrustUSA, CA - Jun 11, 2007
By Pam smith, President VerifiedVoting.org Since the Help America Vote Act was implemented and electronic voting machines became commonplace, there has been ...

...Our voting systems must provide a recountable, auditable paper record for each ballot cast. Congressman Holt's bill will ensure this in all states, in a reasonable and responsible manner. The sensible and necessary provisions in the bill can and must be implemented before November 2008. Abundant and growing evidence shows electronic systems can malfunction, and paperless electronic systems malfunction irretrievably. To ignore it would be to recklessly gamble with our elections.
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2479&Itemid=26

Time Has Come for Congress to Help Fix Voting System
VoteTrustUSA, CA - Jun 11, 2007

By Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State of Minnesota
In the House, the bill with the most support and momentum is HR 811, and it is slated to go to the floor in the next few weeks. Introduced by Rep. ...

Paper ballots, optical scanners, effective testing and post-election audits are not the end of the journey to securing our democracy - they are just the next step. And 2008 is not the end of our search for a democracy restored, it's just the next step. I agree with Florida Gov. Crist - no more embarrassments. Our democracy cannot afford the price of another failed election.
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2480&Itemid=26

HR 811 would require a paper trail
Nieman Watchdog, MA - May 24, 2007 By Lawrence Norden

...Over the past few years, several independent studies have revealed serious security vulnerabilities in the electronic voting machines used across the United States. Over the same period of time, a number of these machines have broken down and/or lost votes on Election Day.

The good news is that experts who have looked at these machines believe that there are some simple steps that can make them significantly more secure and reliable. Many of the most important steps recommended by these experts are incorporated in the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act (H.R. 811) sponsored by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ). In recent days, this bill was voted out of the Committee on House Administration. It currently has 216 co-sponsors (it needs only 218 votes to pass the House) and is expected to receive a floor vote shortly. Senator Dianne Feinstein plans to introduce a similar bill in the Senate....

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00280

http://www.ncvoter.net/hr811.htm.html

[kster]

194. If you keep going down this path not even your CREW will come to help you

If Al gore says he can Hand Count all the ballots in the State of Florida in 7 days, you can bet that he has a plan to do JUST THAT. I don't know how else to explain that to you.

I am not Al Gore.

[Wilms]

184. I'm all for Hand Counts...

...but that front left tire looks like it's low on air.

[kster]

186. You already owe me one key board

are you trying for two, LOL!

[troubleinwinter]

189. Not to worry at all...

kster has a lot of air.

[kster]

191. I have to be honest

comedian is not your strong point. :)