Due, in no small part, to the concerns expressed in our February analysis of the January draft version of this year’s Election Reform bill being introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) in the U.S. House, along with a bit of “lobbying” his office for a key change after the publication of that article, the updated version of the bill [PDF], said by his office to be the “final” one before introduction, has been slightly — one might even say, significantly — improved to meet one of our major concerns.
Still, while there is a lot of much-needed reform in this federal legislation, there remain many concerns with it as well. So let’s take a quick, updated look at the good, the bad and the ugly in the soon-to-be-introduced “final” version of Holt’s “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009″…
Important improvement; Remaining concerns…
Though we’d been told it was “impossible” during the long and brusing fight over the 2007 version of Holt’s bill, his January draft this year finally succeeded in calling for a ban on Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems by requiring paper-ballots for all voters. But that draft still allowed for either hand-marked paper ballots (good) or computer-marked paper ballots (not good, though arguably helpful, in some cases, for disabled voters who wish to use them), on an equal basis.
Given our own personal experience with a computerized Ballot Marking Device (BMD) misprinting 4 out of 12 votes on our own ballot last year, and Holt’s direct admission to us in 2007 that he “hope[s] that someday all voters would use a ballot marking device,” the idea of federal legislation encouraging, indeed paying for, jurisdictions to jump from an all-DRE frying pan into an all-BMD fire was less than comforting to say the least.
The provision, as it had been written on the very first page of the January draft [PDF], would have allowed, and helped pay for, states such as GA or PA or UT — all of whom use 100% unverifiable DREs almost exclusively — to simply swap out their horrible DREs for horrible electronic BMDs to print voters’ selections on a paper ballot, instead of allowing them to select their choices with their own hand on a paper ballot which can reliably be known to reflect actual voter intent. Thus, the bill could have continued the use of electronic touch-screen BMD voting systems, and all of the myriad failures inherent in them, for decades.
The new “final” draft still bans DREs (which, unlike BMDs record “results” invisibly to the computer memory) and requires a paper ballot for every vote cast, but it has now been amended to include the short phrase: “…so long as the voter shall have the option to mark his or her paper ballot by hand.” That addition should go a long way towards ensuring that most voters will vote on a hand-marked paper ballot and that every voter in America will, at the very least, have that right. If passed, as currently written, that provision could bring a rather positive sea-change to elections in this country. Finally.
But the bill still fails to ban the practice of computerized, privatized, secret vote counting by proprietary “trade secret” protected optical-scan devices. With the protections written into the bill for the private companies who manufacture and sell those devices, BlackBoxVoting.org’s Bev Harris argues the bill would amount to “the surreptitious dismantling of self-government”.
The legislation even bolsters the continuing use of such secret vote-counting software in elections, even as the bill takes pains not to require the use of such devices. The latest version also pushes the timeline back, by four years, to 2016*, before DREs will finally be banned, though pre-printed, hand-markable paper ballots must be offered to voters in the grandfathered interim beginning in 2010.
So, the amended provision allowing all voters the right to a hand-marked paper ballot, as noted above, is the good news. The bad news is that there still remains a number of troubling provisions in the bill, alongside other good ones, keeping this bill a still-mixed bag, though one that is arguably getting closer to not doing more harm than good, as we see it, as previous versions have represented. The secret software provisions, however, remain very troubling.
Here’s a quick, summarized look into the still-mixed bag of the latest, “final” version of the bill soon to be introduced, before it will then head through the committee mark-up and amendment process. Our hope is to help you decide whether you wish to support, to oppose, to keep lobbying to improve the bill, or to simply ignore its existence all together in hopes that a truly progressive election reform bill will somehow, someday, somewhere emerge with the possibility of being enacted into law…
A Quick Review of the Good and the Bad…
GOOD: Eventually will require a paper ballot for every vote cast. Most of them will likely be hand-marked now that they’ve added “…as long as the voter shall have the option to mark his or her ballot by hand.” But they still need to append “, at the polling place during Early Voting and on Election Day” to that clause, so that absentee balloting cannot be used as the voter’s “option” to mark a paper ballot by hand. We’ve asked Holt’s office about this several times, and they’ve promised a response, but have yet to offer one.
BAD: The ban on DREs will not be in full effect until 2016*. So we’ll have to go through three more major general elections, including one of them the 2012 Presidential Election, with the likely use of 100% unverifiable DREs across the country.
GOOD: Hand-marked paper ballots must still be offered to voters, beginning in 2010, even where the jurisdiction uses DREs. And a notice must be given to every voter that they are allowed a pre-printed, hand-marked paper ballot before voting.BAD: BMDs must be invented, certified and marketed to allow disabled voters to both vote and CAST their ballot, “Without requiring the voter to manually handle the paper ballot.” Why? This is a sop to a couple of overly-powerful Capitol Hill disabilities lobbyists, and there is no reason to require the automatic-casting of paper ballots. There are no machines that currently meet this requirement, yet ALL jurisdictions will be required to buy them, from someone by 2010 as the bill is now written. See below, concerning the recently withdrawn endorsement of VotersUnite.org due to this recent change to the bill.
BAD: Due to the above, tactile (non-computerized) assistive voting systems for the disabled will be effectively outlawed.BAD: Federally institutionalizes secret software and non-disclosure agreements for those who may be allowed to review voting system hardware and software. All hardware and software used in public elections should be fully open to inspection by any member of the public. Period. No exceptions. While the new provisions may prove useful to attorneys and other parties to pre or post election litigation, it’s not good for the people over all and sets a terrible precedent by writing such corporate protections into federal law.
GOOD: Wireless networking is banned on all voting systems…
BAD: Except for infrared, for some reason.GOOD: Internet connection for voting systems are banned at all times.
BAD: Local Area Networking (LAN) is not banned! (Unless Sec. 103 (9)(A), which says “No system or device upon which ballots are programmed or votes are cast or tabulated shall be connected to the Internet at any time” actually results in banning LAN connectivity, but we doubt it.)GOOD: $5m in grant money is included for development of disability-access voting systems requiring that “any technology developed…shall be treated as non-proprietary and shall be made available to the public.”
BAD: $1.5m for “Development of Election-dedicated voting system software.” Why do we need that? And why no money at all for development or pilot programs for non-computerized election practices, such as hand-counting?GOOD: Bans conflicts of interest for federal voting system testing labs.
GOOD: Federal testing procedures and results must be made fully available to the public.BAD: Would effectively make the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) permanent, despite the fact that they remain a still-compromised, very bad federal agency controlled by the Executive Branch.
GOOD & BAD: Hand-counted post-election “audits” (more accurately: spot-checks) will be required for all federal elections, except where the “winning” candidate has won by more than 80%. Though this provision would also represent a sea-change in elections across the nation, the required “audit” protocol is fairly watered down and relies on machine-reported numbers to determine the percentage of ballots to be randomly counted as part of the post-election spot-check. Probably a net plus, overall, but it’s hard to say for certain. We’d have to see how/if it actually works.
To Endorse or Not: A Few Final Thoughts for Now…
Remember, the bill is just now being introduced, and will then have to go through mark-up in the House Administration Committee where the 2007 version was considerably watered-down (and we’re putting that nicely) last time around. So we could well see the same thing happen this time around, making the bill far more troubling than it currently is, after it gets through committee.
As it stands for the moment, The BRAD BLOG is neither opposing the bill, nor endorsing it, for the time being, but rather, continuing to educate about the bill, and doing our best to advocate that it be improved, on the premise that it may actually pass and be signed into law.
For some additional perspective, however, we’ll point out that while our esteemed colleague John Bonifaz of VoterAction.org now strongly endorses this bill, in its current form, our other equally esteemed colleagues John Gideon and Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite.org have withdrawn their previous endorsement.
Their withdrawn endorsement is due to the newly added provision which would require all voting jurisdictions in the nation to “upgrade” to electronic disability-voting systems which don’t even exist yet. The vendor currently believed to be closest to releasing such technology is ES&S, who is said to have a version of their Automark electronic BMD in development which would include the silly “auto-cast” feature — the machine must not only help disabled voters mark their ballots “privately and independently”, it must also pick up the paper ballot and place it into a ballot box or op-scan system for them — as required in the current draft of the bill. As ES&S is the only company currently believed even close to manufacturing such a product, Gideon and Theisen have argued the bill would amount to an “ES&S Stimulus Bill”, as they recently detailed in a public statement [PDF] outlining the reasons for the withdrawal of their previous endorsement.
For more thoughts, we recently “debated” the pros and cons of the bill with Bonifaz on a PDA-sponsored conference phone call, which you can listen to right here. In short, we argued that there will be opportunities to endorse later, if PDA desires, once the bill has emerged from committee, and when we can see what it all finally amounts to. Why give away any and all negotiating leverage until then? For now, its our belief that it should be progressives like PDA’s role — as we feel it is ours — to educate as to what the bill really says, what it will require, what it will and won’t do, and to advocate for improving it.
Remember, Holt moved his position, big time, from claiming it was “impossible” for Congress to pass a ban on DREs in 2007, to writing precisely such a ban into his legislation this year. He also moved from allowing jurisdictions to go all-BMD in the January draft this year, to requiring the right to a pre-printed, hand-marked paper ballot for all voters by the time the March draft was done. Had previous versions of the bill been accepted by Election Integrity advocates as is (as many had previously done), none of those requirements would likely have finally made it into the bill at all.
PDA currently has an online poll up on their blog asking whether they should endorse the bill as it’s currently written. PDA’s Executive Director Tim Carpenter has told us that the final result of the online poll will not determine, on its own, whether or not PDA endorses the bill, but that it may be instructive in helping to reach their decision one way or another, as they gauge whether or not there is a consensus among their members concerning endorsement, or even opposition, at this time.
If you have a position on that, please go vote in their poll. If you have any questions about the the bill itself, please read it for yourself [PDF], and if you still have questions, feel free to ask them in comments below. We’ll do our best to offer straight answers.
Thank you for a cogent analysis that is readable, helpful, and informative.
Thanks for providing such a clear reasoning for voting NO on this important bill. The great majority who responded by e-mail in the Los Angeles chapter voted NO on HOLT. We strongly oppose anything that cements the current computerized systems in place, and this one does. While there have been notable changes, there MUST be MORE if we are ever to have a secure and transparent system that ensures votes are counted as cast. At the moment, real people counting real paper ballots is the only certain way. We can WAIT for as long as it takes for them to be tabulated. ###
Not the biggest issue with the bill by far but here’s a tidbit that’s rather out of place:
What is not denied is permitted… and can even be required. Otherwise why put this language in a bill that did need it before?
Certainly not to deal with instances such as the preliminary announcement of the Franken votes in the Nauen 61 absentee ballots.
Of course such a notion leads to thoughts of the solution most often tendered for the intractable paradoxes of e-voting…
I don’t know why anyone is giving this a thought. Holt has proven with this bill that he intends to keep easily accomplished election fraud legislated in. The last time it could have been ignorance, but after all the input he’s already gotten, there isn’t any doubt left.
I think my head is going to explode.
I can’t even believe “Progressive” Democrats of America is even considering an endorsement.
OUR GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN AND OUR BRAINS HAVE BEEN FRIED BY STUPID RAYS FROM SPACE LIZARDS.
Where, oh, where is my ibuprofen?
heh, the Pugs will get their precious “voter fraud” IDs in there yet
Thanks Brad.
From reading this, I now understand why some folks claim that audits based on apparent vote margins don’t work because the margins may be fraudulent. It’s because of the ineffective tiered percentage approach in the Holt bill (3, 5 and 10% audits based on apparent victory margins).
In this context, those who have been making the point that the apparent margins may be fake, are absolutely right!
However, no one who has seriously considered the problem of auditing elections has endorsed the tiered-percentage approach in this bill — at least not for long.
In fact, for those who are interested, on Page 9 of this paper, we clearly showed how this approach can be beaten by shifting only a few votes between the tiers:
“A tiered-audit requirement also is vulnerable to malicious shifting of vote margins into the part of each tier with the lowest power to detect miscounts…Thus an attacker with some control of the voting system (or by stuffing a traditional ballot box), could add or remove only a few votes so that the reported margin of victory becomes 1% or slightly higher, thereby shifting the audit from the 10% sample tier to the 5% tier, cutting the sample size in half….A similar opportunity exists near the margin of 2%.”
The way to avoid this type of exploit is NOT to use percentage tiers! The audit must always be large enough to find errors in the sample when the outcome is wrong. That’s the whole point of a statistical audit.
Fortunately, through its ALTERNATIVE audit section, the Holt bill gives us an opportunity to grovel to (i.e., convince) the powers that be in our states to use a better method than the discredited tiered percentage approach. This is not perfect, but at least there may be some light at the end of the tunnel, assuming of course that the paper-ballot chain of custody problem can also be solved.
I also couldn’t help but notice Brad’s almost luke-warm non-endorsement of the bill this time around. Talk about a sea change!
I’m leaning heavily towards ‘no’ based upon Brad’s great rundown of the bill’s pros and cons.
If its got a few major shortcomings, then those need to be fixed, even if it has lots of good things going for it. There’s no point passing a bill with known major problems, especially on this issue.
There is a serious technical flaw with Holt’s bill. But there is a much more serious underlying problem.
First, the flaw. Holt continues to prescribe a sampling process for ‘audits’ which has been, if I read the literature correctly, largely discredited.
[Hat tip to Howard S. I hadn’t read his post.
the present piece lines up with his view, I believe. We differ, in a way, mostly because I’d eliminate the machines.]
From the bill, ‘‘SEC. 322. NUMBER OF BALLOTS COUNTED UNDER AUDIT
https://bradblog.com/Docs/HOLT_VOTERCONFIDENCE_FINAL_031809.pdf
If margin between highest-scoring two contestants is less than 1%; hand count at least 10% of precincts.
If margin is greater than or equal to 1% but less than 2%; hand count at least 5% of precincts
If margin is equal to or greater than 2%; hand count at least 3% of precincts
Now here is a quote from the report of the League of Women Voters Task Force on Audits.
Report on Election Auditing
http://www.lwv.org/Content/ContentGroups/Membership/ProjectsTaskforces/Report_ElectionAudits.pdf
The number of units to audit should be a function of the margin of victory, the distribution of votes between audit units (for example whether there are large and small audit units in the same race) and the total number of audit units in the race. Fixed percentage audits include insufficient audit units for the desired accuracy in small or close races and unnecessarily many audit units for landslide or large races. (See – “Statistics Can Help Ensure Accurate Elections.†AMSTAT NEWS, Copyright 2008, American Statistical Association.
http://www.amstat.org/publications/amsn/index.cfm?fuseaction=pres062007).
Tiered audits, in which a specific percentage of audit units are chosen based on the margin, represent an improvement over fixed audits, but are still not efficient statistically.
===End quote
Now, excuse me: but on the surface this whole charade is just about funneling money into the pockets of incompetent manufacturers with dubious political ties.
Bad enough; but the real trouble is that it strips the citizens of the right and capacity to oversee elections.
“Germany’s highest court has ruled that the use of electronic voting in the last general election was unconstitutional… push button voting was not transparent because the voter could not see what actually happened to his vote inside the computer and was required to place “blind faith” in the technology.
https://bradblog.com/?p=6961
The Holt bill imo is a net loss in its own field.
But, when all is said, it comes out here: “We don’t need no stinkin’ machines! Hand count paper ballots…
So… are folks buying Holt’s “I am your only chance of election reform legislation in Congress so it’s my way or the highway” orchestration of a drumbeat of inevitability…? (again)
He seems to have gotten further this time and as Bev Harris has pointed out he’s going to keep at it until he gets his balance of powers modification… or is stopped by legislative force majeure.
And “audits” et aL are window dressing for those damn bloggers and nondisclosure and BMD mandates are gifts to the corporations. Nothing has really changed except the possibility of “change” is being held out. Almost as if he’s playing up “hope” 🙂
… Howard S. said…
Adopting Kathy Dopp’s “audit” protocols is how Holt got Dopp et al on board with his bill originally. From a strategic point of view this got Holt support by splitting off some very vocal EI advocates without compromising the true nature of the bill… i.e. the balance of powers modification and the corporate mandates.
And when your research is brought up Doppp discounts it, saying that essentially you are wrong without explaining why… except that somehow you don’t know what you’re talking about.
That’s not very politic of me to say and I can see where Brad’s trying to tone things down and encourage discussion instead of rancor… but so far Dopp hasn’t proved amenable to discussing flaws in her protocols. I’d be glad to be proved wrong.
So… how do you talk Holt into changing what for him, in this one regard, is a win-win situation? The technical merits would seem to be irrelevant as long as Holt has some EI advocates he can point to on Capitol Hill.
What shocked me was VotersUnite conditional support of the bill… John Gideon?
Not that my voice matters, but this bill sucks, it’s still electronically exploitable, the sensible changes (eg. removal of all electronic tabulation devices nationally) not expedited reasonably or effectively. In short it’s a continuation of the abusive use of electronics in American elections, potentially bypassing the will of the people.
Brad,
Thanks for the clear, helpful analysis. I would like to weigh in a very loud and emphatic “No” to the Holt Bill; making the EAC a permanent agency only ensures that mismanagement of our Democracy will continue into perpetuity. Our very own SOS has urged the EAC to do their duty and report voting system vulnerabilites. They won’t. These commissioners are put into place to make sure that the vendors continue to rule the day.
As a new reader, I am curious… If you have the power to influence this legislation, and you have done so, why is the bill still so bad ? It seems like it would have been better for all your efforts. I am confused by this, but appreciate your blog.
We all must focus on the best way to protect ourselves from the vote thieves- and their friends. Thanks for the efforts.
Cheers !!
James B
James Brewster asked:
Since you are new, and hadn’t been able to follow along on the history, here’s a very quick summary of my involvement (and/or lack thereof) in Holt’s legislation. Much of this is documented, in extraordinary detail, in the indexed articles at https://bradblog.com/Holt which details the machinations and efforts during the 2007 fight over this same bill.
I was asked by Holt’s office to review several drafts of the 2007 version of the bill before it was introduced. With each draft I sent back recommendations for improvement. Some, but not all, of those recommendations made it into the version as introduced in ’07.
While suggested language additions/redactions of mine were included throughout, the most noteworthy might have been in the hardware/software disclosure sections (requiring full disclosure of all, to any member of the public) in the 2007 version as introduced.
Those provisions were drastically rewritten and gutted, as influenced by the software lobby, while that version of the bill was in committee.
Even before then, however, I had strongly objected to certain other provisions in the bill (including its allowance for unlimited use of unverifiable DRE voting systems) quite loudly, and lobbied for a ban on such equipment, along with many others who joined that fight.
During that fight, and my subsequent coverage of exceedingly misleading statements about what that version of the bill would and wouldn’t do (by both Holt’s office and others who supported the bill), I was eventually “cut off” from all communications with the office by the woman in charge of writing it on Holt’s behalf, and who had once invited me to help with drafts of the legislation.
Her communication embargo with me continues to this day, though she has reopened communications with others who were in opposition to the bill previously (which I never actually was, though I did point out its shortcomings and offer ways that it needed to be improved) who she had similar embargoed after they had out and out opposed her bill.
Some of those folks have been able to carry some of my concerns about the bill to her, and, in turn, the change to the opening section, concerning voters right to a pre-printed, hand-marked paper ballot was added. I’ve since been promised more information on additional concerns from Holt’s office, though they have not yet fulfilled that promise.
So my ability to affect positive change for the legislation is limited inasmuch as my lack of ability/invitation to work with Holt’s office at this time. Though a good argument, a means by which to share that argument publicly (on this blog for example, and elsewhere), and the ability for such good arguments to affect others’ support (or lack thereof) for the bill can still, hopefully have a positive effect on the legislation. At least in a limited manner.
That’s how we’ve gotten here, and that’s what I am able to offer to hopeful improvements in the legislation.
… James Brewster asked…
What influence the election integrity community may have is as a variegated collection of concerned citizens. We don’t have the inside-the-beltway support of folks who think centralized control of elections will be the cats meow and will solve all problems… and we don’t have the multimillion dollar support of the corporate lobbyists who have been promised continued control of our elections.
All we have is just us 🙂
As for the slow progress of the bill? Well, we stand between Holt and his hobbyhorse of “fixing” the balance of powers “question” and we are not his primary constituents in this matter… we are not the corporations.
But if you think it’s bad now you ought to review a few of the even worse twists this legislation has taken.
https://bradblog.com/?cat=218
Progress has been made but as long as the actual purpose of the bill is to perpetuate HAVA’s intrusion into the balance of powers between state and federal control of elections then that will inevitably distort everything involved with the bill.
That part’s definitely the frickin’-A huge elephant in the center of the room.
And as unconscionable corporate giveaways comprise another major portion of the bill…
… well then you wind up with actual election reform coming off a poor third.
Well, Brad, that is the classic way these people get sensible people to forsake their morals and go along with their crappy, fascist-friendly legislative efforts. So — WHAT? — you never actually were opposed to that piece of crap? Or just you feel it would stand you in good stead with Holt’s office or the people supposed to be on our side who are leaning in support of it?
My point here, really, is only that you should beware of the urges to moderate your behavior. On the one hand, they help keep you in the game, but on the other they keep the game the game.
My brilliant and indisputable opinion is that Holt is actively trying to keep a mechanism for election fraud in a bill that purports to reform it, and that the PDA have lost their minds. It would be relatively easy to make this bill perfect, and it’s very clear there is no intent to do that. So, in your effort to seem amenable to discussions with these maniacs, PLEASE, keep that in mind. Too many activists are duped by “access and input” — even though futile — into going away happy even as they have completely failed.
I will have to kill you if you succumb to that ninny-ass malarky.
Please review the Election Reform Document compiled in 2007 during my 2006 election contests
http://www.johnrussellforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=68
Having been involved in this voting mechanics issue for sometime now and having observed the shenanigans that have occurred around the world w/ electronic voting… I have since become a fervent advocate for HANDCOUNTING at the precinct level ELIMINATING electronic voting machines central tabulators entirely. This REPRESENTS MAJOR CHANGE FROM 2007!
Why the complicated audit triggers? It is nonsense! RANDOM audits of 10% of precincts selected AFTER the close of polling by pulling numbered cards out of a hat in each county in America would circumvent much of the criminal behavior by putting large uncertainty into the mix when using optical scan SECRET vote counting apparatus!
The political drive by Holt et al to preserve the potential for “configuring” election results must be exposed for what it is and NOT tolerated!
There is much more to this issue than merely machines. E.G., Try registering as a Democrat in Florida and then winding up either NEVER being registered or receiving your voter registration card and finding that your registered as a… REPUBLICAN? A VERY common occurance! John Russell
… Agent 99 said…
Let’s not kill Brad.
Let’s kill HAVA instead.
My theoretical version of Holt’s bill would start off as follows:
Then we’d get down to the actual business of much-needed electoral reform.
Whaddya think of the chances? 🙂
99 asks:
Perhaps something stronger…?
With the obstacle that is HAVA removed… and following the recommendations of Tobi and Harris in parting out the HAVA legacy issues among the relevant, already-existent and quite constitutional government agencies that already existed to deal with those issues… I’ve been working along the lines of basing the rest of my hypothetical bill on the Voting Rights Act as Holt’s bill was based on HAVA.
I’m still picking apart the ramifications of Holt’s latest (and still owe Brad an article) but does that idea ring a bell with you legal types… especially alarm bells?
99 said:
Perhaps. But it hasn’t done any good here towards that end, your foolish inference to the contrary not withstanding.
I had no official position either in support or opposition to it. I don’t think having such a position, on my part, actually matters, wherein trying to improve the bill actually might matter (on the premise that it could be passed into law, whether you or I may like it or not.)
As to your silly assertion that I was hoping to remain in good stead with Holt’s office, or with supporters of the bill, if that was my evil genius plan, it didn’t much work, did it?
Then, as now, my hope is/was to help bring necessary reforms in any way that I can. If I piss off folks who don’t agree with me (as certainly happened, in spades, in the last go round), so be it. I’ll stand up for what I believe is right. Period. And what supports the “mission” of the Creekside Declaration: “To encourage citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy.”
My “urges” are only to do what may best affect my “mission” as noted above. That is the only thing I’m interested in. Period. If you feel that is some sort of inappropriate “moderation”, well, you are welcome to blog that opinion to your hearts content here 🙂 That has no relationship as to whether you are correct or not.
I have seen no evidence for that claim. If you have evidence, I’m sure you’ll share it. I’d have no problem agreeing that he’s guilty to any number of other “sins” in regard to this legislation (“sins” which I won’t bother to list here, but which are no stranger to the bulk of D.C. politicians, particularly Democratic ones), but have seen nothing to even suggest he’s interested in “trying to keep a mechanism for election fraud”.
It would be very easy to write it perfectly. That has nothing to do with how easy it would be (or, in this case, wouldn’t be) to have such a bill then see the light of day, in any committee at all, much less reach the floor of the House for a vote towards possible passage.
I am duped by nothing, dear. And, frankly, even if this far-from-perfect, and in many ways deeply-inadequate bill were to pass today, as it’s currently written, I would see it in NO WAY as a “complete failure”. None of that having anything to do with your imagined bugaboos of either “input” or “access” (which, it seems, you’ve grossly overestimated in your mind.)
… Lora said…
One ounce ReaLemon juice, one ounce ReaLime juice, one ounce tequila and three ounces of Jero margarita mix.
Salt the rim of a glass tumbler with coarse sea salt and pour the ingredients over crushed ice.
Sip and then bite into a large salt-and-vinegar potato chip 🙂
zap, I certainly don’t want to kill Brad, and your alternative sounds good to me.
Lora, amen to that! I’ve been wailing for the advent of heroin patches for us needle-sissies who would like a break from the horror. Of course, that risks ceasing to find the horror horrible, like the masses glued to their TVs, so… well… I don’t know. Maybe just a drap of opium goo on our now outrageously expensive cigarettes would be the solution.
I was keeping it together until I started listening to the PDA conference call, and between the horrifying din and the horrifying content, whoa! I cannot describe the size, extent, shape and sharpness of the headache! No kidding. I was cancelled out by it.
Brad, it was merely a warning to be cautious and not an accusation.
But, er, having no position on it? My evidence re Holt’s intent?
Res ipsa loquitur.
Peal back all of the layers and look at the thing itself, after all of the input he got the last time around, the production of this bill is prima facie evidence that he intends to keep it fascist-friendly, no matter what his excuse for it is, even if he or anyone else believes it, even if it is agreed that in this world, in our politics, it might be the best achievable.
The point isn’t about getting more reasonable-looking election fraud. It’s purely about getting our votes back.
Now. Not years from now. Now.
I’ve warned everyone before how activism turns into industry.
This is the way it happens.
Whatever your reasons for having no position on the bill, it is, once one parts the clouds, completely not good enough, no matter how many good provisions it throws in, only for all of them to be defeated by the bad.
Maybe I should add that most plutocrats and most legislators, even at the local level, understand about this means of industrializing activism… neutralizing it enough while still feeding it until it is too late. The activists themselves, generally, don’t understand it until it is too late.
And, yes, sometimes it is so second-nature to legislators that they don’t even consciously realize how pernicious it is, but they do it, and are responsible for it.
Until the bill outlaws electronic vote tabulation devices it’s a corrupt bill by the same corrupt sources and nothing else (including any volunteer work to try to fix it) matters in the end game.
“Oh see this nice shiny thing over here we fixed?”
“And we fixed that one too!”
Isn’t the answer to the ROOT of the problem.
Electronic signals are invisible, and can not be validated, therefore all electronic vote tabulation (counting) devices must be outlawed.
This is going to piss off electronic voting machine tabulation device manufacturers, but they could have made a BMD instead of a tabulator.
This should be (but currently isn’t) the crux of the bill, with the deceptive, sideshow, shiny objects, being audited, validated before being tagged on to anything.
1. Outlaw all electronic vote tabulation devices. And all electronic pollbooks!
2. Create a BMD that is simple auditable.
For example: A joystick a camera, zomm lens and a Pen would be more auditable than a shiny box with steel covers.
So would a non networked, 286 with Dos and Word Perfect! What’s that? Your setup disk has the michael angelo virus?
You could have a switch connected to a lightbulb, and either hear the vote, or watch the vote and push the button choice on a video.
only video the button being pushed with the light glowing for transparency.
You going to tell me in all of Holt’s friends there isn’t one leader who can find an inventor with an idea that doesn’t use electronic tabulation devices.
There’s the problem.
And yeah you might laugh about all the stupid ideas I just provided. The fact remains
The Vision being put forth from known and unknown sources is CORRUPT and doesn’t work correctly, openly, or honestly.
Agent 99 this is CONTROL. Use emergency argument 3.14159(c) as follows:
Just as the worst of the election problems we’ve faced since 2000 were spawned at the federal level via HAVA, and,
As the greatest advances in electoral reform that were achieved in that period were attained through efforts at the local, state, and academic levels, and,
As the period of greatest improvement in the Holt bill was initiated while Brad was non persona grata, then…?
Oh, pfeh, Brad just is crabby about his sainthood being impeded by obtuse Holt staffers, and touchy about solidarity seeming too much like food for detractors.
Its greatest improvement was clearly a threat to its intent and so Brad was cut out, and those less effective invited back in… further proof that Holt’s intent is not benign.
I’m trying to drag everyone’s minds out of the quagmire always introduced when greed must cope with altruism, so that effectiveness might yet be wrested from the glue pit we’re made to swim in these situations.
Doug Hofstadter called it “jumping out of the system”, raising one’s POV out of the mess, out of the box, and seeing if it cannot be resolved from that higher plane.
Phil seems to get it.
off to the courts to fix the count again…and again, and again…?
(were we doing one of those story things?)
99 said @ 24:
If by “fascist-friendly” you mean friendly to corporations who make money off of elections, I’d not disagree with you in the slightest. But that’s a far cry from your “brilliant and indisputable opinion” offered above that “Holt is actively trying to keep a mechanism for election fraud in [the] bill”.
Well, sorry. That’s not how legislation in a (supposedly) representative democracy works.
With Holt’s bill, as it’s currently written (and, frankly, you ought to be careful about pushing me into a corner where I’m forced to defend the bill) it would, in fact, go a long way towards “getting our votes back” by requiring that virtually every vote is cast on a transparent, hand-marked paper ballot, reliably reflecting the voters’ intent.
What you, me, we, they, everybody else does with that thereafter will be up to you, me, we, they, etc.
The last version of the bill took AWAY such transparency. The current version of the bill, as written for the moment, arguably adds transparency, at least on the actual VOTING requirements of the bill. The question remains, however, do the tradeoffs with the rest of the inadequecies still in the bill do ultimately more harm than good over all?
As it’s currently written, I’m not sure that it does (while previously versions certainly did!) If you, or anybody else, wishes to make the case that the bill does do more harm than good, of course, I’m open to your reasoning as to why, which is just one of the reasons why I’ve posted this item in the first place.
Well, thanks for that reminder. If I’m ever personally able to become an “industry” (one presumes there is money to be made from an industry, as opposed to money LOST because I’m my efforts on this particular beat), I’ll keep that in mind. I’m well familiar with the activism “industry”, and believe I’ve proven myself more than willing to call such industrialists out when warranted (just ask the activist industrialists at PFAW and Common Cause and many others, following 2007’s imbroglio over the Holt bill).
As mentioned, I’m not currently convinced that those “good provisions” will be “defeated by the bad”. You are welcome to try and convince me of that, of course. But shooting at ME, with some imaginary bullets concerning selling out to an “activism industry” or in hopes of remaining “in good stead” with someone on Capitol Hill or elsewhere is silly, baseless, and a waste of both your and my time, frankly.
Oh, Brad, get over yourself!
I’m not shooting at you. You’re shooting at me.
That is NOT how a representative democracy works. That is how our broken government works. Big difference.
Join me and zap and Lora in our tequila happy hour and opium-laced cigarettes.
Sheesh.
Outlaw electronic tabulation devices Now. Not years from now. Now.
(hope you don’t mind my re-mix)
Yeah I am not shooting at you either brad. I applaud your volunteer efforts, and I am greatful for the whole update.
It don’t change the fact that I think the whole bill stinks without the #1 change that should be in there…
outlaw all electronic vote tabulation devices
If I had the honor to help edit the bill we would be discussing that first. If democracy don’t work that way then it don’t work.
Phil @ 26 said:
While I’ll neither defend nor enjoin the asserted “corruptness” of the “sources” of the bill, I’ll just add here that the bill does not “outlaw electronic vote tabulation devices” because that’s not the purpose of the bill. It takes no stance on that particular point.
Criticizing it on that basis, would be somewhat akin to criticizing the stimulus bill because it also failed to “outlaw electronic vote tabulation devices”.
I can speak in more detail to the notion of outlawing such devices at another time (even as I agree they should be outlawed), but there is much work to be done by activists who’d like to see such an outlaw, beginning with work on the local level to build the case that hand-counting, in many different jurisdictions, with many different types of ballots, is the most effective and reliable way to count ballots.
Using the same “trust us, it’ll work great!” arguments foisted upon us by the e-voting industry doesn’t cut it, in my opinion. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve gone on record, on video tape and in print, asking both OH SoS Jennifer Brunner and L.A. Country Registrar Dean Logan whether they’d be willing to do hand-count pilot projects. Neither of them were against the idea.
So where are the activists in their offices working with election officials to carry out such pilot programs to build beyond-trust-us data that hand-counting is the best way to go?
We’ve got a Special Election coming up in May here in CA. It’ll likely be a very short ballot, and very sparsely voted. Seems like an ideal moment for YOU Phil (and others reading along in CA) to get into your Registrar’s office and begin working out a plan for such a pilot program NOW to help make your case!
I can’t do everything here, people! Want your democracy back? Please GO GET IT BACK!
… Brad Friedman said…
I think that the datum to look for there is if a standard double count on election night (two consecutive counts of each set of ballots by two separate sets of individuals, repeat until matched, and with multi-party spot checks and oversight) is an acceptable substitute for “audits”.
If so, then can the money that would have been dispensed under Holt’s bill for electronic tabulation certification and “audits” cover the cost of the switch to hand counts?
I’ll bite one last time..
You start the questions like this.
1. Does this model tabulate? (e.g. count) y/N=?
if yes then it’s outlawed and paper is used instead.
if no then
2. Is all software and hardware open to public inspection from the manufacture’s doping of the chips all the way to the line of source code.
if no then it’s outlawed and paper is used instead
if yes
Randomly do destructive reverse engineering.
Control the use of device to only voters who need it.
3. Does the ballot marker print perfectly?
if no then it’s outlawed and paper is used instead
if yes..
Randomly do destructive reverse engineering.
Control the use of device to only voters who need it.
4. Does the device network? y/N=?
if yes, it’s outlawed
if no
Randomly do destructive reverse engineering.
Control the use of device to only voters who need it.
We can keep it going like this until the bill is simplified, and we have gone through every model and idea for every electronic device that will be allowed.
No, delays.
If yours is outlawed that’s it, your done. None of this oh, in 2022 is when we stop using them nonsense.
I don’t have the energy to do this fight. It’s only an idea. A group with common sense, power and physical energy is welcome to take my idea and do it. Personally, I don’t know any senators out here. They probably all hate me, and I don’t never bring them gifts. That would be a great way to get such a bill going if they don’t hate you. Maybe Kucinich? Maybe Ron Paul? I don’t know they’re not my reps.
Sure as hell I watch what’s happened to my country since these machines arrived.
The whole thing is now a series of games being played on us.
Simplify their lies in on bust their ass bill, make the dangerous parts of all these piddly bills like the Holt bill irrelevant. It would simplify what they even are allowed to discuss, or fund.
example:
“You can’t use those, so next issue. Remember everyone, no DRE’s, no Scanners, no Networks, no Memory cards, ”
Wiping out abusive, and dangerous choices of hardware, software, firmware, memory cards, and network all in one.
Besides HOLT is where the bill came from so by proxy HOLT would be one corrupt source! And he’s not my rep, not in California, which means he has to be faxed to be even contacted.
I don’t have the energy or the power to put up or shut up.
I don’t endorse Holt’s bill. He got me to endorse one once. I learned my lesson on that shit. I support no more bills, without the specific language dealing outlawing all electronic vote tabulation devices.
I end this as I began.
Not that my voice matters.
Zapkitty @ 35 said:
Sounds good to me. Waiting for the hand-count supporters across the country to step up and start collecting that datum!
Also sounds good to me! And, given the way the audit provisions are written (and allow for states to offer better protocols), I’d think it’d be easy to pull off. But again, we need that data! So HCPB activists need to get to work!
I’ll bring the chips! Hell, I’ll bring the tequila, too!
I’ll make Linden flower tea, too…I’m told that’s what the Cubans drink when the hurricane’s about to hit. I’ve had a few hurricane-type things hit this year, so far, and I can attest to the relaxing power of this tea.
As far as Holt goes, it won’t give us fair elections. That’s my problem with it and all the rest.
So, time to lift the glass. Here’s to soothing the beaten brains.
Phil, whose voice matters unless he keeps insisting that it doesn’t, said:
The answer is that the current Holt bill requires paper for ALL ballots. (At least as of 2016). How that paper is counted, is a different matter, not addressed by Holt, other than to say it cannot be counted on the same device which may be used to assist in the marking of such ballots.
The answer is NO. But the solution is not exactly accurate. “Paper is used” in all instances (after 2016) for casting the ballot. The question you are discussing is how it’s COUNTED, which is a different question, not addressed by the bill (other than as mentioned above, and in that it allows for counting by either computer device or by hand).
You other questions/suggestions are answered, I believe, in either my original article above, or the bill itself.
You don’t need to “know any senators” to walk into your local registrars office and begin the conversation about how to launch a pilot program for non-computerized hand-counting. I’m sure there are others in Sacramento who would also be happy to work with you in working with the Registrar if you don’t have the energy to lead the project yourself.
As to your suggestion of outlawing all known electronic vote-counting devices, without having any structure in place to replace them, it’s my opinion that the result would be a) chaos and b) the eventual OUTLAWING of hand-counting entirely, following a well-coordinated jamming procedure of same, as carried out by opponents thereof.
Ducks must be in order before they can be floated, in my opinion. Otherwise, all you end up with is dead ducks.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and state that a great many of them have succumbed to the soporific of “change we can believe in”….
Way too many people think we don’t have anything left to worry about in the matter of our elections because Obama overcame either their ability to, or their inclination to, game the presidential election… not realizing how deadly the gaming of little elections can/will be.
The outcome last November was a bad setback for election integrity advocates, and I don’t think for a minute this didn’t factor into the decision/s made by those who resort to election fraud. It seems pretty clear to me that both major parties are happiest with letting the big boyz do the deciding, preferring that we only think we’ve elected their choice, but wishing for it to be easier… and very close to, or already having, complete control over how much easier they can make it.
It’s about all over but the shouting and if the shouters knuckle under and support not-good-enough, hoping for room to get better, I think even the shouting will be over.
But hand counted is not a “movement” yet, although it will be. It’s more of a growing realization among people concurrent with the realization that they’re not alone in seeing this solution as an.
(continued 🙂 )
But hand counted is not a “movement” yet, although it will be. It’s more of a growing realization among people concurrent with the realization that they’re not alone in seeing this as a solution.
Now 99’s comment #40 posted in the meantime: I’d disagree a bit. It seems to me that there’s actually quite a bit more of them than there were before. They just haven’t coalesced yet… and the standard EI suspects don’t seem to be offering a dedicated workspace for it either, although I could be mistaken.
Lora! Quick! zap’s getting ahead of us!
zap, I hope you are right. You really may be right, since you seem to get around the tubes on this matter more than I do. I have to keep it down, so I can blog about the million other things, and so I don’t get hauled off by the men in the white suits. You seem to have more fortitude for that stuff than I do… and so I’m going to take your word as reason to be a jot more optimistic.