8-8-2005: Arcata, (CA) seeks to wrest...

Author Message   admin Board Administrator Username: admin Post Number: 1194 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 1 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:30 am:        Black Box Voting is often asked to tell people what to do. We don't give marching orders. When you depend on your government, "experts," or any organization to tell you what to do, you buy into the idea that you should depend on someone else for solutions -- yet, the founders of the U.S. envisioned that you would actively participate in decisionmaking. They trusted your common sense, and knew that the true peril to our republic would come from complacency, rather than lack of wisdom. Here is a story of citizens who chose not to be complacent: In Arcata, California, the local citizenry created a "Resolution of Voter Confidence." (led by Dave Berman, whose actions show that one person can truly make a difference!) The full text of the Resolution is posted below this story. "The Voter Confidence Resolution is a common sense statement saying privatized election machines and secret vote counting ensure inconclusive outcomes. Under these conditions we will never have unanimous agreement about election results," says Dave Berman, co-founder of the Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt County, Calif. (See also: Berman's blog: http://guvwurld.blogspot.com; also, plan to participate here: THINK OUTSIDE THE BLACK BOX Online Think Tank, any time Aug. 27-Sep. 5 to brainstorm more real solutions.) "The Arcata City Council has demonstrated that our local government does hear the voice of the people, even when the federal government has stopped listening." The Voter Confidence Resolution passed by a margin of 3 to 2 after 15 months of community lobbying and ultimately just 35 minutes of official public comment and discussion. Councilmember Dave Meserve voted with the majority and said, "Adopting the Voter Confidence Resolution is an important step in establishing the legitimacy of our federal elections. I'm pleased that Arcata was the first City to pass the Voter Confidence Resolution and hope that many other cities will follow." The Resolution also states that the Consent of the Governed, defined in the Declaration of Independence as the self-evident truth from which Government derives 'just Power,' is no longer being sought through elections in America. Unverifiable votes, privatized source code, and secret vote counting ensure inconclusive outcomes. Since the results are inherently uncertain, the Resolution states, there is no basis for confidence. Around the U.S., election reform advocates are actively organizing and lobbying their City Councils to pass the Voter Confidence Resolution as well. The resolution adopted by Arcata has been developed at Dave Berman’s blog, <http://guvwurld.blogspot.com>, and is presented as a template to be customized somewhat by other participating communities. However, the following points are the framework for the Resolution, which when used around the country will generate a cumulative impact as more and more resolutions pass: 1. The way it works now, we’re guaranteed inconclusive outcomes and we’ll never have unanimous agreement about election results. 2. The Voter Confidence Resolution contains a comprehensive election reform platform designed to ensure conclusive outcomes and create a new basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections. 3. Since the Consent of the Governed is not being sought, we ask: Has the Consent of the Governed been withdrawn, YET? The benefit of cumulative impact means it is assumed that citizens will eventually switch the answer to this question from no, to YES, the Consent of the Governed HAS been withdrawn. Berman added: “I have no doubt that other communities will pass the Voter Confidence Resolution. The question is how many will it take before we can say the Consent of the Governed has been withdrawn?” In the post below, you'll find the full text of Arcata's Voter Confidence Resolution.   admin Board Administrator Username: admin Post Number: 1195 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:35 am:        FULL TEXT OF "VOTER CONFIDENCE RESOLUTION" (v6.1, LAST UPDATED: 5/14/05 5pm) Whereas an election is a competition for the privilege of representing the people; and Whereas each voter is entitled to cast a single ballot to record his or her preferences for representation; and Whereas the records of individual votes are the basis for counting and potentially re-counting a collective total and declaring a winner; and Whereas an election's outcome is a matter of public record, based on a finite collection of immutable smaller records; and Whereas a properly functioning election system should produce unanimous agreement about the results indicated by a fixed set of unchanging records; and Whereas recent U.S. federal elections have been conducted under conditions that have not produced unanimous agreement about the outcome; and Whereas future U.S. federal elections cannot possibly produce unanimous agreement as long as any condition permits an inconclusive count or re-count of votes; and Whereas inconclusive counts and re-counts have occurred during recent U.S. federal elections due in part to electronic voting devices that do not produce a paper record of votes to be recounted if necessary; and Whereas inconclusive results have also been caused by election machines losing data, producing negative vote totals, showing more votes than there are registered voters, and persistently and automatically swapping a voter's vote from his or her chosen candidate to an opponent; and Whereas inconclusive results make it impossible to measure the will of the people in their preferences for representation; and Whereas the Declaration of Independence refers to the Consent of the Governed as the self-evident truth from which Government derives "just Power"; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Because inconclusive results, by definition, mean that the true outcome of an election cannot be known, there is no basis for confidence in the results reported from U.S. federal elections; and Be it also resolved: The following is a comprehensive election reform platform likely to ensure conclusive election results and create a basis for confidence in U.S. federal elections: 1) voting processes owned and operated entirely in the public domain, and 2) clean money laws to keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and 3) a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast and additional uniform standards determined by a non-partisan nationally recognized commission, and 4) declaring election day a national holiday, and 5) counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and 6) equal time provisions to be restored by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and 7) presidential debates containing a minimum of three candidates, run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and 8) preferential voting and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections; Be it further resolved: When elections are conducted under conditions that prevent conclusive outcomes, the Consent of the Governed is not being sought. Absent this self-evident source of legitimacy, such Consent is not to be assumed or taken for granted. *** Endorsements David Cobb, 2004 Green Party Presidential Candidate Voter Confidence Committee Green Party of Humboldt County, CA Black Box Voting, Inc.   admin Board Administrator Username: admin Post Number: 1196 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:44 am:        Small nits to pick? Note that number (5), "counting all votes publicly and locally in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media" has not been specifically defined. The THINK OUTSIDE THE BLACK BOX Online Think Tank sponsored by Black Box Voting will open up the first real national discussion about practical challenges for precinct-based hand counts. Please join us for this: simply show up at http://www.blackboxvoting.org any time between Aug. 27 and Sep. 5, and you will be guided into the Online Think Tank. One of the discussion areas deals with identifying challenges and procedures for number (5) above. Also, regarding number (8), "preferential voting and proportional representation to replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections" -- Black Box Voting has not taken a formal position yet on proportional representation, but we have endorsed the Resolution because we absolutely believe in the concept of LOCAL CONTROL of elections, according to decisions made by the local citizenry, within the constraints and protections of the VOTER'S RIGHTS ACT and protected by a (not yet enacted) FEDERAL civil right to vote. Arcata is not the first location in the U.S. to choose a different system from "winner take all" -- Cambridge, Massachusetts switched away from winner take all a few years ago. At some point, Black Box Voting will take up that debate as a consumer issue; right now, we are focusing on the civil right to observe our vote counting, and the ability to make sure our votes were counted at all.   brantl Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: brantl Post Number: 25 Registered: 01-2005 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 7:58 am:        Voters need to have a guaranteed right to review that THEIR individual vote was recorded correctly (and a right to demand it be fixed if it wasn't recorded correctly) from a serialized paper copy of the ballot they cast. Summaries with listed serialized ballot information would verify that your vote was entered correctly and what the totals were for each candidate and ballot proposal in the voting precinct. This should be verifiable at all totaling levels.   admin Board Administrator Username: admin Post Number: 1215 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 8:45 am:        Brantl -- how does your proposal affect the privacy of your vote?   jimmarch Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: jimmarch Post Number: 13 Registered: 01-2005 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:33 am:        Brantl: it's a normal part of the voting process that the voter isn't supposed to be able to prove how they voted when they walk away from the polls. This is in direct response to incidents back east where "Guido" made sure you voted right and broke your leg if you didn't, or various vote-buying schemes. And yes, if you're thinking that vote-by-mail setups break this rule, you're absolutely right. There was a documented abuse some years back in which a city manager made sure his employees voted "correctly" on a city issue of some sort. It's also a big potential problem with internet voting. Picture either a union hall with internet terminals that track how you voted, or corporate America doing the same on company computers for white-collar workers. Installed keyloggers and mouse-stroke trackers could defeat any possible encryption setup... When done right, precinct voting rocks.

All original content on this website is Copyright (c) 2008-2009 by Black Box Voting. All rights reserved.
Forums powered by Discus Professional - www.discusware.com.
Original site and logo design is by Andy Markley - art101.com.