Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
...
|
| HR 811: Representative Lofgren's subs... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 30
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 2:25 am: | 
|
A quandary...
As the Committee on House Administration which recently passed HR 811 out of committee after markup and amendment has apparently decided to release only one amendment, the Lofgren amendment, to the public for scrutiny...
as opposed to the actual full text of the bill that was passed out of committee
... I've decided to examine the Lofgren text separately in the Holt oversight threads... even though the forces desparately trying to ram this DRE-corporation protection measure through Congress at flank speed will undoubtedly start chanting "You haven't heard the whole amended bill so you can't comment on it!"...
... of course if the CHA would kindly release the fully amended text for public scrutiny we wouldn't have that problem, would we?
Undoubtedly we won't see the actual markup text until just before it's rammed through the House... or just after... but for those who can't believe this is happening just look at http://cha.house.gov where they boast about HAVA on the front page, believe it or not... HAVA and its provisions against "fraud"...
I'll be posting my observations between naps throughout the day 
(Message edited by the_zapkitty on May 17, 2007) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3826
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 3:22 am: |
|
Kathy Dopp emailed a letter with numerous comments on the revised version (apparently much improved). (Thanks for that, Kathy.)
This link has Holt's comments on the changes, and the complete revised bill is here.
What do other folks think? It looks like they have integrated many important improvements (e.g. no longer extending the EAC).
If this passes the House it would go into committee with the Senate, and anything at all can happen there. If you don't know much about this process, read Matt Taibbi's excellent Rolling Stone article: "Four Amendments & a Funeral: A month inside the house of horrors that is Congress". It springs from Taibbi's first-hand observations of the process with then-Rep. Bernie Sanders. It can be found here. |
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 31
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 5:19 am: |
|
Thanks, Catherine!
So you have to go to nass.org to get the actual text... I'm hoping it's the actual text...
"Kathy Dopp emailed a letter with numerous comments on the revised version"
Is that publicly available? |
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 32
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 5:58 am: |
|
First impression: Damn... Holt's justifications have gotten downright smarmy as he tries to blame the bloggers without crediting them for the limited amount of backtracking he does own up to.
(I tell ya, the zapkitty traumatized him for life... ;) )
And then the evasiveness starts... shading into outright deception...
... sorry, Catherine, the EAC is no less a permanent installation under the markup than before... and no less of a power grab... and now it's one without official limits.
Details in the Holt threads as I go through the rest of this. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6252
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 6:46 am: |
|
Catherine, the new version is NOT improved! It's actually worse than its predecessor.
UNPRECEDENTED POWER GRAB
- It rides roughshod over the Constitutional rights of the states, by taking the unprecedented step of recommending that states violate their own state laws if needed in order to comply with the bill. It then says the states can catch up with their own laws later.
Let me explain just how wrong-headed this is, and "wrong-headed" is a polite term for "power grab":
Laws are supposed to be passed following a deliberative process. That deliberative process is not supposed to have a foregone conclusion, and if it does, the deliberative process is just a sham process. So, when the federal government encroaches on the fundamental checks and balances giving certain powers to the states, by telling the states to violate their own state laws, and then says "you can change your laws to match later", that is saying "do a sham deliberative process with a foregone conclusion" to create your legislative changes.
TOPPLING THE FOUNDATION
What we are seeing is a widening of the cracks in the foundation of the republic.
In a sense, what we are REALLY supposed to be doing with election reform is restoring the safeguards and rights we are entitled to. Those who restore historic buildings will tell you: If you just pour modern cement into the cracks, the building falls down faster.
What frightens me about this whole process, both HAVA and Holt, is that they are paying no heed to architecture and they are just slapping cement into the cracks of our democracy, without really assessing what that change in weight will do to the structure.
UNBELIEVABLE NEW FEDERAL SECRECY PROVISIONS
Another area where the current version of HR 811 is much worse is in the (for the first time!) FEDERALLY SANCTIONED secrecy requirements.
This bill endorses the process of trade secrecy by requiring nondisclosure agreements pertaining to voting machine software. Previously, only commercial contract law mandated that purchasers could not look at the code, and commercial contract law is trumped by constitutional rights. If this bill passes, efforts to win litigation on the commercial contract law are jeopardized because the federal government is formally endorsing trade secrecy in our voting system.
THE EAC SHAM
More cement in the cracks, making the building fall down faster: The bill pretends to hear the citizens horror about powers wielded by the four presidential appointees at the EAC. Look carefully -- all it does is eliminate the funding IN THIS BILL, while referencing the EAC explicitly over and over. It clearly depends on the continuation of the EAC. Apparently thinking we can't read, they removed the funding portion from Holt, and will obviously stick that into some other vehicle. The powers of the EAC remain.
They blamed the increased secrecy in software disclosure on Microsoft, but even that is disengenuous, because they capitulated entirely to Microsoft pressure (and Soros, by the way, has just doubled his stake in Microsoft; Soros has been funding pro-HR 811 groups and was heavily involved in HAVA as well). But after capitulating to Microsoft pressure and removing ALL disclosure on those products, they then added more secrecy to the customized software for voting machines by adding required nondisclosures -- basically, as Lehto says, "If we show you the code, we'll have to kill you."
An apt picture, because the nondisclosure -- the gag order -- applies to the LIFE OF THE TRADE SECRET and violation is punishable by any law in existence at the time.
MANDATES A GAG ORDER AND ONLY ALLOWS LOOKING AT A LAB QUEEN
To make the gag order even MORE inappropriate, the ONLY thing the select class of experts -- because only specified experts are allowed to look -- the ONLY thing they are allowed to look at is the LAB SPECIMEN held in escrow. That's right, the right to look at code, which is now restricted to a select class of experts who are required to sign a gag order, can NEVER EVEN LOOK AT THE ACTUAL CODE DEPLOYED IN THE FIELD.
THE HOLT PROPAGANDA MACHINE
And I could go on. Dopp, by the way, did a 180 degree flip after Holt's office contacted her and did a horse trade, accepting some of her audit protocols in exchange for her agreement to launch attacks on Nancy Tobi and me personally, in which they (Holt's office) attempted to shift the blame for the capitulation to Microsoft that they knew they were going to do to -- of all people -- me, Nancy Tobi, and Election Defense Alliance. They knew they were going to cave to Microsoft, so they ran a bunch of talking points out through Dopp, alleging that Tobi, BBV and EDA were "lobbying for secrecy in software."
They are especially focused on taking on Nancy Tobi right now, and Joyce McCloy is now aiming her propaganda guns at hand counted paper ballots. She is running around collecting testimonials from New Hampshire election officials against HCPB, and writing papers against HCPB, and contacting Nancy Tobi's own state officials in attempts to take out HCPB.
That's the real lay of the land, and it ain't pretty. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3827
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 7:23 am: |
|
Thanks for the quick feedback. I haven't looked at it yet--was more interested in getting the links up to speed up group evaluation.
Udar, I don't know if Kathy Dopp's letter is publicly available--I'd expect the gist of her remarks to be on one or more of her website(s):
http://kathydopp.com
http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://electionarchive.org |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6253
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 8:41 am: |
|
Catherine: Following is the reality of Kathy Dopp. Normally I do not permit personal criticisms here on BBV, but when individuals participate in propaganda, the only way to deal with it is to point it out.
29 Mar 2007 6 Apr 2007
[Kathy Dopp, 6 days before Holt Office called her and negotiated her audit protocols into the bill)]:
"Looks like HR811 has been put on hold. We've won!"
6 Apr 2007
[Kathy Dopp publicly attacks Nancy Tobi (24 hours after Holt Office called her and negotiated her audit protocols into the bill)]: "With Nancy's ACTIVE push to make the vast majority of voting system software secret, less secure, more costly, and less reliable, she could easily fool Congressional staffers into thinking that this makes sense."
6 Apr 2007
[Kathy Dopp to Tobi (48 hours after Holt Office called her and negotiated her audit protocols into the bill)] -- propaganda in full swing: "You truly are evilly dishonest and delusional to try to blame the fruits of your own actions to obtain secret voting system software on me. Some of us are very well aware that you are a shill for election officials and have publicly taken the position of both election officials and voting machine vendors.
Dopp then sent a press release alleging that Black Box Voting, Nancy Tobi, Election Defense Alliance and other groups not on board with HR811 were pushing secret software provisions.
She began publishing this stuff on voting reform leaders' lists and public message forums.
16 Apr 2007
[Kathy Dopp re: Black Box Voting, published on a popular political listserv]: "I would like to know how much, if any, funding BlackBoxVoting gets from Bill and Melinda Gates or any Microsoft foundations because Black Box Voting has adopted a position advocating for trade secret (Microsoft OS) software on voting systems in contrast to common sense, the advice of computer scientists, and the easy availability of publicly disclosed, smaller, more secure operating systems for voting systems and in direct contrast to stated goals of the Election Integrity community of transparency, verifiability, and accountability for our elections."
"Why is BBV not letting Microsoft do its own advocating? Why would an election integrity organization be advocating for an exemption from full public disclosure for Microsoft OS?"
12 May 2007
[Kathy Dopp on Nancy Tobi]: "I consider Nancy Tobi to be a very clever and very effective mole within the election integrity community for election officials, where her true allegiance lies."
12 May 2007
[Kathy Dopp on Nancy Tobi]: "Nancy repeats her lies over and over to convince everyone that the lie is real. She is exactly like GW Bush that way."
13 May 2007
[Kathy Dopp on Nancy Tobi]: "I honestly believe that the greatest threat to American democracy
within the election integrity community right now is Nancy Tobi."
* * *
Dopp began circulating these messages, and many more like them, on several different listservs; she put allegations in a press release which was so misleading that Black Box Voting had to publish a disclaimer on our front page to avoid misleading the press. She has continued this barrage, primarily aimed at Nancy Tobi, commencing 24 hours after the Holt horse trade and continuing to this day.
I have had to ban her from Black Box Voting because she has been spreading disinformation.
She also wrote this about Tom Courbat, after harassing him for nearly a week in vicious personal e-mails. At the time, and currently, Tom was and is currently battling critical illness, is in and out of the hospital, and at the same time is doing amazing work on voting rights:
2 Apr 2007
[Kathy Dopp on Tom Courbat]: I'm sorry but the number of male chauvinist idiots in the election integrity movement do drive me nuts at times - like Jonathan, Bruce and Tom for just three who absolutely refuse to imagine than anyone could be smarter than they are in anything."
The other individuals she is taking aim at in the above e-mail are Jonathan Simon and Bruce O'Dell, both reputable leaders in voting rights reform. She has also accused Howard Stanislevic of plagiarism and has publicly come out against Alan Dechert of Open Voting Consortium. |
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 33
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 9:21 am: |
|
May the Puma Sisters preserve us... I take a nap or three and...
... well, after reading her take on the subject I can't help but wonder: what does she think now...
... now that hr 811 keeps all voting machine software secret from the public? |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6255
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 9:32 am: |
|
What she thinks now is that we should hurry and pass the bill.
Hell of a horse trade, wasn't it? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 10:30 am: |
|
Holy Molies!
I go away for a couple of weeks and everybody starts eating their young!
What in the wide wide world of sports is a-goin' on here?
Is this movement imploding in upon itself?
Geez! |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6256
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 10:39 am: |
|
Nope, not imploding. Politics as usual. Dopp was an obstacle to passing Holt, Holt took care of that obstacle.
No major casualties, but always informative to see how things work. There will be news coming out today and for the next several days pertaining to how HR811 further cracks the foundation.
Many groups have now lined up against it, and many of us consider that Holt handed out gifts to opponents, particularly in the very bizarre recommendations to states suggesting that they violate their own state laws.
Dopp's interest has always been to get her audit methodology implemented. She's a mathematician, not a public policy wonk. Thus, following Ziglar's approach, "you can get what you want if you give other people what they want" Holt contacted her on April 5. She was understandably excited and bragged about this on public listservs, and 24 hours later, began the propaganda attacks. One of her propaganda pieces has now been traced straight back to Michelle Mulder -- meaning, some of the information isn't actually crafted by Dopp.
Politics as usual, we need to shrug it off and keep all eyes on the ball, which is democratic elections. |
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 34
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 10:51 am: |
|
Kurt despaired thusly:
"... go away for a couple of weeks and everybody starts eating their young!... movement imploding...?"
"everybody"?...
Actually, keeping in mind that I've only heard Bev's end of the story, even then it just sounds like an implosion of one and, if this story is so, you get such events in every movement. Without fail. It's rarely fatal for any of the parties involved much less the movement as a whole.
Election directors won't be rid of the looming threat of citizen oversight that easily ;)
(Message edited by the_zapkitty on May 17, 2007) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 11:14 am: |
|
Udar,
Yah! Well, umm, okay, but "citizen oversight" certainly may have its philosphical legs under it, but not so much the physical ones yet.
There are still gihugeous expanses of the coutry where the "citizen oversight" movement is one guy at a keyboard. Great start, but it needs to have people with "boots on the ground" before Election Admins will take it seriously. That's still a LOOOOONNNGGGG way off with the exception of a few pockets of strength, from what I'm seeing.
Not saying don't keep up the good fight. Just saying if you're seeing a groundswell on this, you live in a fundamentally different place than I do, my friend. 17 years of paperless DRE voting does that to a community. Nobody, with a few exceptions, cares a bit about DRE voting here. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6259
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 11:31 am: |
|
Uh, Kurt, for 145 years nobody thought women should vote, and for 300 years, the consensus was that slavery was okay.
Right is right, wrong is wrong, regardless of how the wind is blowing at the moment. Now, if you can find any justification for counting votes in secret in a nation where the Constitution explicitly gives The People the right to alter or abolish the government along with complete sovereignty, I'm all ears.
Two things that aren't in the Constitution: The "rights" of ANY political party and the "rights" of any election official to supercede the citizenry. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 11:52 am: |
|
Bev,
I know how you feel about certain decisions of the SCOTUS, but as a legal system, we have decided that the Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says.
And if you look at the decision in California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), you will finid that not only do political parties have rights, but those rights sometimes trump the rights of "the people".
Here's a link to the wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_Party_v._Jones |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1013
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 11:59 am: |
|
FWIW, just to quibble a little bit with you, Bev, most of that popular sovereignty stuff I see comes out of the Declaration of Independence, and not nearly so much the Constitution, which outside of a few key Amendments, is pretty dry "housekeeping" stuff.
All that alter and abolish stuff is pretty much the realm of the Declaration. |
From the Mailbag
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mailbag
Post Number: 180
Registered: 10-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 11:59 am: |
|
The Constitution says what the Constitution says. The case you pointed out is off-point for the issue of whether The People have the Consitutional right to throw out or alter their government.
Voting machines are just computers which count the votes in secret. -- Paul Lehto, voting rights attorney
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Hey Paul Lehto,
What PRECISELY is your Constitutional citation for "throw out or alter"?
Seems the Confederacy proved that you can't even quit the Republic. Some right!
And when you say that the Constitution says what the Constitution says, aren't you really saying that it says what YOU say it says? We have one body who is allowed to say what the Constitution says - The Supreme Court of the United States. Anybody else's opinion is pretty much for argument's sake only.
We should be very content that the SCOTUS "finds" things in the "penumbra" of the Constitution that do not appear in the text. many of our most cherished rights are enshrined that way.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on May 17, 2007) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6260
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 84, explaining the Preamble to the Constitution:
"[Our Constitution is] professedly founded upon the power of the people...Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations."
James Wilson to the Pennsylvania ratifying convention:
"supreme...power remains in the people" which Wilson makes more explicit a bit later: "The people 'never part with the whole' of their 'original power'" and they retain the right of recalling what they part with.
Thomas Tudor Tucker in the first congress, while an early version of the Tenth Amendment was under discussion: "Mr. Tucker proposed to amend the proposition by prefixing to it 'all powers being derived from the people." He thought this [the Tenth Amendment] was a better place than the introductory clause [the Preamble of the Constitution]. Eventually the same point was made by the Tenth Amendment's last three words.
There is a close relationship between the Preamble and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
"All are at their core about popular sovereignty. All, indeed, explicitly invoke "the people." -- Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights
Furthermore, the intent of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is clearly tied to the protection of The People against the government." |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6261
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:28 pm: |
|
"The most obvious and inalienable right underlying the Ninth Amendment is the collective right of We the People to alter or abolish government" -- Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights
Note the explicit right of The People to have a Constitutional Convention, the purpose of which is to allow The People to override any or all of the three branches (including the Supreme Court or any of its findings).
We the People rule. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Bev,
Oh yes, I agree with all that, especially the core philosophical point.
One problem. The Federalist Papers, while they are among my favorite literature (I actually carry an eBook of them in my Palm PDA), are NOT law.
Now I am as big a fan of the 10th Amendment as anyone is (with the possible exception of Bob Dole) (Remember how he used to whip that thing out while referring to himself in the 3rd person in 1996?), again the SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment have combined to eviscerate the 10th Amendment. Every attempt to bring a 10th Amendment case in our federal courts has failed on "standing". As much as I love the idea of the 10th, it has been crippled, perhaps fatally so, by the SCOTUS and the way the 14th has been interpreted over the years.
If you have a plan to resurrect the effectiveness of the 10th, now I'M all ears. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1016
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:34 pm: |
|
By the way, Bev,
If you want to start lobbying for a Constitutional Convention, I'm right there with you.
Where do I sign up? |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Nearly all of what you just posted, Bev, is stuff that people said about the constitution, it's not in it. And then, it depends on the daily interpretation of lots of people and then the courts' and Supreme Court's interpretation, when challenged.
If it isn't explicitly in the Constitution, you may not have the protections, and even if it is, with these bozos from the Federalist Society on board, you still may not be protected. Remember the 'eminent domain' ruling? What a steaming pile of horse crap that was. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Brant,
Correctomundo, sir!
But Bev has stated the trump card, IF AND ONLY IF we have the collective guts to play it - a Constitutional Convention. But that is very scary, also. Can you imagine what a nervous populace might do to 4th Amendment protections? Or 1st, or 2nd?
I've heard too many people say things like, "If you're not doing anything illegal, what do you have to worry about?" Tell that to the few surviving Jews from Central and Eastern Europe in the 1930's and 1940's.
I'm afraid that one poorly timed al-Qaeda attack would leave this country ready to throw the whole Bill of Rights out the window. |
Del Young
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Truthnet
Post Number: 18
Registered: 01-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 3:03 pm: |
|
How did y'all get off on a Con-Con? More than dangerous - the Constitution could be replaced to form a nation-state under a world Constitution. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6266
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Yes, a Constitutional Convention would put things into direct peril and we are not ready for that. It got to that point [the discussion here] by the argumentation against the inalienable right of The People to throw off an oppressive government. The first line of defense on this needs to be the vote, and the right of the people to watch the counting, and putting elections back under public control is first and foremost.
We do need to keep our eye on the ball. Yammering about whether or not the Supreme Court will allow it will not suffice; our right to watch and control our own votes is an inalienable right. The current essay by Paul Lehto provides context. It's now the lead story. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 7:07 am: |
|
quote:Yammering about whether or not the Supreme Court will allow it will not suffice; our right to watch and control our own votes is an inalienable right.
I'm sorry, yammering? It should be our right to watch and control our own votes, but we currently don't have that right. There currently isn't even a constitutional right to vote. You can't show me any law that makes it our right to control our own vote (what do you mean by this, anyway?), nor any right for the non-office (or not hired to be a poll worker at any rate) to have a 'right' to count the votes. In some places, it may be a requirement that selected citizens will be required to count the vote, in an official capacity, but not a right. Didn't we just go through Ohio's whole twisted business where the citizens had no standing to demand a recount, only the candidates? I'm sure we did.
And since we now have habeas corpus eviscerated, the right to a fair trial eviscerated (you can be declared an enemy combatant and kept without trial for the rest of your life, you can have illegal evidence used against you at the discretion of the 'judge') it is inarguable that if the bill of rights isn't dead, it's a lot sicker than we should ever like it to be. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 7:29 am: |
|
I really need to check the lunar phases because I find myself in agreement with Brant more often than I feel comfortable with. (Hehehe, just yankin' yo' chain, ol' buddy!)
But he's dead on correct. We presently, UNLESS WE ARE INTIMATELY AFFILIATED WITH A PARTY OR CANDIDATE IN AN ELECTION, have NO RIGHT to observe the counting of, much less DO the counting of BUPKISS!
The right simply does not exist almost anywhere! Yes, maybe it should, but it doesn't. Try going into any polling place in Pennsylvania to observe the tally at the close of business on Election Day. You'd better have a Watcher's Certificate, or you ain't gettin' in. Who controls those? The parties with candidates on the ballot or the candidates themselves, that's who.
Unaffiliated? Election integrity watchdog? Tough! You can't watch a damned thing. You have no such right presently. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6267
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 8:02 am: |
|
We have the right, but it is being withheld from us.
Don't get entirely hung up on what current inappropriate customs are. We have the right.
Women and black people always had the right as well, based on the ideals upon which this nation was founded, but their rights were being withheld. Rather than pointing to the status quo, "gee, no one thinks women should vote so I guess we can't vote," the fight began to force this nation to live up to its own ideals.
That's what we must do now. Counting votes in secret and having no public control over it violates the principles upon which this nation was founded. We need to do whatever it takes to force the nation to live up to its own principles.
It will be best if this can be done without taking up arms. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 8:39 am: |
|
Seems we're splitting ideological vs. practical hairs here, then.
When I say we don't have a right, it means we cannot go into court and "git er done" presently. And we cannot. Any "right" we have that is not presently obtainable is a fundamemtally different type of right than those that we can win in court.
I love dabbling in ideological thoughts as much as the next guy, but we have to be honest enough with ourselves to realize that in elections in particular, what the courts say goes.
Lookit, the Supreme Court gerrymandering case in PA, (Vieth v. Jubelierer) was as gross a partisan gerrymander as any you can imagine. By any "neutral" or objective viewpoint, that map was just plain gross. The Supreme Court said it was okay, SO IT IS OKAY! Anything else is political posturing and rhetorical nonsense. We have to live in the real world, and the real world is what the courts say, goes. |
Udar Koschka
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: The_zapkitty
Post Number: 35
Registered: 02-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 9:58 am: |
|
"... what the courts say, goes."
That is... until they don't say that particular thing anymore.
"Defeatism is futile." |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 10:18 am: |
|
That is very true, my friend.
But the road to any reversal by a court (especially the SCOTUS) is littered with dozens or hundreds of losses due to stare decisis.
There is hope, though. The Supreme Court once held that the right to counsel in state court criminal trials was not federally enforceable. In Gideon v. Wainwright, they reversed themselves utterly and completely on that point. So it CAN happen, but it is VERY VERY rare.
Much more common is chipping away at earlier findings until not much is left of the original. It's a process we may just now be beginning to see involving abortion. Rarely are the original generation still around to see the changes made.
Any meaningful change to election jurisprudence is a LONG slog, I'm afraid. If you don't mind fighting now for your children's or grandchildren's generation, then have at it.
If you think you're going to get quick results, or make 2008 look much different from 2004 or 2006, I think you're in for a big disappointment. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6268
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 11:52 am: |
|
Attorney Mark Adams hits this on the head.
quote:It seems to me that far too many people have missed the most basic points. First, the Holt bill does not restore transparent elections. Second, it is very easy to restore transparent elections by simply requiring that votes are cast on paper ballots and counted in public. This was how our elections were conducted throughout our country until computers started being used to count ballots in the 1960’s, and many counties were still doing it by hand in the 1970's.
Why would anyone want to support a bill that does not fully, easily, and inexpensively restore transparent elections by requiring voting to take place on paper ballots which are counted in public? I have heard many plausible suggestions why, but I don’t think they need to be restated.
The question to you is do you want to restore and preserve our democracy, or do you want to entrust it to those who would continue to use secret vote counting machines which are unreliable, expensive, and unnecessary?
|
Jason Aaron Osgood
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Zappini
Post Number: 53
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Hi Bev-
I'll summarize my opposition to HR 811 (for all of its defenders):
- The voter verified paper audit trail is a placebo.
- Audits cannot detect or disprove fraud.
(Those are short versions. Longer versions are available on request. Haha.)
I haven't scrutinized the rest of the bill. Sorry, but I assume the remainder is just as bad.
Reading your posts above makes my head spin. The internecine circular firing squad always impresses me.
So, now that I've stated my opposition to all computerized voting schemes, including the silly notions of "end to end auditing", am I now part of a secret cabal? If so, then I want my payout. Thus far, the only money I've made as an election integrity activist is serving as a poll worker.
No one is a bigger proponent of open source alternatives than me. Further, I believe there should be zero restrictions on the public's access to the source code and hardware used in our elections. I've spoken with you and I believe we're on the same page. (Right?) So I guess I'm a bit confused.
Cheers, Jason Osgood
---
zappini.blogspot.com
|
Jason Aaron Osgood
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Zappini
Post Number: 54
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 12:02 pm: |
|
A word about audits, just in case I confused anyone: I'm all for them. But they're not a silver bullet. I wholely support audits in the same way I support conducting exit polls: they can be a useful cross check.
---
zappini.blogspot.com
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 2:59 pm: |
|
Bev,
Mark Adams apparently does not live in the industrial northeast, where many places have been voting not necessarily on 7 pound "black boxes" but 800 pound "grey boxes" since the 1930's.
That is why there is an admittedly "lumpy" (i.e. not uniform) cultural predisposition to reject paper ballots here in the northeast. In many places here, few voters alive have EVER voted on paper. They wouldn't know what to do without some "machine" to vote on.
That's how fundamental the issue is. My dad is 84, and he has never voted a paper ballot in his life. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3828
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Your dad has probably used pen and paper for other things, Kurt. Using pen and paper is a more universal experience than using a computer.
I hope you have the chance to observe an election count that uses HCPB with good procedures. Have you considered making such a visit? Have you received any invitations?
(We've got a general election in Ireland next week. . .) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6269
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Some people said slaves like being slaves, too. Whether a given person likes it or accepts it has no relevance. The issue is whether the structure is in place that puts the citizens in ultimate control, or whether ultimate control resides in another entity. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6270
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 3:11 pm: |
|
And Catherine ... wondering if you're stateside right now or across the pond? Will you be in the U.S. around June 9-10? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Bev,
Unfortunately, and this is my honest assessment based on what I see here, the VAST majority of folks here (I'd estimate over 75%) are just too happy to have that ultimate control residing in another entity. Just as long as they aren't asked to do anything themselves to enhance democracy. Too much trouble.
As long as it's somebody else's job or problem, and they aren't asked to help, they're just fine and dandy with it.
Tragic, but true, at least here. Most people can't be bothered.
Remember, in PA, under the law that existed pre-HAVA, paperless DRE machines could ONLY be installed after being approved by a voter referendum. We had ours in the mid-80's, and it passed OVERWHELMINGLY, despite the fact that it cost local taxpayers millions to do. It was a landslide! They're here in this little corner because the people wanted them.
(Message edited by Formerelecdir on May 18, 2007) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3829
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Bev, as far as I know I'll be in Ireland. What's up on June 9-10?
Kurt, forgive a little rant. I love hearing your perspective and often you are very wise. And I also get sick of hearing "how we do it in PA". PA is not the whole USA. Other states do things differently. And how they do it in PA can change, too. Sometimes I wonder if, in your desire to point how "how things are" (in PA, usually, or "in election offices) you imply that there's no chance of change. Think of the Berlin wall. Sometimes things happen faster than anyone could have predicted. We've got to keep honing our clear view of what we want (individually or collectively). Your realism ("where we are now") is really important--in fact it is crucial. And it's also not the whole story. We've got to also think of "Where do we want to go from here?" We've got to keep reminding ourselves that regardless of where we are now, movement is possible, and we better consider well what direction we want to move in. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Catherine,
I agree with all that. I just think that "one size fits all" is as flawed an idea when you're trying to shoehorn Diebold TSx's everywhere as it is if you're trying to shoehorn HCPB everywhere.
And yes, changing ANYTHING here is a glacially slow process. This state is dominated by stubborn pigheaded ethnic central and eastern European ancestry folks who have the unofficial motto, "We never needed that before, we don't need it now."
You can imagine all the fast-moving reform you want. If it makes your day, go for it. It's just not realistic here. If there ever were to be a federal law calling for HCPB, THAT might bring people into the steets here.....TO OPPOSE IT!
I've lived here all my 52 years (Sunday) and I know these people like the back of my hand. HCPB would be a public relations and infrastructure nightmare here. The opposition would be immediate and ugly. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6271
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Kurt, read the Lehto editorial.
It addresses many of your points -- you are welcome to issue rebuttals there, but first, read it carefully.
Next, you are making assumptions that aren't necessarily correct, and then rebutting the erroneous assumptions. Let's stick with a discussion of the most appropriate structure for democratic elections before we get mired in a discussion of implementation, because it's best to have an architectural plan, and then a project management plan, before you rush off and build something.
In fact, lack of any architectural thinking is what got us into the current situation, with the help of a few profiteers, crooks, and political party wonks. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Okay Bev,
I'll parse Lehto's piece carefully word by word. So far, I only gave it a once-over. You've been abundantly fair to me. I owe you that much.
But be forewarned, Bev. I come to the table with a core set of precepts, too. My own "self evident truths", if you'll allow ME to delve into the Declaration for inspiration too.
And one of those is I reject "federalization" of elections. Elections are state things (or lower), and the federal camel's nose is an unwelcome thing to me. I have never cast a vote for President in my life. In fact, I have never cast a single vote ever anywhere (that mattered) for a non-Pennsylvanian. (By way of explanation, even our Primary votes for President are in a meaningless "beauty contest".)
So one of my core beliefs is that the opinion of no one in Washington or Michigan or California or Ireland matters a whit to a Pennsylvania election. And what I think about Ohio's recount is as meaningless and worthless as what John Conyers thinks about it, in my opinion.
I have come to understand, and in fact LOVE, our state-based electoral system. I want no parts of popular vote elections for President, and I like the Electoral College just bloody fine the way it is right now, thank you. I consider it no less than genius. I think it is some of the Founders' best work.
So I suspect that when ANY writer, including Lehto, brings to the table a predeliction to think nationally about elections (not saying he does - just guessing) then I also suspect that my viewpoint and his will diverge.
Fair enough, Bev?
I want local sovereignty restored, within reason. I say that because rights abuses still abound. By way of example, I point out a memo that former Alabama SoS Worley sent out last year reprimanding some unnamed Alabama county for refusing to register voters in the "wrong" party.
When fundamental rights protected by the federal constitution (that's the reason for "shall not be abridged" language) are breached, then in that limited circumstance we are all nationally injured, but only in those circumstances.
Is democracy only a virtue if its results confirm with our wishes? Does a Berks County, PA democratically decided referendum in the mid-80's to install DREs have any less validity than any other piece of democracy?
I think we need more introspection before we impose "one size fits all" solutions universally. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Catherine,
I sit here rereading your thoughtful missive at 4:00PM system time, and it dawns on me why it troubles me so. It is this:
"and we better consider well what direction we want to move in"
I belive it is a valid criticism of the election integrity movement that it has no consensus on this at any given time, and even less when taken over time. At one point in time, there was a rough consensus on "paper trails". Before that, other people who fancied themselves the "reform movement" actually lobbied hard FOR paperless DREs. (2001)
That is the problem, Catherine. Too much balkanization. Too many mutually exclusive "solutions". Too little detail. Too many moving goalposts.
What existed BEFORE Florida 2000 was not plopped down like so much manna from Heaven. It evolved slowly, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, decade by decade, based on the unique needs and desires of those localities.
I propose to you that it was the ugly spectre of that lack of uniformity that caught a sleeping nation unawares. Yet it existed for decades, and in some key ways exists to this day.
Maybe the answer is to find a way to be at peace with the differences, and stop seeking uniformity. Maybe we need to grow up and realize there are no national elections in the USA, and Congress needs to keep its grubby paws the hell out of elections, and let states handle them as they see fit.
Maybe we have this whole bloody mess back asswards. |
Jason Aaron Osgood
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Zappini
Post Number: 55
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 7:52 pm: |
|
V. Kurt Bellman-
The election integrity "movement" didn't have consensus because people didn't understand what was going on. It take time for knowledge to spread throughout a culture. When innovation occurs, lots of pockets of experimentation occurs, with everyone running in every direction. Over time, as those pockets look around and learn from each other, and best available solutions are identified, the number of acceptable options is reduced.
This is standard sociology and cultural evolution. The seminal text is "The Diffusion of Innovation". Everything since then is commentary.
I've been involved for only two years. I've already seen a couple major sea changes. For instance, Voters Unite just did a complete 180 and is now calling for a ban on computerized voting machines. (I've always liked John Gideon. Despite our disagreements on some specifics, he's always helped me in my quest.)
Maybe the answer is to find a way to be at peace with the differences, and stop seeking uniformity. Maybe we need to grow up and realize there are no national elections in the USA, and Congress needs to keep its grubby paws the hell out of elections, and let states handle them as they see fit.
I completely disagree. State's rights isn't an absolute.
First, we're largely in this mess because Congress already fiddled and now we have to actively unfiddle.
Second, while I believe the feds shouldn't tell the states HOW TO run their elections, they certainly should tell states HOW TO NOT run their elections. And computerized voting machines should be banned. For constitutional reasons. Because there's no technical way to protect the secret ballot as well as ensure the public vote count. And, I, for one, do not want state's to have the option of undermining democracy. Because if democracy is subverted in one place, it's subverted in every place.
Cheers, Jason Osgood / Seattle WA
---
zappini.blogspot.com
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 8:21 pm: |
|
Jason,
That is great stuff, and more appreciated than you know. I've been "involved" for 19 years, and nearly obsessed with it for 7. So I've seen a fair amount of water flow over the dam.
Here's the bugaboo. Everyone, no matter how experienced, no matter how "developed" or "matured" their thinking is, demands to be not only taken seriously, but heeded, and NOW, DAMMIT! How can the admin community possibly deal with that? They can't.
Right now, HB811 is being rushed through (I just thought about that pun. Bad, huh?) because "we have to do SOMETHING before 2008. Wha???!!! Anybody thinking that way has no appreciation for how long these things actually take. Governments typically take three years to decide on what PC's to buy, for cripes sake!
Local and state governments have absolutely no ability to deal with demands that are constantly evolving. They just aren't nimble enough. They have to have four meetings to decide how to decide who will be on the committee that decides.
By that time, the demands have changed.
I agree fully about needing to unfiddle. Listen carefully to the things Sen. Dodd has said. HAVA was passed with the full knowledge that they were dancing right up to the edge of unconstitutionality. HB811 is a headlong dive into its abyss.
But before the federal government says ANYTHING about voting, shouldn't it have the right to that area of inquiry? What Constitutional clause gives Congress the right to much of anything in elections? The federal Constitution can't even muster up enough gumption to even grant the right to vote to anyone. All it does is restrict the states from abriging that right for various reasons once the state has generally granted it. That's a long way from having anything to say about electoral infrastructure.
I have a STATE constitutional right to a secret ballot. I have no FEDERAL constitutional right to ANY ballot, secret or otherwise. And I can't find in EITHER document a right to count the damned things or even observe such a counting. So it seems we have a few prerequisites to take before we're eligible for the senior thesis seminar. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3830
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 7:17 am: |
|
Kurt,
Of course PA voters have the right to decide what kind of voting system they want.
However, it is important that PA voters making such decisions have access to the information that will allow them to make an informed choice.
You say that Berks Co. decided in the mid-1980s to hold elections on DREs. I question the state of knowledge available about those systems at the time such a decision was made.
I do not believe in a one-size fits all solution.
I do believe that election officials and voters should inform themselves as to the advantages, disadvantages and risks of various systems for registration, voting and counting.
That includes obtaining appropriate information about what is done in other places for the purpose of gathering relevant information. This can help avoid election officials, politicians or others making uninformed statements that rely on propaganda or outright lies from vested interests who stand to gain from a particular solution, or are based on unsubstantiated hunches or a small subset of experience.
Informed consent is at the heart of a functioning democracy. I propose more stress on information-gathering. This requires transparency and access to information, so that local voters can make informed choices. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 6273
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 7:29 am: |
|
Kurt, on the issue of whether voters can vote in a system that abridges fundamental civil rights -- they cannot. It really doesn't matter whether voters "vote in slavery" -- you can't take away people's liberty by voting on it.
The issue, and for now you disagree, is whether counting votes in secret violates a fundamental civil right of The People.
Your analysis as to whether there is a Constitutional right to vote repeats some common misconceptions. I have forwarded it to Lehto, and perhaps he will weigh in. If not, I'll try to duck back in and correct that misimpression. Gotta go, on the road... |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Catherine and Bev,
The choices on the table in the mid-80's were 1) retaining the lever machinese, which were wearing out and failing at unacceptable rates, with no parts available other than through machine canibalization (in fact, our decision to NOT go that way made a windfall of temporary parts available to other counties), 2) punch cards, 3) old fashioned paper ballots hand counted, or 4) the DRE (Shouptronic 1242).
All options, including HCPB were rejected, and the choice was made for DREs.
Bev, I understand your passion about this "fundamental civil rights" thing, really I do. Here's the problem. I can't find one person whose job it is to decide such things that agrees with you. I can't find one official so empowered who believes that voting on a DRE violates any such thing. Even in the mid-19th century southern states, there were slavery abolishionists in office. Not enough, but some.
The ONLY people I can find who share the intensity of your view on this are people who are not in positions to make these calls.
IN FACT, the recent history is LITTERED with severe critics of electronic voting who later gain such offices only to find out that the more they work with these systems, the less objectionable they become, and the less attractive the remedies they once believed in become. I speak of several Florida elected county election admins.
I also have been in this debate for so long that I go back far enough to remember Dr. David Dill's first foray into being a pollworker, after which he wrote an essay where he admitted that he was WRONG about many of his previously believed attack vectors, but noticed new ones that he hadn't thought of before.
I think it is incumbent upon ALL critics to know intimately whereof they speak (the full system) before they speak too mightily about what is "truth". State your beliefs, have your opinions, but keep paying attention to the whole system being used, INCLUDING the presence or absence of procedural safeguards.
When you hear of reports of "vote flipping" or such things, ask for the exact name of the county, precinct, and voting location, and the name of the person making the report. What you'll find is that when you do this, about 90% of such "reports" become orphans.
I have experienced this first hand. People claim and have claimed many many things. I regularly got dozens of third and fourth hand reports of irregularities. When I tried to get first hand or even second hand reports, I almost never could. And in the few cases where I could, like when I personally went to a polling place to attend to a "malfunctioning" machine, I invariably found a machine working perfectly fine, and a voter who wanted to do something (like cumulative voting in a Vote-For-4 election or attempting to vote in both primaries in a closed primary election) that were prohibited by law and the machines were CORRECTLY preventing them from doing it.
I know for DAMNED sure you don't want to hear this, but it is true. About 99% of so-called "irregularities" or "glitches" are voter or pollworker errors and mistakes or failure to know or understand the law. And that includes Dr. Rebecca Mercuri's famous "expose" in Montgomery County, PA on the Seqouia Advantage. She made a big flourish of several so-called "glitches" in Montco that turned out to be perfectly correctly programmed machines and that neither Dr. Mercuri NOR the complaining voter understood the law regarding the correct and legally mandated method of casting exceptions to a straight party vote.
There simply are too few people who understand the complexities of election law and procedure, and many of them know all to well how to complain and call press conferences and do publicity stunts. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 9:20 pm: |
|
Here's a key example:
How many people do you think realize that there's no such thing as a vaid write-in vote for President?
You can't write in "Ralph Nader" because you aren't voting for a President. You're voting for a slate of electors, all of whom are residents of your state. So when you write in "Ralph Nader" when he's not on the ballot, you are voting for a non-existent person named "Ralph Nader" to become a member of the slate of electors who will vote at the state capitol on the date specified.
In a state with 18 Congressional districts, in order to write-in for Ralph Nader, you would have to write in the names of the 20 electors who will vote for Ralph Nader.
The lack of electoral knowledge is this country is astonishing and overwhelming. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 9:28 pm: |
|
And Bev,
There is no federal right to vote. That was first brought to my attention by one of the nations most august election and civil rights attorneys, Todd Cox, formerly counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3835
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 2:28 am: |
|
Kurt, you might want to check out Paul Lehto's recent rebuttal to your statement that "There is no federal right to vote." His post is here. |
Jason Aaron Osgood
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Zappini
Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 6:11 am: |
|
Hi V. Kurt Bellman-
"IN FACT, the recent history is LITTERED with severe critics of electronic voting who later gain such offices only to find out that the more they work with these systems, the less objectionable they become, and the less attractive the remedies they once believed in become."
Stockholm Syndrome.
I was listening to my local election officials explain the security measures of the new highspeed tabulators they intend to buy. I know they're lying. But the more they talk, the more reasonable their ideas sound. I was amazed.
Afterwards, I likened the exercise to the Rodney King beatings and the jury trial. You see the tape and you think "Guilty!" But the defense wore down the jury, sowing "reasonable doubt" and coming up with all sorts of excuses.
That's kind of what the elections officials did to our oversight people.
I've since learned that these bureaucrats are actually taught these techniques. Talk calmly. Talk slowly. Use a sing song voice. Etc.
So, just to clarify, the computerized voting machines are irredeemable flawed. They cannot protect the secret ballot and the public vote count at the same time.
"I have a STATE constitutional right to a secret ballot. I have no FEDERAL constitutional right to ANY ballot, secret or otherwise. And I can't find in EITHER document a right to count the damned things or even observe such a counting."
Yea, you're probably right. My state guarantees those things. And I forget that the other states aren't with the program yet. I even looked up the international human rights things; they don't list voting as a fundamental right either.
I guess I really don't care. I have a right to a secret ballot, a public vote count, and citizen oversight. I'll be patient until it gets codified into law.
"Here's the bugaboo. Everyone, no matter how experienced, no matter how "developed" or "matured" their thinking is, demands to be not only taken seriously, but heeded, and NOW, DAMMIT! How can the admin community possibly deal with that? They can't."
I worked with a co-manager who was grumpy that the rest of our organization was more interested in turf than making money, helping the customer, doing their jobs, etc. So I shared my philosophy of organizational change:
1) Our team's job is to ship quality products on time and within budget. The job of every other person in the company is to stop us. Hence the conflict.
2) On a day to day level, the job of every bureaucrat is to say "No". My job is to get them to say "Yes".
Everyone gets cranky about the issue you just raised. I don't. It's just order vs chaos, standardization vs innovation, conservative vs liberal, stability vs change. These opposing forces are never in balance. No one is ever happy.
That's just how things are.
Cheers, Jason Osgood / Seattle WA
---
zappini.blogspot.com
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 9:24 am: |
|
Jason,
Well thought out points. I offer a few responses.
To your first point:
Could it be possibly true that these systems are not quite AS BAD as some have thought, even though they still are not GOOD ENOUGH? And before you answer that, remember that we are still in the middle of an experiment, posted on another thread here, where the very same tachniques that were used ON FILM to crack election databases of several vendors, have failed to gain similar access to one of the oldest electronic systems around. Point is - despite ALL the lying going on, there STILL are some systems better than others, even if they aren't good enough.
Second point (patience pending codification):
As long as you realize that until codification happens, you can't get it recognized in a court, and the people who would deny you that "right" can enforce their view in court, and are likely prone to do so. I am a former county election director, and I know the voting systems in my county like the back of my hand, and unless I sign on with a party or candidate, I have no right to witness squat right now in my county as a neutral unattached observer, even WITH my unique level of expertise. (Maybe even BECAUSE of it.)
Third point:
Agreed. So should election admins spend millions of dollars every few years chasing a moving target, or should election admins wait until the dust settles and then act? Let the herd thin itself out. I'm seriously asking that. It's not rhetorical. I don't think constantly doing "Ready, Fire, Aim" is a wise use of public resources. |
Jason Aaron Osgood
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Zappini
Post Number: 57
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:58 am: |
|
Hi V. Kurt Bellman-
"Could it be possibly true that these systems are not quite AS BAD as some have thought, even though they still are not GOOD ENOUGH?"
I don't have the cite handy, but my understanding is that an academic comparison of all available voting technologies concluded that paper ballots counted on precinct-based optical scanners has the lowest error rate. I'm cool with that. For now. Until we have something better.
"As long as you realize that until codification happens, you can't get it recognized in a court, and the people who would deny you that "right" can enforce their view in court, and are likely prone to do so."
I definitely don't understand the law. But I do understand expectations. In my state, we do have the right to secret ballots and public vote counts. By defending those rights here we're strengthening the case for ensuring those rights elsewhere.
In their lawsuit against San Juan County, White & and Rosato pull out some federal mojo, arguing for equal protection and the like. Again, I don't understand the constellation of laws and how they apply. I have, however, consulted others who know this stuff. And I'm told it's a very straightforward argument. So I'm operating on the premise that if we have these rights, then you do too. Maybe not explicitly enumerated. And maybe not in the law. But everyone definitely has a reasonable expectation of these rights.
Meanwhile, we can always lobby to have these rights and protections, already established through precedent, explicitly enumerated.
Because, flatly, the value of our secret ballot and public vote count is lessened if only a few of us have those rights. So it's in my interests to help ensure that every one gets on board.
"So should election admins spend millions of dollars every few years chasing a moving target, or should election admins wait until the dust settles and then act? Let the herd thin itself out. I'm seriously asking that. It's not rhetorical."
I think we're in agreement here. My counties current system, Diebold AccuVote OS op-scans in both the precincts and central count, isn't fantastic. But it's the devil we know. And it's worked pretty well to date.
You may have read elsewhere that my county intends to buy all new gear. Just in time for a presidential election. Usually, I'm the first to embrace new technology. But in this case, I'm trying to apply the brakes.
Are we more or less on the same page now?
Cheers, Jason Osgood / Seattle WA
---
zappini.blogspot.com
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Oh great zappini, ("zappini" seems to need "great" before it, dontcha think?)
Yes, I think we're in substantial agreement here. But here's an irony for you. You seem to be the irony appreciating sort. Of all the systems that have been approved in PA, including some real shady ones, one that WASN'T was the Diebold OS. Yikes! The Hursti I attack, I believe.
In my state, I, like you, have an explicit state Constitutional right to a secret vote, which may be a ballot or a machine, but what I LACK, presently, is an explicit right to a public vote COUNT, DEPENDING on how one defines "public". The only subset of the "public" that is so entitled are those holding watcher's certificates issued by the candidates and parties after the county issues them to those entities.
Here's another irony for you. Two years ago, it was MY signature on those certificates, and an embossed seal that I PERSONALLY affixed. Today, unless I am named a watcher by a candidate or party on the ballot, I cannot even CARRY one of those watcher's certificates. So I have no rights, unaffiliated with someone with a dog in the fight, to observe the counting or tabulating of anything at any level. How do you like THEM apples? As a citizen and voter, I possess no such rights, and the fact that I DON'T is spelled out explicitly in statute and case law.
BTW, depending on how you define "error" I think your first statement is largely correct. |
Samuel Scharff
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Abacus
Post Number: 52
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 2:49 pm: |
|
I hear of a really wicked-sounding thing called HR2630, whereby what seem like bent election officials seek to foist something worse than HR 811 on us...
??
Abacus
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1074
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 12:45 pm: |
|
As of five minutes ago, thomas.gov showed nothing on a HR 2630.
Any idea where this is coming from? |
Samuel Scharff
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Abacus
Post Number: 53
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 2:53 pm: |
|
GOP Offers A Realistic Approach to Election Reform
GOP Members of Committee on House Administration Urge Colleagues to
Support H.R. 2360 and Vote Against H.R. 811
WASHINGTON – Today, GOP members of the Committee on House Administration sent the following letter asking their colleagues to support H.R. 2360, which prescribes real and reasonable election reform, and oppose H.R. 811, which has been deemed a ‘cumbersome monstrosity’ by election officials from across the country:
http://www.gop.cha.house.gov/
Error: Lungren, not Lofgren - sorry!
Abacus
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Well Sam,
Gotta agree. I'd say they have many of the criticisms of 811 about right, but 2360, from what I've read, is no better, except in that it doesn't expect much new by 2008.
I'll read it all, but I'm not optimistic. |
|
|
