DNC endorses voter verified audit trail

[DEMActivist]

Announcement from The Commonweal Institute just received in email

Dear Friends,

We just received word that the Democratic National Committee unanimously approved a resolution for having accessible, voter-verifiable audit trails for all electronic voting devices. It was merged with a resolution supporting the full funding of HAVA (Help America Vote Act of 2001).

According to Chris Stampolis, the DNC member who eventually submitted the resolution, "The DNC is now on record as advocating mandatory paper trails by November 2004 for all touchscreen or other electronic voting....This was the only resolution nationally that referenced electronic voting at all. It was well-embraced by national leaders, and is now the official position of the national party."

[Nottingham]

1. About time!

:bounce:

[Zhade]

2. I'm cautiously optimistic...

We'll need to parse the resolution, of course.

Here's hoping it tracks clean!

[DEMActivist]

3. Yeah, I'm disappointed in...

Voter verified audit trail instead of voter verified paper ballot, but something is better than nothing, right?

[BattyDem]

6. Wouldn't a voter verified trail

have to be a paper ballot? How else can a voter verify his/her own vote? If they verify electronically, it sort of defeats the whole purpose of the resolution. :-(

[DEMActivist]

9. Not necessarily

If they are signing on to the "David Dill/VoteHere" convoluted get a piece a paper with a bar code on it, then sign online to confirm your vote was counted right with that bar code.

Believe it or not, that's what some people (supposedly on OUR side) are content to call a voter verified audit trail.

[BattyDem]

12. Are you kidding me?

:wtf:

That's total BS. They can rig the software that reads/interprets the barcode! If they can give us a piece of paper with a barcode on it, they can give us one in plain English! :mad:

[Zhade]

16. I'm sorry - WHAT?

Are you saying David Dill has ties to VoteHere?

[DEMActivist]

17. I'm saying David Dill supports

the VoteHere proposed solution as I described above.

He has said so several times right here on DU. Search for the DU member "dill" and look for a post of his last week. He reiterated his support of the VoteHere solution again.

[Zhade]

18. Dill supports what "Admiral Bill Owens, Chairman" VoteHere proposes?

Am I just crazy, or is this a very bad thing? I thought VH was one of the bad guys...?

[DEMActivist]

19. Well, most of the DU BBV activists

are vehemently opposed to the VoteHere solution and consider it a very bad escape hatch against the goal of a true voter verified paper ballot.

I, personally, consider this proposal as nothing more than selling out the real purpose of our activism - a true voter verified paper ballot. A piece of paper which confirms how the voter cast his/her vote.

In Georgia, we don't plan to quit until the law says the electronic tally is an unofficial number, which can only be certified by comparing it to the numbers arrived at by counting the paper ballots.

[Zhade]

21. So what's up with this?

David? Are you around? Maybe we're missing something...?

[dill]

31. You're missing just about everything.

You're missing every previous post I've made on this subject
to DU.

You're missing the information on our website, which DEMActivist
has urged that people not read.

You're missing the fact that DEMActivist has been a font of misinformation
in the past. Remember her promise that there would be stunning revelations
in the press about my corrupt behavior?


You're missing the fact that I have repeatedly said, here and
elsewhere, that the only proven technology for providing a voter
verifiable audit trail is PAPER. As a technologist, it would
not be intellectually honest for me to say there can't be any
You're missing the fact that all I've said I'd do with the
VoteHere "solution" is look at it. My personally value is not
to "vehemently oppose" something until I understand it.

I wasn't involved in drafting the DNC resolution, and I don't know
what the final version said. I saw a version a week ago that
unambiguously called for a paper trail. If so, both quotes above
are accurate, because a voter verifiable audit trail is a voter
verifiable paper trail.

I'm fed up with responding to baseless attacks in this forum.
It's time other readers started exercising some critical judgement.
Does anyone consider the credibility of a source or cross check
a statement with other information?

A lot of good work is being done by people posting here, but there
is a lot of pointless divisiveness.

It is an INCREDIBLE breakthrough if the DNC has asked for anything
close to what we want. Anyone who doesn't appreciate that has no
clue what kind of opposition we're up against.

[Eloriel]

33. Apparently, Dill, some of those baseless attacks are

in your imagination.

You're missing the information on our website, which DEMActivist
has urged that people not read.

Nope. I believe she said SHE doesn't go to your site.

You're missing the fact that DEMActivist has been a font of misinformation in the past. Remember her promise that there would be stunning revelations in the press about my corrupt behavior?

Actually, no. I don't remember any such thing. Nor has DA been a "font" of misinformation.

You're missing the fact that all I've said I'd do with the
VoteHere "solution" is look at it. My personally value is not
to "vehemently oppose" something until I understand it.

And YOU keep missing that there's no valid substitute for a voter-verified paper BALLOT. So any "solution" that VoteHere could come up with automatically doesn't cut the mustard.

You also keep missing that your agreement to "look" at what VoteHere or anyone else proposes INSTEAD OF VVPBallots, provides automatic endorsement that there COULD be a solution other than voter-verified paper BALLOTS. And we are VERY disappointed in you for all that, to put it mildly.

Eloriel

[DEMActivist]

35. Isn't it funny....

that every time someone asks Professor Dill hard questions, he just disappears from the thread?

I think it's pretty obvious that we hear the sound of crickets chirping when Professor Dill is asked to prove his allegations, don't you?

[DEMActivist]

34. Excuse me, Professor Dill.....

You're missing the information on our website, which DEMActivist has urged that people not read.

You're missing the fact that DEMActivist has been a font of misinformation in the past. Remember her promise that there would be stunning revelations in the press about my corrupt behavior?

On point number one, I said I would NOT VISIT YOUR WEBSITE. You need to find anywhere where I encouraged others not to do so and quote it here. Please, produce your evidence.

On point number two, I once again, challenge you to produce this "font of misinformation" you allege. I think perhpas you have me confused with someone else.....

Once again, you need to back up your allegations with facts. I challenge you to do so. Publicly.

[salin]

11. It is - considering the rather cool

reception that you received for months and months over the issue. It suggests that they key - "auditability" - was finally heard and recognized as a valid issue/concern.

While this seems like a no-brainer, cleary given the cool reception for months and monts, it was not a no-brainer for many.

It would appear that this move would not have happened without the bv activitsts fighting so hard and for so long to get the dem party not only to 'hear' the concern but to make a resolution around it. That suggests that the message has not only been heard, but internalized by many who previously had just not thought about it (and the dangers).

Certainly this is not an end - but it is a big step. Congratulations to all who have fought the battle to make this step a reality. Keep fighting. And many, many kudos!

[Eloriel]

28. Maybe yes, maybe no

Remember, with this language, Georgia is probably already compliant.

Eloriel

[BattyDem]

4. Finally!

What took them so long?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. please post this in GD?...great work BBV activists!!

:toast: :toast: :toast:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[SharonAnn]

7. Thank Heaven! Thank Bev! Thank BBV Activists!

I would have preferred the words "Paper Ballot" but at least this lays the groundwork.

If it weren't for the wonderful, steadfast support and actions of Bev and the army of BBV supporters, this would have never happened.

Now we need to work on the Republican Reps to support this in the legislation/funding/implementation.

Keep in mind that the equipment providers will fight this like crazy and they're all Republicans!

[DEMActivist]

10. Let's give Commonweal some credit too

Kate Forrest and Leonard Salle have worked with me (and others) on this issue since way back in February.

The Commonweal Institute made electronic voting machine education a priority on their agenda. They have worked quietly in the background to educate legislators about this. It looks like they have been very productive.

[SharonAnn]

32. Yes, of course, I just didn't know who all to thank and praise.

Glad you pointed that out and I can't think of why I "disremembered" their work.

[Ediacara]

8. wow

wow

BBV seems to be moving from a DU fringe item into a real national concern.

Which is what it should be!

[hedda_foil]

13. Wonderful news!

Thanks so much for bringing it to us, DA. I hope we get to see the resolution very, very, very soon ... and that it's sufficient.

And hooray for the Commonweal folks for pushing this with you.

[BevHarris]

14. Fantastics news! The quick plusses and caveats

caveats -- paper trail needs to be paper BALLOT -- but it's only recently that people on the other side of the issue have started to hijack the term "paper trail" so they might not know we have to be very precise with the language.

Also -- remember that we have a paper trail with optical scans, but we are not using it to do proper auditing. The paper trail is half the equation -- the auditing is the other half.

But here's what's GREAT about this:

- Unequivocal, credible attention focused on the issue
- Even if they don't take it far enough, we need to mobilize the citizens to demand it.

This is fantastic news, and I appreciate DemActivist catching this and bringing it to our attention!

I've been in a coccoon all day, Chapter 5,6 and 7 are now up. Will put those announcements over on General Discussion.

Bev

[ParanoidPat]

15. It's a start.....

.....but we have to keep pushing for legislation that allows for hand recounts. :)

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

20. you have a good point

hand recount is key.

[LearnedHand]

22. Excellent! Now maybe we should take the battle...

...from the national level and push it instead at the state level. If the states write and pass model legislation, the voting vendors will have to comply, and maybe we can get some of the red states (as well as the blue states) involved.

I'm not saying drop the issue at the federal level; just that maybe we can also do some good at the state level.

[peabody71]

23. Holy smokes, we're making progress!!!

This is the best news that I've heard that the issue is making ground.
Pat yourselves on the back DU'ers.

[truthisfreedom]

24. here hear!

let the rethugs push for cheat-machines. let them have the appearance of impropriety... they are good at it. better than anyone has ever been.

[shirlden]

25. One step in the right direction

We now have a little help in our "tug of war".

:kick:

[ursacorwin]

26. i skipped my medication today...

so, sorry about this weird post. wow! we're making actual progress and have a platform in the party!! that is sooo cool! really people, this is an internet success story! we should all be really proud, in terms of action this is as close to real as it gets.

but: well, there goes democracy. wtf is an 'audit trail?' is that like the file the irs keeps on me??? the fact is this position is the final defence against a rigged election, and they word it so mealy mouthed that when we demand a recount in 04, which shows bush sweeping the nation in a 1984 style repeat, we have nothing to complain about. "see, the diebold scanbar shows you voted for bush!" yeah. why not just pass a platform that says, 'we trust you, chuck hegel!'

there are days when i really wonder why we bother with these fools at all.

[BlueCollar]

27. Thanks for the news

I've been pushing for our county party and will push for our state party to get very public about this.

Now that there has been an "acknowledgement" of the importance of the issue, I think we need to work to refine it.

I can't wait to see the text of the resolution....

[goobergunch]

29. That's a good sign

although I worry that this will be perceived as a partisan issue, dooming it in Congress.

[Jack Rabbit]

30. Jack Rabbit endorses low-tech voting

This is a step in the right direction, but not far enough.

The best voting technology is a printed form on paper marked with a rubber stamp, counted by hand in a process open to the public.