Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BBV: Holt Bill (HR 2239) again. PLEASE PROVIDE INPUT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
creativelcro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 01:30 PM
Original message
BBV: Holt Bill (HR 2239) again. PLEASE PROVIDE INPUT
Hi, I'd like to have one more pass on this issue, to make sure there aren't things I have missed (I'm preparing a petition and perhaps a short accompanying piece on this).
Can anyone think of any drawbacks or something that could backfire with having this Bill passed ?
There are SOME limitations, obviously, but what I mean is: is this the best we can do right now ? Also, would passing THIS bill prevent further improvemements later in the game ? How could we get (crucial) Repulican support for this bill?
Arguments, facts, speculations are all welcome!!!
Thank you VERY much.
-creativelcro
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnGideon Donating Member (492 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. We Need More Mandatory Audits
I believe the present bill, as written, calls for 0.5% mandatory audits. That number is too low. The number needs to be 2.0% but the higher, to an extent, the better.

Citizens for Voting Integrity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creativelcro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. agreed!
Do you think that is strategical? I mean, perhaps with a 2% sample size in the bill opposers could kill it more easily based on cost issues... Not sure, but I totally agree with you... -creativelcro
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DEMActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Certification
Edited on Sun Oct-12-03 02:24 PM by DEMActivist
The entire process of certification is so incestuous it is corrupt.

The Holt legislation does nothing about certification.

In Georgia, we will be addressing this issue and will make it a big part of our battle.

In short, our hope is to change the certification process to our state universities, making certification 3 courses (software certification, hardware/firmware certification and security certification) in Computer Science and forcing the voting machine companies to support the courses through certification fees. By turning the certification over to a group of willing, eager students, we ensure an incorruptible process of certification.

One key issue that SHOULD be in the Holt bill is that election machines should immediately be DE-certified at the end of every election. They should not be allowed to be reused until they have been re-certified.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VeniceBeat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Have You Contacted Holt's Office on This?
Good catches, DemActivist!

Kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DEMActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm torn on doing that....
for the following reasons:

1. I don't think they can CHANGE the legislation without starting the process all over again. The headway we HAVE made is important to keep in place. Can they offer an amendment to cover certification once it's out of committee and on the floor? Wouldn't that be a more sensible approach?

2. Certification is actually a state issue. Other than calling for certification, the federal laws don't address it, and the certification statutes are "voluntary" so wouldn't it be better addressed in each state?

3. Georgia wants to be the example of electronic voting. I say we help make them a GOOD one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnGideon Donating Member (492 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. The Proposed Washington State Certification
is simply to only purchase machines that have been previously certified by another state. To simplifiy; we are only buying other peoples problems and accepting them as ours. What a bogus way of doing business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creativelcro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Good points....
The certification issue has become so self-evident with the SAIC report saga that I'm surprised Congress is not all over this issue alrady...
Thanks for the comments. So far I have not heard anything suggesting that this bill is bad. Only that it needs improvement. But it's moving things in the right direction. Thanks again for your comments.
-C
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DEMActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I certainly didn't mean to imply
that I thought this bill was bad in any way.

I certainly do mean to imply that the Georgia implementation of electionic voting is very, very, very bad and is being held up around the world as THE example of going electionic state wide. We MUST stop that.

In my ignorance of the process of passing federal legislation, I simply don't know where the best place is to suggest changes. My take is that it's better to get it out of committee unchanged, then offer amendments (changes) on the floor before a vote is taken. But that's just my interpretation....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. A language change that I suggest that will help clairify the purpose and
Edited on Sun Oct-12-03 02:31 PM by w4rma
make it more obvious that the bill prohibits a system of two different sets of votes being counted, IMHO.

For example, the bill says:

"The voting system shall produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system, as further specified in subparagraph (B)."
text of The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (H.R. 2239)
http://holt.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=6282&type=Home

I suggest that you guys simplify the language of the whole bill while making the pupose more specific:

The voting system shall use a paper ballot box system using voter-verified paper ballots suitable for a manual audit as further specified in subparagraph (B).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bushfire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
8. Don't forget to contact your congresscritters
if they are not on the list yet:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02239:@@@N

Send them the Buzzflash interview, or the Salon.com if they are a Dem, or if they are a Rep let them know this is a non partisan issue that Republicans, Libertarians, and others are pushing as well. You could always mention "Democrat" Sec of State in GA is fighting this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
9. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuCifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. Here's a usefull link
I hate to sound lazy, but damn I love when they do all the work for ya, 'cept for actually putting in your own info and sending the email(s) to your Congressfolk!

www.verifiedvoting.com/fair_elections.asp

Lu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creativelcro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. That is
a great link. Thanks, we'll include it in the electronic petition. -C
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuCifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. awwwwwwright!
Cool. Proof that if I throw enough crap onto the wall, SOME of it WILL indeed stick!

ANY one in either house who doesn't support this bill...good luck to ya next election! Not.

Lu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. Did you have another thread on this?
Or someone else? I was sure I posted a fairly lengthy post -- ??

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creativelcro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-12-03 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Hi..
Eloriel, I doubt it was me... I'll do an archive search though and post a link here if I find something. Thanks. -C
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-13-03 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC