Republicans agree to need for paper trail

[jdog]

Kind of interesting that at this link I found a statement of Larimer County Republican Party Resolutions - 2004 which included the following:


http://www.lcrp.org/Resolutions-MajSuppport-2004.pdf#search='larimer%20county%20voting'


<snip>

RESOLUTION #38 – VOTING
Whereas
…
Congress recently passed the “Help America Vote Act”, and states and counties
across the country are buying electronic voting machines; and these electronic
voting machines often do not produce a verifiable, permanent record of the votes
cast:
Therefore let it be
resolved …
That the Congress amend the “Help America Vote Act” to require that all new
systems are completely open and verifiable by any interested third parties,
produce a permanent and verifiable record of the voting, but reject the notion
that it must physically be paper and paper that the voter can sight verify.
5
RESOLUTION #39 – VOTING
Whereas
…
Trustworthy elections are basic to a democratic republic and require that each vote
be anonymous, secure, verifiable, and counted as intended by the voter; paperless
voting machines make proper recording and counting of votes impossible to verify;
a receipt paper on a paperless voting machine would not solve these problems
because the votes printed on the receipt can be different from the votes stored in the
machine; and accurate re-counting requires that the votes on the original paper
ballots be examined and counted, and that the results from a previous count are not
known to the people doing the recounting:
Therefore let be
resolved …
That we support procedures that allow voters to hand mark or machine mark
their votes onto full-ballot-text paper ballots, to check their votes before they
cast them, to know that the votes on the paper ballot are counted, and to have
access to proof that every ballot is accounted for and every vote correctly
understood and counted.

<snip>

Maybe I’m wrong, but doesn’t this indicate that there are at least some republicans out there who agree with our position that the lack of a paper trail makes it impossible to be certain the elections are “trustworthy” (their word)?

[itzamirakul]

1. I guess they are realizing that eventually...

the shoe will be on the other foot.

[slackmaster]

12. At the risk of being labelled an "Exactly Man" I have to say

Exactly.

:toast:

FWIW my recovering Republican mom agrees: We don't want paperless voting any more than we would want a paperless bathroom.

[itzamirakul]

17. I love your Mom and wish her

continued good health!

[goclark]

2. I don't trust any of them

They are so afraid of Bush they will McCain in a minute.

Every time I think of that hug with Bush I puke.

[Boredtodeath]

3. In Georgia, the republicans introduced VVPB legislation

and passed it in the republican controlled senate. It was the Democratically controlled house which killed the bill.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/sum/sb500.htm

[electropop]

4. AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

What is up with that? Why would Dems commit suicide like that?

[keepthemhonest]

13. well we all know Zell Miller

might as well be republican. So if the other Dems in georgia are anything like him then there you go.

[Der Blaue Engel]

5. This part totally confuses me:

"...but reject the notion that it must physically be paper and paper that the voter can sight verify."

What the...? :wtf:

Isn't that exactly the opposite of their resolution to "support procedures that allow voters to hand mark or machine mark their votes onto full-ballot-text paper ballots, to check their votes before they cast them, to know that the votes on the paper ballot are counted, and to have access to proof that every ballot is accounted for and every vote correctly understood and counted."?

:crazy:

Does anyone understand this?

:shrug:

[jdog]

7. I didn't understand that part either.

And the rest of the document really is pretty... well, just disgusting.

[genieroze]

11. Doublespeak? eom

[msgadget]

6. ABSOLUTELY NOT,

especially since this entire document, which I've printed out and read, is a Republican manifesto, a wish list for 2004. It's against abortion, the separation of church and state, gay marriage, the UN (or 'UNESCO'), funding for Planned Parenthood, etc. and for a flat tax, the war on terror, etc. It mentions HAVA and verifiable voting yet no one from Larimer County Republican Party (the source of this manifesto) has stood up and protested the very lack of the same in November 2004.

[Wordie]

8. I am pretty sure that HAVA requires this anyway. The regs just didn't go

into effect in time for this election, and are scheduled for 2006.

Here is some of what HAVA says:

<snip>

HAVA Summary/Recommendations

"Help America Vote Act of 2002"
Summary and Potential Issues/Recommendations
Produced by the National Association of Secretaries of State

TITLE III – FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Voting System Standards – Requirements - Section 301 referenced

* The voting system shall permit the voter to verify whom they voted for and make any changes to their vote – in a private and independent manner – before the ballot is cast and counted.

* The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity. The system shall provide the voter with the opportunity to change the ballot before the permanent paper record is produced. This paper record must be available as the official record for a recount.

* All states and jurisdictions must meet these voting system standard requirements by January 1, 2006.

[msgadget]

9. It's what was proposed way long time ago and not enacted in time,

and, if any Republican, particularly any Republican responsible for that manifesto really believed in HAVA, progressives wouldn't be the only ones still hollering about it. The document in its entirety discredits the inclusion of HAVA, imo.

[jdog]

10. So is there a document like this nationally

for the Republican party? Anyone know? It would be interesting to see their position on a paper trail in that document.

[Wordie]

15. I edited my post with the additional national law standards from HAVA.

I think it may be useful to analyze the HAVA standards and propose ways in which they can be tightened. As I understand it, it's still up to the states to interpret the standards, and that's where we will have problems.

[jdog]

16. Ughhhh, never mind.

I just went to the RNC web site to see if I could find any info, but it made me ill.

[msgadget]

18. Here's HAVA

http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt. I scrolled through it and maybe you can find something that spells out the need for verifiable voting but I didn't see it.

[The Flaming Red Head]

14. Who owns the VV companies? I like hand counts, myself.

Paper ballots with hand counts.

[4dsc]

19. Not a paper trail but rather

Please refrain from stating you want a paper trail as no election law allow for such. Instead, the correct statement should be we all want PAPER BALLOTS!!! Not papers trails..

[jdog]

20. Ok, so I need some more info here.

I went to meeting chaired by the Colo. SOS yesterday (we did get on record our concerns about 2004 results).

At the meeting they were demonstrating and considering an electronic voting machine (similar to that used in Nevada)that provided a paper record enclosed in glass to the left of the screen. This allowed for the voter to verify that vote then confirm it. We brought up the fact that this would also require random auditing to make certain the numbers of the votes conformed with the totals of the machines. The auditing could take place either manually or using a bar code reader (not supplied by the voting machine company).

Are you telling me that the machine they are considering could not even be used because of the law? Can you give me a link to that info?

[jdog]

21. 4dsc, am I misunderstanding this part of HAVA?

SEC. 301. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15481.>> VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.

(2) Audit capacity.-- (A) In general.--The voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for such system. (B) Manual audit capacity.-- (i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system. (ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to change the ballot or correct any error before the permanent paper record is produced. (iii) The paper record produced under subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official record for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.

[Pepper32]

22. Hmm, NOW they want a paper trail

Well, at this point I just want a PAPER BALLOT, get rid of the machines. If LIEBOLD is involved in future elections they can't be trusted.