Conyers Action

[Kevin Spidel]

Support the V.O.T.E.R. Act
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=6942056&type=CO

There are many bills on our radar. We just happened to be out front with a civil right coalition on this one, and are supporting this one fully! Other bills and action items to come! Stay tuned!

About this bill:


The VOTER Act bill (H.R. 533) is fully supported by Progressive Democrats of America, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the AFL-CIO, People for the American Way, the NAACP, the NAACP National Voter Fund, the UAW, Rainbow Push, the Black Leadership Forum, and the National Voting Rights Institute.

The VOTER Act (H.R. 533) would permit all citizens to
register to vote on election day; require early voting for the two weeks prior to election day; require a defined minimum number of voting machines present at each precinct; ensure that those who manufacture and service voting machines and software do not have conflicts of interest; strengthen the powers of the EAC (Election Assistance Commission) to create national standards for elections - so that every vote WILL count, regardless of what state it is cast in; require the source code of voting machines to be public; and require the option of a voter-verified paper ballot so that
voters can verify their selection and results can be audited when
discrepancies occur.

[The Doctor.]

1. We have to push this HARD!

Nominated.

[Merlot]

2. That's my voting "wish list"

My only concern is registering to vote on election day. Are those registrations provisional?

[Andy_Stephenson]

3. Kevin...I respect you...but will not and cannot endorse Conyers bill.

It is flawed legislation. Without a massive rewrite I will do everything in my power to see that it does not pass.

Please check your email.

Andy

[mod mom]

20. Andy, What specifically besides the comply date are you unhappy about?

[KerryReallyWon]

37. Thanks Andy it is too easy on the machines!!!

[Pawel K]

4. Huge problem with source code

You can not ever publish a source code for something as important as this to the public. With the source code in your hands you can find virtually unlimited ways of exploiting the system and any freeper with limited programming skills could hack the system in some way.

What needs to be done is there needs to be some way to make sure the soruce code is fair and can not be changed once it is approved by the government.

I have no problem with Conyers but they really need some programers on there to help with legislation on evoting as these guys know nothing about it (as most Americans don't).

[eomer]

5. Not sure that logic is correct.

Windows = secret source code
Linux = open source code

Internet Explorer = secret source code
Mozilla Firefox = open source code

In each case the open source alternative is much more secure than the secret source one.

[danostuporstar]

7. Open source is our friend

There's some good reasons why an open source election system is arguably flawed -- not the least of which is simply "it's not pen and paper" -- but the transparency of the code certainly isn't one of them.

[Bill Bored]

24. Open VERIFIABLE Source Code is what we need.

You open up the source for inspection and you use another open source authentication program to verify that the right code is running in every machine on election day! That's the only way this has a chance to work.

The code can be verified with a digital signature, I don't know the standards off the top of my head, but they are out there! Any alteration to the code can then be detected. Poll workers will of course have to check this on election day and they'll need training on how to do that.

I'm not trying to justify the use of DREs, but there are ways to make them secure, and VVPBs with random auditing is still a must -- not an option!

Early voting is also a security risk.

Make E-Day a national holiday and be done with it!

[hootinholler]

31. Time to put away the Micro$oft kool-aid

You can not ever publish a source code for something as important as this to the public. With the source code in your hands you can find virtually unlimited ways of exploiting the system and any freeper with limited programming skills could hack the system in some way.

Well, it depends on the implementation.

Your first claim about publishing source == unsecure system is easily refuted. I hold up Open BSD to do that. It is the oldest open source OS, (going back to '95 as Open BSD, and the '80s as BSD). The security audits are truly severe. Ask any hacker (white-hat or black-hat) what OS they choose on the merits of security.

Your second claim would require the freeper to actually get the binaries compiled from the modified source to be installed on an election system, which brings us to:

What needs to be done is there needs to be some way to make sure the soruce code is fair and can not be changed once it is approved by the government.

Where you get it almost right. (better than most not in the industry) What is needed at a minimum is a reference implementation that becomes the voting system. The source for the entire system needs to be open and security audited. Not just the voting program, the entire system. Every binary in the system needs to have the reference source open, audited, and the binary produced from it digitally signed by the auditing agency. There needs to be an installation audit trail for each and every voting machine in use where the signatures are recorded, and the only lawfull binary for installation is one signed by the auditing agency.

Will this make the machines un-hackable? NO! No system is un-hackable.

Will it make them hard to hack? Yes, well beyond the "freeper with limited programming skills." In fact it would be well beyond the vast majority of developers in the industry.

-Hoot

[Bill Bored]

33. Right Hoot. See post 24 above.

Now, which of the various bills on the table have this as a requirement?

[Alizaryn]

6. Conyers has earned my support through his representation

and leadership following the election. I think he would be open to changes/improvements to his bill and welcome communication regarding specific problems that we see.

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. I have already tried to do that...

Jim Dixon of the National Federation of the Blind has Mr Conyers ear. Mr Dixon BTW is a rabbid opponent of paper ballots.

[teddyk23]

9. Andy

What is your basis for this? NFB is not supporting the Conyers bill. Dixon was not consulted about the language of this bill and may well oppose it.

[Cocoa]

14. you need to prove that

none of this insinuation garbage.

[Wilms]

26. Andy, how come I got Conyer's ear?

On a previous thread (where you, and TeddyK from Conyer's staff also participated) I proposed having a Paper Ballot generated along with the disabled voter's verifying choice.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x312694#314807>

Conyer's recent letter,

<http://progressivetrail.org/articles/050208Rep.JohnConyers.shtml>

contains the following thought.

"Others have suggested that a disabled voter be given access to his or her preferred modality of verification and the machine should produce a paper record duplicating that. I am open to considering any and all means that simultaneously produce a voter verified ballot and protect the rights of the disabled."

TeddyK later wrote of that idea's inclusion in Conyer's letter,

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=321069#321334>

And, Andy, you're aware of all of this.

Here, for an example, in this post, TeddyK asks us as a "group" what we'd like. Your reply follows.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x312694#312887>


While you have used (as evidenced throughout those threads), the opportunity to dialogue with TeddyK in the way that you chose, the fact is, other's here at DU have Conyer's ear.

And I hope others do, as well. It's a democracy.

[Alizaryn]

32. I guess what I am trying to say is at some point I need to

choose a leader. Our opinions need to be crafted into an arrow of sorts to be effective. This is not saying that this arrow cannot be followed by others or that anyone should ever follow anything with Blind Faith. Personally, I have to start somewhere and Representative Conyers has earned my trust and respect through his ACTIONS and willingness to not only listen but hear our voices.

[anaxarchos]

40. Here, here...

If one has to choose someone to trust on election reform, you can't find many better than Conyers...

Putting all the wood behind an arrow... cliche, but true.

[keepthemhonest]

10. I am still not clear

which one we should be supporting and have tried to read up on this and find it very confusing. Unfortunately, it seems DU is divided three or four ways on which one we should be backing and still others don't see their dream bill being proposed. Right now from what I gather ,I would feel safest with a paper ballot that is hand counted.Is this out of the question?

edited for spelling error catch.

[Kevin Spidel]

11. on paper ballots

New voter verified paper ballots are great, but are not worth much if the Repubs can still scheme to keep us from getting to the machines, by shorting us out of machines, tricking voters, throwing away registrations....

Ensign bill does nothing about it, Conyers bill does

[keepthemhonest]

16. we definately need a bill that encompasses all that

I don't want to rush in to backing a bill that does not cover all bases. What would be the weak points of the conyers bill, in your apinion? thanks for the thread.

[Bill Bored]

25. Kevin, we need elements of BOTH bills, and probably some

other bills too. And some elements such as the early voting, may be dropped without any adverse consequences, especially if absentee ballots are readily available.

We haven't seen Boxer and Clinton's bill yet either, and Rush Holt's bill, which Conyers has in fact co-sponsored, has some desirable features as well.

Supporting any one of these bills with a simple petition will not address their shortcomings or improve them. So how should we proceed?

[Cocoa]

12. thank you, PDA

this thing has a chance. :toast:

[Kevin Spidel]

15. Thank you activists & Conyers!

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Conyers has always been the man, but now he is the man two or three times!

[mod mom]

17. Is the date to comply with this bill still Jan 1 2007? If so, we need to

urge them to push it to include the 2006 mid term elections.

[keepthemhonest]

18. Yes definately needs to be bumped up n/t

[mod mom]

19. We might have to do some good old fashioned DU blasting to urge an earlier

date. No more election give-aways to the rethugs!

[JoMama49]

21. I signed the Petition -- my question is: can this be put into

effect by the time the 2006 elections roll around?

[mod mom]

34. VIVA had a 2006 date. Let's hope so. nt

[Bill Bored]

22. "require the option of a voter-verified paper ballot"

Come on, we can do better than that!

It deeply pains me to say that "requiring an option" sounds like Bush-speak!

[KingoftheJungle]

23. This legislation is flawed

Anything that keeps voting technology in the hands of someone making profit is flawed from the beginning. They can create the illusion of being non-partisan quite easily. There are other things I don't like about this bill that I will get into later once I've gotten more familiar with it.

[Helga Scow Stern]

27. EAC?! Yikes! I don't want them declaring anything about voting

as long as they are content to listen to Conny McCormack, and spend months investigating CA SoS Kevin Shelley for "partisan spending of HAVA funds" while they do nothing about Ohio.

[eridani]

28. Oh, dear. My first major disagreement with one of my A list organizations

This bill has a lot of really great things in it, but I am very concerned that the time frame is wrong and that it has a loophole that you could drive a tank through on the issue of voter verified paper ballots. The bill would "require the option of a voter-verified paper ballot." This should not be a matter of choice. I don't think that Conyers understands that there is technology now available which allows blind people to verify paper ballots, and neither do quite a few blind people.

In the third paragraph he says that the paper ballots will be used to audit the voting machines and then would become the official count in cases where there are discrepancies. How does Rep. Conyers expect to use paper ballots if the voter has chosen not to have a paper ballot? Remember, he wants to give the voter a choice of verification systems and some would not include a paper ballot. You cannot do an audit without the paper.

The other problem is that the requirement would not take effect until after 2006. Worse, this bill is being paired with the Dodd bill in the Senate, which would not take effect until 2009! This is unacceptable--it would leave the door open for widespread investment in DREs, which we need to stop at all costs. On the subject of a paper ballot, Dodd is one of the four authors of the "Dear Colleague" letter that went around last year to every member of Congress and that warned them all not to sponsor any legislation that asked for a voter verified paper ballot. Dodd is a proud winner of an award from the National Federation of the Blind just after they got $1M from Diebold so they would drop a lawsuit against Diebold for their ATMs.

I really wish that Conyers had chosen to link his legislation with that of Senator Ensign of Nevada. He is a Republican, but from a state that has very strict regulations about keeping the software and hardware of gaming machines accountable to the gaming commission and the public. Ensign's bill is more limited, as it is an amendment to HAVA. Because it has a better chance of bipartisan support, and because it is just an amendment, it has a better chance of passage. It would require voter verified paper ballots by 2006. For more information, check out http://www.ballotintegrity.org/action.html .

I say we need to get this taken care of first, and then we can get on board with the other items in the Conyers legislation. Every committed BBV activist that I know of so far favors this approach. The Conyers bill isn't a bad bill--it just isn't the first bill we need.

[Wilms]

29. eridani -- work with me on this...

1. Nothing is set in stone.

2. These Bills need not be viewed as competitive. We can petition all authors to put up a package that includes what we want.

3. The are more disabilities to be accommodated in addition to the blind. There are valid concerns of Americans with Disabilities that are astonishingly overlooked, regardless of advocates affiliations. (A guy can be bought, and right, if only on some issues.)

4. Offering an area for exploration, in his letter, Conyers said,

"...a disabled voter (could) be given access to his or her preferred modality of verification AND the machine should produce a paper record duplicating that. I am open to considering any and all means that simultaneously produce a voter verified ballot and protect the rights of the disabled.”

So,

5. We can urge that additional "paper record" be used for a mandatory audit of the machine. (This has been discussed on a number of recent threads.)

What else can we suggest to improve on the Bill??

We can decide what we want and tell our Representatives. Who says Ensign might not link with Conyers if we can salvage Dodd. :shrug:

[eridani]

42. I'm OK with that as long as--

--the disabled person verifies the actual ballot. I know that the VoteMark technology accomplishes that for blind people. No reason why we should not require the same for other kinds of technological intervention for other disabilities.

We really, really, really MUST prioritize getting verified paper ballots in place before 2006! Other things in the bill don't have such crucial timelines, IMO.

[Wilms]

44. Let's take care with terms, here.

The 'actual' ballot is the one whose type was selected by the voter.

So if you are blind, and want an audio recording for your ballot, that's what you get. But, in ADDITION, a 'Paper Ballot" would be generated. And with that, I argue, we could have a 100% audit of those votes using the "paper" to audit the "audio".

This is but an idea, though if OK with everyone, may help push us through this mess.

[Bill Bored]

36. eridani,

I think you've got a point but let's try to work with whoever will listen. I'm still waiting to hear the outcome of Andy's discussion with Kevin.

Andy, please answer your PMs. Thanks.

Teddyk23, hi!

Wilms, you are doing a great job keeping these threads together!

Everyone, see this one!
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x323218>

I think what we need is a public hearing, not unlike the ones in DC and Ohio, but bi-partisan this time, with all the key players, dedicated to the issue of Verified Voting, or vote-counting rights.

Participants should include Conyers, Dodd, Holt, King of IA, Boxer, Clinton, Reid, Ensign, Ney, and Lott. Or their designees.
And on the People's side, Andy, Chuck Herrin some other vv.org people, computer security experts, advocates for the Disabled and some of us "regular folks" who care deeply about this issue!

Anybody got a problem with that?

[eridani]

41. That is one damned fine idea!

It may be a chance to get everybody on the same page.

[eridani]

43. An addendum--

The Conyers bill rightly attempts to address the issue of inadequate numbers of machines in precincts with high numbers of minority voters. I would like to suggest that this problem could be readily solved by adopting optical scanning as the preferred method, with special equipment to accommodate the disabled the only exception. The only extant problem with this method is forcing Diebold and other companies to make their tabulation software public, or preferably replacing it with open source software. I was a poll worker last year (I figured that since I’d been shooting off my mouth about black box voting for more than a year, I’d better start walking the talk) in a polling place with optical scanning. At lunch hour and after work, the privacy booths were filled all the time, but mostly people did not bother to wait their turn. We were at a school library, so they just used vacant reading tables and study carrels, or wandered off into the stacks in search of one of the many semi-private flat surfaces available there.

This dramatically sped up turnaround. Even with a well-designed machine, there will be plenty of slow, deliberative, or just plain bewildered voters that tie up machines for a long time. Whenever one of them is monopolizing a machine, you inevitably get a huge backlog line. If we intend to be successful at improving voter participation even further, there is no way that most counties will ever be able to afford enough machines which directly register votes to deal with the backlog created by the very situation of having computer interfaces that are themselves choke points for the whole process. Optical scanning is relatively simple technology by comparison, and it separates voting (which can take a long time) from tabulation (which is much faster).

In addition, it is a mistake to think that we can ever have something like an ATM machine that could be effectively be debugged to the point of being reliable enough to use for voting. ATM machines not only give you a paper receipt, but their hardware and software both have been slammed up against reality hard because they are constantly being tested—billions of times an hour, 24/7, 365 days a year. That is why, though there are almost certainly still a few bugs in the system, most of the bugs that could cause serious problems have been fixed, along with refinement of the user interface. By comparison, how often do we vote? Infrequently enough to insure that every election is a beta test. Think of how badly cars would suck if no one ever drove them except for two hours once a year.

[SharonRB]

30. Done!

[Helga Scow Stern]

35. NO! Sorry,

but as long as Conyers is going to listen to the EAC and the EAC is going to listen to, instead of investigate, Conny McCormack, and is going to dignify with "an official investigation" character assassinations of a decent (for election integrity)Secretary of State, California's Kevin Shelley, instead of looking into Conny McCormack's love affair with non-verifiable elections, and instead of looking into Blackwell, there is NO WAY we should want the EAC recommending anything about voting.

I highly respect and admire Mr. Conyers, but this just doesn't add up.

[Wilms]

38. The Kevin, Connie, and Arnie soap-opera is now Conyers fault?

The marginalization of Progressives may be linked both to a failure of imagination, and an over-active one.

I'd expound on this, but right now I'm totally freaked about a hair in my soup. Gotta go.

[GetTheRightVote]

39. Great to see Rep. John Conyers still fighting for the little guy, hurray !

:kick: