SUPPORT CONYERS' H.R.533 VOTER ACT HERE:

[cyberpj]

Action Alert
Support National Election Reform!
Contact Congess today in support of the VOTER Act!

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.

contact your reps here:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=6942056&type=CO


read more about this and other bills here:
http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/bills/

[GetTheRightVote]

1. Of course, anything for John Conyers

:kick:

[cyberpj]

4. He's done his homework and has it right with this bill. eom.

[minvis]

2. Done

I'll be watching my congressman to make sure he supports this.

[CaliforniaLady]

3. Thanks for the alert! - I just got back online this week

I'm sure Brad Sherman will support this, but I'll send him an email to make sure. Hopefully someone in the Senate has a similar proposal in the works.

[cyberpj]

5. Clinton/Boxer bill here - but I don't think it's as inclusive as Conyers'

They may need to close a few more holes on this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x321859

[Amaryllis]

11. More info on Clinton bill: may be better on e-voting than Conyers:

Hillary is asking for people to sign a petition in support of her new bill, the Count Every Vote Act of 2005, co-sponsored by Senator Barbara Boxer. What she describes in the email she sent out asking people to sign the petition looks woefully inadaquate as far as the whole e-voting issue; however, she refers to similar legislation she introduced in 2004.

This was the Graham-Clinton bill, S 2213, which was a companion to HB 2239, the Holt bill. Boxer was a co-sponsor on S 2213 also. S 2213 did have some excellent requirements for e-voting. I am going to assume, and hope I am right, that the new bill will also include something more than the three items that Hillary lists in the email along with her request to sign the petition. Below I have included the relevant sections of S 2213:

As with the Holt bill, S 2213 never even got a hearing.

Here is the text of S 2213:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query

And here is the section that prohibits undisclosed software and wireless communication:


`(9) PROHIBITION OF USE OF UNDISCLOSED SOFTWARE IN VOTING SYSTEMS- No voting system shall at any time contain or use any undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code, object code, and executable representation of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, and executable representation available for inspection upon request to any citizen.

`(10) PROHIBITION OF USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES IN VOTING SYSTEMS- No voting system shall use any wireless communication device.

`(11) CERTIFICATION OF SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE- All software and hardware used in any electronic voting system shall be certified by laboratories accredited by the Commission as meeting the requirements of paragraphs (9) and (10).

`(12) SECURITY STANDARDS FOR MANUFACTURERS OF VOTING SYSTEMS USED IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- No voting system may be used in an election for Federal office unless the manufacturer of such system meets the requirements described in subparagraph (B).

`(B) REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED- The requirements described in this subparagraph are as follows:

`(i) The manufacturer shall document the chain of custody for the handling of software used in connection with voting systems.

`(ii) The manufacturer shall ensure that any software used in connection with the voting system is not transferred over the Internet.

`(iii) In the same manner and to the same extent described in paragraph (9), the manufacturer shall provide the codes used in any software used in connection with the voting system to the Commission and may not alter such codes once certification has occurred unless such system is recertified.

`(iv) The manufacturer shall implement procedures to ensure internal security, as required by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

`(v) The manufacturer shall meet such other requirements as may be established by the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

[bush_is_wacko]

15. I agree with arnheim below! This is a great start, but it needs to be

taken care of ASAP and the loopholes MUST be fised regarding paper receipts! That should be mandatory! In fact, a paper receipt should be printed up for both the voter and the BOE, in case a recount is needed! I like what I am seeing her but THESE issues MUST be addressed!

The Dem's MUST realize we cannot wait until 2007?!

2006 will be a shoe-in for THUGS if we are all voting on the current system! WTF?!

[Wilms]

20. No paper "reciepts" can be given to voters.

They can use the reciepts to collect payment after having "sold" their vote.

Just a "Paper Ballot" into a lock-box.

[bush_is_wacko]

23. Never thought of that before. That is very valid. but how do they know

what the vote says that went into the "lock box?" Are they going to be able to verify it before it goes in?

Now I understand Gore's remark! Funny, how many have made fun of it since then.

[Wilms]

24. The idea is for the voter to "Verify" their ballot, before it's deposited.

[bush_is_wacko]

25. That's what I thought. Very interesting...

I'm starting to see a VIABLE option here! Glad to know they are getting the message! Is Gore working on anything that you know of?

[Wilms]

27. Gore? n/t

[bush_is_wacko]

31. Really just curiosity. I have never really cared for him but that is

more because of his wife than anything else. I met her as a teenager. We had an "argument" of sorts over her beliefs about the downfall of the American teenager of the eighties and her conjecture that it was because of the lyrics of our generation's music.

I had a hard time trusting Gore for that reason. Tipper was IMHO one of the ORIGINAL neo-con, security moms!

I would go into this more but it is long and convoluted. Suffice it to say we argued over the lyrics to the Van Halen song "Ice Cream Man."

Tipper was so offended by the implication that the lyrics referred to oral sex, she forgot to do her research. When I told her that song was originally written and performed by a black minstrel during the depression I believe, or maybe it was before, I have since forgotten the history of that particular song, she was rendered virtually speechless and began stuttering and stammering through the rest of her speech against the music of my generation. I was only one of the teenagers that came prepared to defend our music against her strange interpretations. She was the original backer of "ratings" on music! that is one of the reasons I allow my children to listen to uncut versions of song lyrics, but I always listen with them and give them an opinion about the language or controversial lyrics. My 11 year old is one of the few kids around here that has the UNCUT version of Eminem's "Mosh."

I voted for Gore as an adult, but I can tell you I was really worried that Tipper would try and push her conservative agenda if he was elected.

I can also say, I would NEVER vote for Gore again if he were to run. I think he is more than likely a neo-con in sheep's clothing!

The fact that he distanced himself from Clinton because of an oral sex issue has always seemed a little ironic to me since that was what I argued with his wife about!

[sacxtra]

35. Electronic Packets CAN NOT BE VERIFIED

"The idea is for the voter to "Verify" their ballot, before it's deposited."
Posted by Wilms



Get this through your thick heads.

All electronic data can be manipulated.

[Wilms]

36. Re: Get this through your thick heads.

Given the small number of posts, and your apparent ignorance on the subject of enfranchisement of the disabled (or is it that you just don't care about them?), I have to recommend that you look through the threads where DUers have been using their "thick heads" to come up with an election system that is "Accessible, Private, and Secure" for all Americans, including those with disabilities and attitude problems.

[sacxtra]

39. Name the Disabilities - Paper can used for each one.

Paper can do it all

Paper is accessable
Paper is private
Paper is secure

OTOH

Electronic Packets are not Secure. You can NEVER KNOW that your packet was not tampered with

[Wilms]

40. Mobility -Limited

It's posted below. But you missed it.

And you missed the idea we're trying to work to INCLUDE paper in these electronic schemas so as to be able to audit the machine.

Do you really think we're unaware of the dangers of DRE's or of conducting elections without paper?

You missed that, too.

BTW, welcome to DU.

Stay awhile...and read.

[sacxtra]

42. If you use paper, you don't NEED to audit an un-auditable machine!

Wilms, You miss it.

Electronic Packets Can Be Manipulated.

Adding a freaking 40 dollar printer is not going to help!

[Wilms]

44. Hey everybody!

Sacxtra says Wilms doesn't get it, that, "Electronic Packets Can Be Manipulated"

What the hell is Wilms thinking?

[sacxtra]

41. Disabled Voters can use Paper - No FUD please

Given the small number of posts.

Your large number of posts, my small number of posts, what are you in some kind of post measuring contest? It's not how many posts that matter. I don't care if I only wrote one message.

You accuse me of being ignorant or not caring about the disabled. This is just a BOGUS attack of my character, while evading the FACT that electronic packets can be manipulated.

I did use the word "thick head" it was not the best choice of words.
Sorry. Understand, I have anger *nearly* to the point of violence. So far my ability to vent publically has kept that in check. Some folks suggested I go see a shrink, and get a prescription for some drugs. But since I don't use drugs and even if I did, I don't have healthcare. So that isn't an option. In any event, I don't need to be drugged, I need integrity in the system.

Call me crazy if you want, I am crazy because what's going on is crazy. It's a symptom of this facism disease America has.

You should ask yourself, how many folks KNOW that electronic voting is destroying everything, and ask yourself, how much more will they tolerate it?

How much longer until the pendulum swings the other way and another party manipulates our elections.

And do not even forget.
I am not ignoring folks with disabilities. If there's a will there's a way. I've seen several ways (using paper) published on the internet.

And.. that way, is NOT electronically!

Also it depends on the disability. I'm not a doctor qualified to get into specifics of how far someones disability should or shouldn't be supported.

I mean common sense, if your hooked up to a machine, and you can't move a finger or give any response at all, your not going to be filling out a voter registration card. Let alone be worried by petty world events. You will just be in your coma and that's that.

Better yet. Lets have everyone WITH a specific disability ask this question.

The answer is you do the BEST you can, you get CREATIVE, and you use paper.

So before you EVER SAY that I don't care about them, you better define who "them with disabilities" is.

So, Please take your words back. I am not here to FLAME any DU'er.

And since we got so far off track here, I remind you again...
electronic packets CAN be manipulated.

[Wilms]

43. I don't have a large # of posts.

1000+ just gives that impression.

Your lacking awareness of the DU discussions attempting to build a verifiable system for the disabled catches my attention, and may be related to the small # of posts have. IE: You just showed up today to sprinkle the thread with your un-checked anger you claim is "nearly to the point of violence".

To experience anger at this country's slide toward fascism is quite reasonable, not crazy. Having that anger direct one's response to fascism is another matter. So is informing me of the dangers of electronic voting when at least as much has already been acknowledged by me here, and on the other threads you apparently failed to read prior to ranting on this thread.

You've "seen several ways (using paper) published on the internet"?

Excellent! Post the damn links.

I won't otherwise address your notion that we are trying to secure the vote for people in a vegetative state.

Finally, when I see a statement I need to retract, I'll do it.

[sacxtra]

45. Quit putting words in my mouth. No spin, No FUD

1. Dear Wilms, Your first link is here (it's about a DU forum rule):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x123856

I post the link because the FACT is you mentioned that I had a low amount of posts and was probably not feasic.

Perhaps you broke a DU forum rule. (At this point in time I was not aware of #1 above, but have since schooled myself.)

Did my response back to you also break #1 above?
I am not entirely sure, If so, now, we are *BOTH* at fault.

Although, I actually said you had a LARGE amount of posts, not a small amount. So I am not entirely sure. However, It's irrelevent! Perhaps both our posts should be deleted/or edited by the moderator, if there's a problem.

Frankly, the whole thing *felt* like an attack by you, on me. My perception and awareness could be flawed. But I don't think it was.

I'd prefer, my posts be edited and not deleted.

I've since read the rules. I've now pointed you to the same.
I hope we don't have to waste more of our lives precious time on this. It just adds to frustration. If we can't get along, how are we supposed to agree on anything?


Quote:
Your lacking awareness of the DU discussions attempting to build a verifiable system for the disabled catches my attention,
Unquote

I am feasic of SOME discussions regarding the disabled, the bottom line is that each of the the suggestions (I've heard) to resolve these issues that involve the use of electronic voting are unacceptable, because . . electronic packets can be manipulated.


Quote:
and may be related to the small # of posts have.
Unquote

Please read #1 above again.



Quote:
IE: You just showed up today to sprinkle the thread with your un-checked anger you claim is "nearly to the point of violence".
Unquote

No. First off. Get it straight.

I *feel* violent because of anger against several forces, some of which are, the use of electronic packets in any form in our election system (I am attempting to help fix this), the media silence (I have a show on public access http://sacxtremetv.com/sacxtra/ "SacXtra!" and have tried to help raise awareness this way also), and MANY other results of these two major problems like folks dying in Iraq are horrible.

Feeling violent, and being violent are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

I saw the thread (as you suggested) and I saw HR 533 does not address these issues. I give you my thoughts. I tried to be as clear as possible, and it pisses me off when someone spins my words.


Quote:
Excellent! Post the damn links.
Unquote

The damn link is: blackboxvoting.org
The damn link keeps changing. So I don't know EXACTLY where they are currently. There's quite a bit of data there. The blackbox voting website has been under attack, just like our right to vote has been under attack. the use of the word "damn" is because I am loosing my patience with you.


Quote:
I won't otherwise address your notion that we are trying to secure the vote for people in a vegetative state.
Unquote

Well, there you have something worth discussing -IMO

Where should the line be drawn? At what point should someone's disability dictate, they not have the right to vote? Or that we can not transparently help them vote? There's a PILE of docs on ss.ca.gov (I don't know where YOUR local precint is, but that's another problem....Local precints each have different laws locally.)

Regardless of the answer, there's a solution using only paper, and if we go on with this argument about electronic packets have to be used because of X,Y,Z, the right to vote will be lost forever, if the vote can't be proven to be counted then it pretty much removes the right to vote, and if we no longer have the right to vote then this isn't America anymore.

The fact is, I've voted next to someone who was DISABLED in 2000, and they could not deal with properly completing their ballot, a poll worker helped them to vote. I know because I could hear them talking.
"Push 1 for gore, 2 for ..." Was that right? Was that wrong, I don't know because I really didn't know there was a problem back then.

This was all before electronic voting even existed in MY local precint. Today, in my local precint we have scanners, and it wasn't all transparent when the unknown (Cia-looking) guy scanned my ballots (that's plural, there were two two-sided papers) not only has the process become more time comsuming (It took longer to vote, it was more confusing, and more difficult for me and I am NOT disabled.) And neither HAVA nor Kevin Shelly could tell me if my vote actually made it to the central tabulator. I know. I asked them and published the letter. http://sacxtremetv.com/mb/ (go find the thread if you want.)

Someone CAN verbally or visually help the disabled. In the case of someone who is blind some can read braile, and some can get verbal or visual help, some can have friends or family help, there are also absentee ballots. There may also be other things I haven't even considered. How was it done in 1996? What ideas have the disabled themselves come up with.

Let's not destroy the whole process because of some deceptive idea that the only way to have the right to vote for disabled folks, is by having the vote be electronic. That's just bogus. And it's not truthful.

And the worst thing about it is...yep you guessed it...


Electronic Packets can be manipulated - and you can QUOTE ME ON THAT!

[Wilms]

47. We may well move through this with grace if we're on the same page

It's not clear to me that your open to even acknowledging a fundamental fact.

That is...

There is an effort to come up with a system, that while using electronic devices to provide "Access and Privacy", we end up with a VVPB to provide "Security".

What you cite as solutions for the disabled does not provide for privacy. Lot's of folks think that's OK. I'm not one of them. Start a thread that says something like "Let's Draw the Line on the Right's of Disabled Voters" and I'm sure people will pile up to agree with you.

At the same time...

Not every advocate for the disabled believes DRE's are safe. And that group includes me. You've spent a lot of energy warning me about "Electronic Packets" without, seemingly, acknowledging the simple fact, that I KNOW ALREADY! And you haven't responded to any of the ideas, expressed previously, AND in DIRECT REPLIES to you that are suggesting a solution. In fact, your response indicate that you think I'm OK with DRE's. I am not.

Can you imagine that I can acknowledge security concerns AND the accessibility and privacy concerns of the disabilities community, AND work for a solution that satisfies all?

So back to the above paragraph for review:

"There is an effort to come up with a system, that while using electronic devices to provide "Access and Privacy", we end up with a VVPB to provide "Security"."

Start here, and check the other threads therein referenced. You'll learn more of what I'm advocating. And you'll see that many espouse an insensitivity to the needs of the disabled.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=314989&mesg_id=314989>

[sacxtra]

48. VVPB is a bandaid on a still CRACKABLE system

It's not clear to me that your open to even acknowledging a fundamental fact.

That is...

There is an effort to come up with a system, that while using electronic devices to provide "Access and Privacy", we end up with a VVPB to provide "Security".

What you cite as solutions for the disabled does not provide for privacy. Lot's of folks think that's OK. I'm not one of them. Start a thread that says something like "Let's Draw the Line on the Right's of Disabled Voters" and I'm sure people will pile up to agree with you.

At the same time...

Not every advocate for the disabled believes DRE's are safe. And that group includes me. You've spent a lot of energy warning me about "Electronic Packets" without, seemingly, acknowledging the simple fact, that I KNOW ALREADY! And you haven't responded to any of the ideas, expressed previously, AND in DIRECT REPLIES to you that are suggesting a solution. In fact, your response indicate that you think I'm OK with DRE's. I am not.

Can you imagine that I can acknowledge security concerns AND the accessibility and privacy concerns of the disabilities community, AND work for a solution that satisfies all?

So back to the above paragraph for review:

"There is an effort to come up with a system, that while using electronic devices to provide "Access and Privacy", we end up with a VVPB to provide "Security"."

Start here, and check the other threads therein referenced. You'll learn more of what I'm advocating. And you'll see that many espouse an insensitivity to the needs of the disabled.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... >


(I hate quoting folks I disagree with, but for accuracy...)

I will now respond with a DIRECT REPLY.

We definetly have a problem.

I do not agree with you.

Unless your system removes ALL ELECTRICITY.

And your system uses ONLY PAPER.


Otherwise . . .

As usual you've again dodged what I said.

Here is your system's FLAW . . .

You say VVPB can provide security. Correct?

I say, the electronic packet will NEVER EVER BE compared to the ACTUAL PAPER.

Meanwhile that paper could have been counted.

And after your vote is SENT ELECTRONICALLY IN PACKET FORM OVER INSECURE TELCO LINES YOU JUST ALLOWED THE DATA TO BE MANIPULATED.

IN FACT LET ME BACK UP, THE MOMENT IT WAS SENT TO ANY COMPUTER IT WAS POTENTIALLY COMPROMISED.

You may advocate whatever the sam hell you want. It's dishonest.

I CARE about the disabled. But not as the expense of TYRANY!

[sacxtra]

49. In regards to Privacy or Transparency of the Disabled

I see right through you.

All you advocate in your "system" is electronic electronic electronic.

This IS the point.

Hell the Catholics have had TRANSPARENCY for Years. It's called Confession. (Note: I am not Catholic, nor Christian I am wiccan)

In our case that would.... I guess be Multi-Party Confession. If a poll worker from EACH party verified the audiable vote, there's not fscking much more you can do.

You tell through the Hole who you want to vote for.

If you are so completely disabled as NOT TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND the result of your ballot, you should not be casting a ballot.

I guess now that you FORCE me to deal with this issue, I draw "One Line" there. If your communications skills and comprehension skills have so deteriated to the point that you can't understand a number or a name or an issue. When it is REPEATED to you in an honest attempt to get you to understand, than you shouldn't be voting.

Paper CAN work for someone that can only raise a finger. How much transparency you want to give is up to you as the representative poll workers.. (in another thread I make mention in 2000 that I had been next to disabled voter and overheard the conversation, but the thing you don't get is that I didn't pay attention to it, I gave them their privacy, I did my business and dropped my vote in the box. and believe it or not it was Bush in 2000 I voted for, I feel like crap about that now since I was misled by the media. And it since has cost lives. So yeah, killing does take your OWN SOUL.) And there should be more than one party present in this specific case of the disabled.

If each party is represented, and verifys that disabled person's vote then you drop it in the box. wtf more you want? huh?

But I will say this, and I will say it ONE MORE TIME.

even if I get kicked from DU.


THE ELECTRONIC VOTE IS INSECURE, HACKABLE, CRACKABLE, UN-AUDITABLE.

I'm going to cuss now directly at you.

QUIT FUCKING SAYING I AM INSENSITIVE TO THE DISABLED, AND TRYING TO SPIN THIS FUCKING ISSUE. MY BEST FRIEND IS DISABLED.

YOU NEVER STOPPED TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!

WHO ARE YOU CIA? GOP?

I have tried to be diplomatic. But all I get is continous spin from you. Perhaps once you've "silenced me" you should start to fear me.

[Wilms]

50. Actually, you've silenced me.

But there's no need for you to fear me.

[sacxtra]

51. It is not my intent to silence anyone.

My last post was over the top. I shouldn't have accused you of being something I don't know. e.g. CIA / GOP

I don't know that for fact. I cussed also. Sorry. I was pissed.

You forced me to think about the whole disabled issue in a lot more depth and dynamic that I ever wanted to.

Trying to comprehend where the line should be drawn as to how much access for disabled voter should be was an eye opener.

I have only my personal opinion on the matter and when my opinion gets spun, and I see it, I will fight the spin to the end.

My idea about disabled voters (being cut off from the right to vote) at the point where they can not effectively communicate was the conclusion I reached. I had to mentally visualize "what would I do."

In that respect *SOME* good came from this thread.

Although, you succssfully brought out the dark venom in me.
I don't know who you are. You haven't said. I am not threatening anyone, nor you. I am not silencing anyone, nor you. The only real thing that you should be fearful of me is that, nearly everything I was taught growing up, has now been destroyed. The way the Government works, the Constitution. What do I have left? I've even considered leaving the country. There's nowhere to go! The USA even with it's flaws is the best country there is.

I am not an expert on every topic, I am a vetran. I know electronics, I know some programming, I have reversed code, I have broken security on several systems and gained complete control of systems remotely, I've also done this back in the BBS days. There are a lot of ways to do it. Some as simple as social engineering, e.g. asking for information. I am not new to these ideas. I am also not a guru.

All I am saying is that we should be using paper not electronics for our elections. The only damn electronic device in the polls should be a friggin lightbulb and a cooler/heater.

Electricity is nothing but trouble. It's already proven to BE TROUBLE.
Just look at all your state AG documents of trouble with it!

To advocate that it needs to stay around at the cost of helping disabled folks over the disenfranchisement of everyone else in the election having to WONDER if their vote got counted is total complete insanity, the person saying it is clueless, insane, or corupt.

There can be no other explaination.

It's also clear that many of the AG's and so called 'leaders' and designers of HAVA and this whole electronic sea of death, have not thought through it before passing it. That is poor leadership.

Leadership that is above the law, and not accountable. This is a big problem. If I cut the plug off the $6K dollar scanner in my local precint in sacramento, it's a Felony. But yet these leaders can commit a felony and not be accountable. They are playing GOD.

Now the same 'leaders' want to put printers on the same system and call it fixed. (Oh, It will be fixed alright, permanently fixed.)

Frankly these leaders are not qualified to lead, but yet they do, they're also not qualified to make decisions about the technical data, or the physics of electronics but yet they do.

Let's look at HAVA, you can't tell me that the author of HAVA thought it through all the way. You just can't. Otherwise it would never be brought forward. Look bills are already ready to amend it?

There are ton's and ton's of examples

off the top of my head. I remember in the last few years.

DRM for all A2D D2A devices. (Was a big Slashdot issue)

I can't remember the senator now, (hollings? Fritz?) but this is crazy, the guy probably never messed with a transistor, let alone ttl, cmos, or any analog devices. I hand made / ratwired a digital delay using A2D/D2A and Dram Chips, that senator's bill would have me ADD a DRM device to my device. And make it LAW that I had to do that so that I couldn't steal or copy some video or audio with my device.
This is no joke, the Senator has NO CONCEPT of reality, and it's CLEAR they're attempting to pass legislation for MPAA/RIAA.
I am not sure what the status bill/idea went to.

The point I am making is they are UNQUALIFIED to make TECHNICAL decisions of which they have no understanding.

BPL - Broadband Over Powerlines. go visit arrl.org
Michael Powel (FCC) has either lost it completely. Or is sold his soul to the devil. In it's current for it could technically wipe out AirAmerica Radio among MANY other frequencies and bands and channels.

Got a CB, when BPL comes you may as well throw it away.
Got a HAM license? when BPL reaches your neighborhood, your $5K RIG won't be worth 5 bucks.

I was always taught the FCC was supposed to deal with frequency and power. Looks as if they can't even manage that anymore.

These folks are are either clueless, insane, corupt.
There can be no other explaination.


And why have all these problems started happening in the last few years? (I don't let democrats off the hook here either)
It's like someone had a plan sitting in a vault somewhere and they must have been waiting for the right timing in current world events.

It's MY THEORY. At least.



Anyway. It was NOT my intent to silence you.

The Electronic Sea of Death is coming to a local precint near you.

Show me the light.

[Wilms]

52. We, largely, agree. And may even share some background.

I am an anti-technology technologist.

No affiliations have I, apart from the human species which provides enough trouble for one lifetime.

Similar to you, part of what I had once believed was good about this nation was a lie. The rest has been under assault for 25 years, or more.

My background is in audio systems design and operation, though my solder slinging buddies say I know quite a bit for a "knob twister". I trust these systems as far as I can throw them. I've even talked people out of hiring me to set up PA systems, telling them instead to speak up.

I've no love for computers being used in the electoral process.

I hold a patent. The device relies on a micro-processor. Between getting the hardware to behave, the software to behave, and both to behave with one another, it's evident that you don't even need a hacker or a political compromise to make systems screw-up.

But I'm becoming increasingly aware of the difficulties faced by some of the members of the disabilities community. While computers are not secure and should not be allowed to tally votes, they do present opportunities for people with disabilities to mark a ballot and cast a vote.

This is why I'm trying to see if we can cobble together a system, for use by folks with disabilities that, while using a computer to cast and even record a vote, also produces a Paper Ballot (which also is verified by the voter), AND the Paper Ballot is used to audit each and every machine of this sort.

I don't know that such a system is possible. I'm just trying because it would be great to break this log-jam. More importantly, it could help us prevent more hackable equipment being deployed. It might also enfranchise more voters more likely to vote against fascists.

Of clueless politicians, Granny D says,

"Trust your sensibilities toward justice and fairness and toward the environment and peace. Understand that your value judgments in these areas are better because they have not been beaten down or crusted over. Information overload can make us insensitive. While your eyes are wide open--and so also your heart--trust what you see. Do not hang back from involvement in addressing the problems of the world, waiting to become an expert. You are expert enough. You are our annual re-supply of new eyes and fresh hearts to give our sorry species its best hope for improvement and survival. Take your part in the great dramas and the great struggles now still in their opening acts in this world. It is the part where you storm on stage with a confused but mischievous look and the audience cheers you madly. Don't wait to know the part too well, or the moment will pass without you."

- Doris Haddock, September 05 2003

<http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/7/9448/40144>

[Jo March]

6. The loophole is the "option" of a VVPB

If there is a recount and the voter did not choose to have a paper ballot, then that vote is lost.

That loophole needs to be closed.

Also, the bill does not go into effect until 2007, after the 2006 elections.

This bill needs to be tightened up quick, fast and in a hurry.

[meganmonkey]

7. And ASAP!

:P

I'll second your remarks!

[Jo March]

8. Yeah! What meganmonkey says!

I'll third my remarks! (Is that legal?)

[Wilms]

10. We have proposed to Conyers, and he's open to exploring...

...having a "Paper Ballot" generated in ADDITION to whatever other method of verification is chosen by a voter with disabilities.

That ballot could be then used to audit the machine, so that the electronic vote won't be "lost".

While the conversation ripened elsewhere, it started on this thread:

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

Proposed Legislation is not written in stone.

Ya think Conyers needs to do better? Then figure out how, and tell him.

He's listening.

[Jo March]

13. didn't someone figure out how to have the ballots print in Braille?

I'd be curious as to what we need to have re: voters with disabilities.

Regardless, if the bill isn't effective until 2007, then that is not good enough.

I need to contact Conyers, don't I? ;)

[Wilms]

18. One thing we may not realize well...

The blind are a fraction of the Americans with Disabilities we need to enfranchise.

Further, it's an even smaller fraction of the blind that can use Braille.

One of the big problems seems to be providing "Access with Privacy" for mobility-limited voters.

I'm part way through this summary dealing with some of the issues, and equipment.

It's a pdf:

<http://www.aapd-dc.org/dvpmain/votemachines/downloads/Manhattan%20voters%20experiences.pdf>

[sacxtra]

38. Braille Voting

Q: I'd be curious as to what we need to have re: voters with disabilities.


A: How about some HIGH QUALITY PAPER.

[Jo March]

46. Excuse me?? nt

[bush_is_wacko]

17. I agree Conyer's IS listening and seems to me he is making changes

because of his ability to listen. Why does the bill take effect Jan 2007? Get him to address that will you? Is there NO chance of passing this stuff BEFORE Jan. 2007? They all seem to be using THIS date, Why?

[Wilms]

21. I'm not sure...

But things like time for the legislation to be modified, debated, arm-twisted and passed would be long enough.

Then, implementation.

And, BTW, this whole issue is not a Dem/Repub divide as much as idealogical impasse(s) among constituents.

[bush_is_wacko]

22. Oh, I agree there are some Repub's willing to listen, but I'm not sure

they will ultimately be able to go against the radicals. they don't seem to have the ability to stand up in large numbers and say NO to this administration and the radicals. I have been very disappointed in their partisanship and I am sick to death of their cowardice!

[sacxtra]

37. Dates... Do you really have to ask yourself why?

It's sort of like they needed to get the public to USE uncertified, flawed electronic voting machines before they could 'figure out' how to pass HAVA to distribute more of these machines. Oh wait, let's have the public VOTE on a box we can tweek the packet on...

Do you see it yet?


Dates and Deadlines are being used as a weapon.

But I can't HONESTLY say I am FOR this bill since it allows for corruption via electronics.


You'd be better off showing up with wire cutters, when you go to vote.

Why can't we vote on WHO is going to cut the wires permanently?

A side note: I also notice 533 ignores completely about signals traveling across telco's. Anyone bother to check the logs? What about bridging? hmmm.

Ask HAVA about that.

Oh wait I already did, all they plan is VVPT...

It's nearly over now people. . . This experiment called America.

[Amaryllis]

12. WOEFULLY inadaquate on e-voting. Holt bill much better. Deals

with the proprietary software and wireless and internet connection issue, also political and financial connections with voting machine companies and requires random recounts of a certain percent of precincts.

[bush_is_wacko]

14. Got a link to the text of either?

I am inclined to go with Conyers but have yet to see the full text. boxer and Clinton sent me an email saying they have one they are working on ( doesn't address e-voting, just paper trails), Ensign has one ( not my cup of tea, doesn't address COMPUTERS, just paper trails), Dodd has one (Ditto)...

I am NOT seeing a bill worth fighting for yet!

I like what I have read here about Conyers bill addressing the voting machine companies, but STILL no text! I tried to look it up on congress.org, but they said no such bill exists.

HELP!

Whoa! Now I se why andy doesn't support Conyer's bill!
Effective date!

"This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on January 1, 2007."

Must be sooner! If 2006 is lost we are up shit creek!

When do the others take effect? and does NYONE really address E-VOTING?

[Amaryllis]

16. Here is more info:

This is link for text of S 2213, Graham-Clinton bill, from last congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query which was senate companion to Holt bill in last congress. Both were blocked by repubs from getting hearing. Clinton says her new bill will be similar. Both
bills addressed e-voting issues that no others have addressed; proprietary software, etc.

Don't think complete text is out on new Holt yet, but this has quite a bit of info on it:

Announcement from Verified Voting --
http://verifiedvoting.org/article.php?list=type&type=13

"The "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005" was introduced on February 2, 2005, by Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey. This is an updated and expanded version of a similar bill (H.R. 2239) that Rep. Holt introduced in the previous session. We will post the text and number for this new bill as soon as it appears on the Library of Congress web site. VerifiedVoting.org supports this bill and encourages all members of the House to become cosponsors."


Key provisions of this bill include:

1) Strengthening HAVA's current audit trail requirement - "a permanent paper record" - by requiring that the voters, rather than the voting machines, verify the accuracy of what is printed on it. States are not permitted to pass laws that would render the voter verified paper records irrelevant

2) Requiring that all voting systems produce a voter-verified paper record for use in manual audits, commencing in 2006 in accordance with HAVA's original deadline. (Funding of $150 million is authorized to help states meet the cost of implementing this requirement.)

3) Preserving HAVA's existing access requirements for voters with disabilities; clarifying and enhancing the security requirements demanded of systems to be used by voters with disabilities; and adding the requirement that an accessible voter-verification mechanism be provided. That mechanism may use paper (such as a tactile ballot sleeve or an automark device), but is not required to.

Banning the use of undisclosed software and all wireless and concealed communications devices in voting systems, and prohibiting the connection of any voting machine component to the Internet.


5) Requiring random, unannounced, hand-count audits of the voter-verified paper records (conducted by the EAC) in 2% of all jurisdictions, including at least 1 precinct per county. Such funds as may be necessary are authorized to fund the expense of the audits. (The percentage of jurisdictions to be recounted has been increased from H.R. 2239's 0.5%).


At the request of voting experts and voting rights advocates, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005 also includes some new protections that:

6) Require manufacturers and election officials to document chain of custody with respect to the handling of software; prohibit the use of software or software modifications that have not been certified or re-certified; and prohibit political and financial conflicts of interest between and among manufactures, test laboratories, and political parties.

7) Establish procedures that must be followed in the event that there is a discrepancy between reported results and audit results, and preserve the rights of individuals and the Attorney General's authority to pursue legal resolution of the discrepancies.

[bush_is_wacko]

19. this is sounding pretty good! Will be waiting with baited breath for more

info on Holt bill and Clinton bill. Any word on when such a bill would take effect IF we managed to control the thugs in the WH?

[Amaryllis]

26. Originals were meant to amend HAVA so would have taken effect immediately.

Like the Ensign bill. Don't know about these new ones. These are the only ones I've seen that even BEGIN to deal with e-security issues. What I want to see is computerized voting systems OUTLAWED. Period. Maybe if 500,000 of us go camp on the steps of congess and refuse to move till they do it...

[Wilms]

28. Well, with that "Period".

You'll disenfranchise millions of voters with various disabilities.

Did you see the thread where we discussed co-generating "Paper Ballots"?

[Amaryllis]

29. Are you saying that computerized voting is the ONLY way not to

disenfranchise disabled voters?
Well, we at least don't have to have proprietary software and remote access.

[Wilms]

30. Yes, yes, and yes. I agree with all three. n/t

[sacxtra]

33. Electricity Must Go - Cut the Plugs Off the Boxs at local polling places

quit wasting money, and destroying the foundation of our country.

"co-generating" a paper ballot is a joke. WHY not just use CARBON PAPER?! A slip of carbon paper seems a LOT cheaper than a 5 dollar modem, a 20 dollare memory chip, a 40 dollar scanner, a power supply and access to the telco..

Ask yourself.. Why did someone add the electricity at all?

My Answer: It was added so that data could be rigged, and appear to be quicker for getting election results.

It was sold to:
Anyone clueless about electronics, or corrupt.

What other reason could there POSSIBLY BE!?

(Just say no to electricity)

Vote on Paper.
Count the Paper.
Quit spending money on electronic garbage that can NEVER BE SECURE!
Outlaw E-Voting.

Remove ALL conflict of interest, by involving ALL parties.


VVPT (Vote Verified Papertrail) Sucks, it'l be a rigged vote as usual.

The paper will NEVER be FULLY counted and compared with an Electronic-vote displayed result. NEVER.

And when they find problems, a microcosm of a percent will be re-counted, nobody will know what to do. Except the corupt.

We'll waste more money on how to find out what went wrong, waste on litigation, when it when it doesn't match, waste on repairs.
The winner will never sincerely care.

Force the WINNER to PROVE they won.
Not the loser to prove that the data was flawed.


IRV = Possibly a good Idea, (I'm not to say) however it in it's current form will leave us with a rigged vote again, since it still relies on the flawed existing "electronic system" which can never be secured by simply adding a 40 dollar printer to the dog n pony show.

If you REALLY Want IRV. Do IRV on paper!

No electricity saves tons of money.

You don't pay for software.
You don't pay for phones, or telcos.
You don't pay for to re-training poll workers on technical matters like basic electronics, programming, network admins, security, auditing.
You don't pay for expensive hardware.
Paper will last longer.
The paper will work when the electricity is gone.
The paper will HOLD UP BETTER when wet.

Electronic Data by it's own nature has errors and no way to tell if it's been tampered with.

We don't need Instant Results, We need to have Accuracy, And Accountability

This whole thing is insane, enough is enough.

Look down the road...

If you REALLY want electronic voting, then you no longer have a need for congress, or senate, or president or electorial college or a constitution or a republic. After all you could just vote daily on all the cruft. No need for ANYTHING ELSE anymore. Not even courts! It ALL can be done invisibly, electronically, and instantly.

Ultimately, I wonder who will be the one that hooks up the electronic voting ethernet cables to the nuke launch sequence for defence?

Even punishment could be dolled out electronically. Fines could be automatically deducted from your bank.

Would you trust that?

Chew on that.

Enough is enough.
Restore the constitution. Fix Iraq. Get our soldiers home.
Never again allow the US to just go to war without first DECLARING WAR on a specific target.

We got enough problems right here in any town, any state, any district, any territory, usa.

Either we fix it or this American Experiment is over.

[bush_is_wacko]

32. I would like them outlawed as well, but I think we have to go about

it slowly. States are just as strapped as the federal government right now. After being FORCED to pay for expensive machines just a few short years ago they aren't going to be happy about being forced to buy different ones now. HAVA doesn't have the funds to provide machines for the entire nation again from what I can tell and it is woefully short on guidance to the states. I still want the machines gone, but we have to provide states with a viable alternative in the meantime. I think we are going to have to do some creative compromising and I think the writers of all this legislation realize that too. We also have to be careful not to disenfranchise those with disabilities and that is a very valid concern.

There is a limited amount of time to look through these bills and decide on the "BEST" compromise. If the Dem's can regain some seats in congress they can be swayed to continue reforming legislation. We have to get them some more seats first though!

We are in quite a mess, aren't we?

[sacxtra]

34. Compromise = No Integrity for counting the vote

First, We didn't create the mess.

Electronic Voting and the Unaccountable, Untouchable corrupt did.

How are you going to get your folks in Seats if the vote doesn't count?

[bush_is_wacko]

54. Like I said that is the mess. I realize we didn't create it, but we do

have to fix it. Compromise does not equal no integrity. It equals a start in the right direction. This situation has really been evolving over a period of about 50 years. It isn't going to be resolved with ONE legislative endeavor. I wish it were that simple, but it is just not. I want what I want, and I want it now is precisely why some of this legislation has not occurred before this time!

We need to make this work. I am, like you, searching for a way to help get SOME integrity in the process BEFORE 2006. I have posed this question to many of the current crop of reform bill author's. I am still waiting for a response. They are either overwhelmed, trying to come up with a REAL response to that question, or prepared to blow off and deflect the implications of such questions. I will most definitely post any response I get to those questions.

I value DUer's take on things more than I can ever express. Duer's consistently address almost EVERY conceivable angle on the issues they are presented with. I would hope I am not the ONLY person posing this question to the author's of these bills. I'm sure I am not, actually.

[BigBearJohn]

9. If Conyers is for it, then *I* am for it!

[Yellow Horse]

53. People, people! Paper Ballots CANNOT be an "option"!

IF there is a machine, it NEEDS TO PRODUCE A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT. Period.

John Conyers is a great guy, but please DO NOT FOLLOW THIS MAN BLINDLY. His bill covers a lot of important things, but with the paper ballot only being an "option", he is leaving the door wide open to the same fraud and manipulating we have now.

We need paper ballots NOW. Now, not in 2007 after the 2006 House and Senate election becomes the next stolen one. Fair 2006 elections are our only chance to take back any control at all in our national government. John Conyers needs to amend his bill to take effect as of the effective date of HAVA, and to require that a voter-verified paper ballot be produced (with that VVPB then taking precedence over any other form of "ballot" also generated.)

There are existing ways for every disability to vote independently and produce a paper ballot. So the argument that disabled people can't vote on them doesn't hold water. The same thing for the so-called higher cost of paper ballots. Baloney. Our democracy is worth it.

Paper ballots are not an "option". They are the key to our Democracy's survival.

[Amaryllis]

55. Yes, yes and yes.