new report from Verified Voting - HOLT bill is best !

[garybeck]

sorry if this has already been posted but it looks like it just came out today

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5582

Verified Voting.org Declares Rush Holt's H.R. 550 as "Gold Standard"

February 17th, 2005

You have recently heard from us regarding a new federal bill in the Senate requiring voter-verified paper ballots (VVPBs). We ask for your help again in passing essential VVPB legislation in the House. Two bills have been introduced. While both represent significant improvement, one of them, the Holt bill HB 550, is the gold standard for e-voting and has Verified Voting's strongest support.

full article:

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5582

I'm assuming they haven't compared it to the Clinton Boxer bill because it hasn't been released yet. but this is sure a good endorsement of Holt.

[tommcintyre]

1. "...sure a good endorsement of Holt." Yes it is. n/t

[keepthemhonest]

3. tom have you been able to make a decision

on which one or ones you would back right now?

[tommcintyre]

6. No, any bill MUST contain a VVPB/automatic random audit at a bare minimum

Other things are important too (open source code, etc.), but this may be the most we can get in one session.

It may take several sessions of Congress to really get it completely handled.

Many forces are at work here, and partisanship may NOT be the biggest problem.

For example, the HAVA economic incentive of a 20 to 1 funding ratio is driving BOEs to replace their old equipment with new. (Hawaii: A $350k investment yields $7,000,000!) If the states don't take advantage of this windfall, they will have to replace their own equipment over the next few years to the tune of millions out of their own (State's) pocket.

Also, the states may see replacing with DREs as a way to simplify their procedures. (Whether this is completely true is another issue, as is the view that adding paper negates this "improved efficiency".)

Right now, I'm happy so many bills are being introduced. This can only help add publicity/awareness to the fact that there is something "wrong" with our electoral system, and that it needs fixing. And, hopefully, all this attention will create a public backlash that cause the 2004 election fraud to be adequately investigated, exposed and prosecuted.

[garybeck]

17. does any bill besides HOLT's do this??

I don't think so

[Wilms]

23. Conyers has some language about mandatory audits.

`SEC. 298. VERIFIED BALLOTS.

`(b) Audits- The standards issued under subsection (a) shall provide for partial audits of the results of elections using the records produced pursuant to section 301(a)(7), and shall provide that those records shall be used for the official count of votes in the event that the tallies derived from the records differ from the tallies otherwise derived from the voting system used in the election involved.'.

[garybeck]

32. this is why

I often feel like I need to let lawyers and experts at the various voting rights orgs interpret these bills. But I also feel uncomfortable handing it over to people I don't know. But I've read that paragraph you posted from Conyers bill three times now and I still don't know what it means.

[Wilms]

33. That passage makes referrence to HAVA Section 301

If you look at the referred HAVA section, it may help in understanding the Holt passage.

[tommcintyre]

40. This is why I am reluctant to strongly back a specific bill right now

I have a pretty good idea of what we need, but it is difficult to wade through the legalese of the bills. I was wading through HR 550 last night, and it does look pretty good. And I do like seeing endorsements like your thread describes. But still I still would like to see more evaluations by the "experts", then make my own choice.

What I have learned is a bill can look good, but can have any number of fatal(?) flaws built in. For example, are the economics untenable? Such as, will the specific automatic random audit proposed raise the cost of running an election unrealistically?, etc. I know a bill can be modified, but if it is "down the road", will it be rendered weaker than another that was rejected early on?

It is true that at some point a decision MUST be made. (I would like to know when that point is.) Meanwhile, new bills are still being proposed (Clinton). Hopefully more "expert" evaluations will continue to be made, and I will keep watching/learning.

[tommcintyre]

42. Is this an AUTOMATIC random audit?

"The standards issued under subsection (a) shall provide for partial audits of the results of elections using the records produced pursuant..." <Gotta go back and read subsection (a) to find out if it's an automatic random audit, etc.? If so, why didn't they just say it all in one damn subsection? Too much "legalese". (See my previous post above.) Once all the bills seem to be submitted, I'm going to print 'em all out, and try to decipher the damn things into "human" language. :crazy:>

"those records shall be used for the official count of votes in the event that the tallies derived from the records differ from the tallies otherwise derived" <This is just saying the VVPB will supersede the DRE count in the event of a discrepancy. Now why can't they just say it more directly/clearly like that? :sigh:>

Edit: After skimming Holt last night, the language does seem somewhat clearer than this passage from Conyers. However, it did seem (to me) that it could be better organized. I had to search for the automatic random audit specifications and the requirements for open source code seemed rather vague (who will inspect and be allowed to look at it, etc.?) Maybe it was just me - I was reading it after 2am. ;)

[Wilms]

44. It is "just you"... and all else who don't deal with this stuff daily!

But once you get the flow of it, you understand why it's done that way.

Perhaps an option would have been for them to print the whole HAVA section to be modified, BOLD the added language and STRIKE the deleted words. Then it's "all in one place".

But anytime they refer to HAVA, cracking it open really helps to clear up what they're proposing.

[garybeck]

2. righteous kick for Rush Holt!

[Helga Scow Stern]

4. Did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x330275

[marions ghost]

10. From that discussion...

Here's the full version of the Lynn Landes article:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/121704Landes/121704landes.html

--excerpt--
"When I asked Ms. Moulder (of Holt's office) why the conference was not discussing the machine-free/paper-only election option, she said that people just weren't "there" yet. I surmised she meant that people weren't ready to consider that option. But judging from the reaction to my articles and speeches, I suggested to her that a growing number of people are already "there." And more people might be "there" if the issue was allowed to be on the agenda at these conferences. She smiled and walked away."

-----------
I wish all the advocates of "machine-free/paper only" would come together. I think we're going to have to be stronger to be heard.

[Helga Scow Stern]

12. That video, Invisible Ballots, makes this point.

And Holt is in it....I guess he just hasn't watched it much.

[garybeck]

18. that article was written before Holt's bill came out

it must have been based on last year's holt bill.

i think the new one is better, one difference is the spot checks appear to be mandatory, not just in case of a close election. that is HUGE.

I think the Online Journal article makes a good point, but I see no reason to not support any legislation that improves what we have. We can keep our eyes on the prize and accept steps in that direction at the same time. Otherwise, we could prevent these important bills from passing and it would be a lot worse than 2004 the next time, instead of a little better.

Holt's bill would prevent DREs, period. that is good. it would stop the sale of a bunch of diebold machines. that is good.

gary

[sacxtra]

5. HOLT IS THE PROBLEM

UNLESS

he advocates the EMERGENCY, IMMEDATE REMOVAL OF ALL ELECTRONICS, DIGITIZED DATA, AND THOSE FSCKING INSECURE NETWORKS.

REMOVING IT == RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY (Or uh, <cough> constitutional republic) Well I guess it's gonna be awhile for the patriot act to go away now.


EAT THAT BAY-BEE!!

[garybeck]

21. eyes on the prize, dude

no one can argue that having holt's bill pass would be a bad thing. no it doesn't fix everything and yes all manual hand counts would be the best, but even that would not solve everything.

any good legislation should be supported. or would you rather that we all just got more diebold DREs out there so everyone is voting on them? if we don't pass legislation like Holt's that's where we're headed.

[Wilms]

24. It's not my understanding that Holt bans DRE's.

It requires paper ballots to be produced and used for audits and recounts, but not THE count.

[New Earth]

7. ahhhhhhh

TOO MANY BILLS AT ONCE!!!! I'm getting so confused :crazy:

i want a constitutional amendment for the right to vote - i want voter verified paper ballots - i want open source code - i want universal count and recount laws strictly enforced - i want us to focus more on election fraud and not voter fraud.

now WTF one of these bills covers them all? or which combination of them fits this description?

[garybeck]

19. i'm with you

my head is spinning and we haven't even seen the Clinton Boxer bill yet.

is this an attempt to divide can conquer?

or mass confusion leads to nothing being done?

it's becoming obvious to me, the problem is so great that not one bill can fix it all, unless us DUers got to write it.

I don't have a final opinion yet but I'm starting to think that a combination Holt and one other should do it. Holt seems to cover the paper problem but not voter suppression and all the other crap. Conyers or Clinton's might cover the rest. need more time to digest it all.

but i'm sad to say that ultimately it could be like last session when the bills never got to come to a vote. that would make all this head spinning a waste of time.

[Amaryllis]

8. Clinton's may be equally good or better. It also deals with undisclosed

software, wireless connection issue and has other security measures for E-voting. We will have to see when the bill comes out.

[Wilms]

9. I'd expect it to deal with software. But, what happens from there?

If I read Verified Voting's piece on last years Clinton/Graham/Boxer legislation, software security language was removed "in committee" :scared:

[Amaryllis]

15. Exactly. I think the only way we will get anywhere with any of this is a

massive grass roots effort, similar to what we did to make Jan. 6 happen, where we literally jam their phone, fax, and emails inboxes, for days, until they do something. THis is why many are advocating working on a state level butI don't know what you do if you are in a state like OH or FL. Although the people in GA are getting somewhere with massive grassroots organizing.Did you read Andy's thread on that? Inspiring!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss//duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=328147&mesg_id=328147

[Wilms]

16. That's already happening in a way.

I think it's part of the reason why there are so many bills.

And it seems a lot of the problem is related to the need versatile machines to accommodate ALL disabilities, including mobility and language related accessibility needs.

A lot of election reform advocacy positions do not adequately provide for this, despite what is claimed. As such, it fuels deadlock and rancor.

I'd wrap colons around a shrug but the arms don't go high enough.

Oh, alright...:shrug:

[Amaryllis]

30. You can have one of those machines in each precinct. Or, I was at

a forum in OR on Friday about our vote by mail system and a woman from...can't remember which org, but one for disabled people, and she talked about how great vote by mail is for the disabled because of all the mobility issues. Of course this doesn't address the blind. I am not sure what they do for the blind.

[Wilms]

34. The vote from home option is fine for some people.

But to really embrace the needs of the disabilities community, one or a few specialized machines should be available at each precinct to provide "Access and Privacy".

[garybeck]

20. yeah, I can't wait. when are they releasing it?

my one worry already is that it doesn't have MMRA (Mandatory Manual Random Audits). I watched the video of the press conference and Clinton says that there are manual audits IF SOMEONE CONTESTS the election results. There goes the first M in MMRA, and in my mind if the audits are not mandatory, even if there isn't a close election or a contested election, there is NO BITE in the legislation. The manual audits must be MANDATORY. So far I've only seen Holt's call for MMRA.

gary

[marions ghost]

25. Show me where the Holt Bill "bans DREs"...?!?

I agree about the importance of the manual audits, garybeck.
But I'm not sure where you're getting the evidence that the Holt bill (quote) "bans DREs." The Holt bill calls for a:
"paper record...suitable for a manual audit equivalent to that of a paper ballot voting system."

This means to me that some form of DRE would be acceptable as long as it prints a paper "record" (record being undefined). This paper record is not the same as a paper ballot. Gives a lot of leeway. If we thought the Holt bill really banned DREs, I think we could all get behind it in a big way and I would be the first to advocate that. If you can demonstate where Holt bans DREs, please do!

I think they're all behind the 8-ball on this in congress, not willing to stop the runaway train. We the grassroots objectors to DREs have an opportunity to express what we really want to the committees working on these various bills. But as Amaryllis says, it would take a concerted effort to make them take notice.

With a lot of the voting groups so wishy-washy about DREs...I guess all we can do is keep saying it. Certainly some changes are "better than nothing" but there needs to be a strong lobby for the reasonable argument that e-voting is inferior and unwarranted, and will cause infinitely more problems than it solves. Except for disabled access, it is unjustifiable at this point. It's depressing to realize that many of our advocates are hamstrung on this critical point in voting reform. The only thing I know to do is to keep hammering the message for paper ballots every way we can. I WISH Holt banned DREs, but unless it's been changed overnight, I don't think so......

[garybeck]

28. is it semantics?

My understanding is a DRE does not have a paper at all. Seems like you're saying if the machine records the vote and the paper is just used for auditing then it's still a DRE? So I guess you're saying it's possible to have a DRE that produces a VVPB?

Still, wouldn't Holt's bill effectively ban DREs that don't produce a VVPB? And aren't thousands of these machines about to be purchased and they would be illegal if Holt passed?

[Wilms]

35. We do have terminology issues, don't we?

A DRE that produces a paper ballot is an improvement, particularly whan the Paper becomes the legal record used.

I think a Touch Screen that produces a Paper Ballot and has no DRE capability, could be referred to as a "Ballot Marker", and is an improvement.

[marions ghost]

37. A DRE CAN have a paper printout...

1. Yes exactly, I'm saying that if the machine records the vote and the paper is just used for auditing, then it's still a DRE.
verifiedvoting.org for example describes the use of DREs with a paper printout:

"DRE voting systems need to use printer attachments to produce a printed paper ballot of the voter's selections, printed in the voter's native language. The voter can read and verify that his or her intent is represented on the paper ballot. The computer-printed paper ballot should be treated with all the care of traditional paper ballots. The ballots are, of course, anonymous, and election officials keep them securely in ballot boxes. In a DRE system with a paper component such as this, the vendor's software no longer needs to reach unattainably high levels of quality and security, so long as it works well enough to produce the paper ballot. Either the voter is happy with the paper output or not. If not, then it's a spoiled ballot, and traditional procedures can be applied to guarantee that the voter's spoiled ballot is not placed in the final ballot box."

-------------------------
2. In the Holt Bill, the words used are "paper record," not "paper ballot." A lot of legal hair-splitting depends on such semantics.
My question is whether this "record" is actually what we are calling a VVPB? Or does it allow a lot of leeway for printers to be added, or for the purchase of new machines that spit out *something* on paper (not necessarily a facsimile of the voter's transaction)? If so, then Holt does not limit DREs and certainly does not ban them. I'm not sure of the answer to this question of semantics, just throwing it out, but the hedging on the issue seems to indicate to me that it's a deliberate grey area. I'm suspicious.

And my question continues to be...why is a machine between the voter and the ballot better than nothing between the voter and the ballot?*

*(except in the case of a DRE option for the disabled)

[Wilms]

43. This is an awkward complicated systems requiring care with definitions

1. If you call a DRE with a print-out just a DRE, you can't set it apart from DRE's with no print-out at all. I recognize that unless the printed ballot is used for the count in renders the point moot in that one regard. But there are issues of auditing and recounts in which the printed paper becomes important.

In the VV quote, I assume they want the referred ballot to be used for counts. In that case, the "DRE" is really being used as a Touch-Screen Ballot Printer, and the DR in DRE (Direct Recording) is ignored. You could have a Touch-Screen Ballot Printer with no DRE capabilities. To confuse that, as I suspect many do, with a DRE adds to the fog.

2. I think, but I'm not sure, that the referrence to the printed paper as a "record" is because it only comes into play for audits/recounts. As such, the dreaded DRE tally is a function of the "electronic ballot", :scared: , cast by the voter. Perhaps that is how they differentiate between the two.

I do not think it correct to fear that the printers will produce some meaningless document. Ensign, Holt, Conyers, even Dodd, all call for paper to be produced that can be used for recounts (except the latter three would allow electronic ballot only at disabled voter option). You'll find that language fairly clear.

Your final question you answered in part. "The disabled". Blind, deaf, poor vision, mobility-limited, can't read English, can't read ANY language (yep, that needs to be covered and few seem to acknowledge that). Also, some BoE officials find use of Touch-Screens extremely helpful in administering elections in multiple languages. In LA, it's over 30!!!

That said, we might be fairly happy with a "Touch-Screen Ballot Printer" that had no DRE function.

[garybeck]

46. we should get it straight

if the machine is just printing a ballot, is is NOT a DRE.

I have no problem with computerized ballot printers. No problem at all.

The question is what happens to the ballots. If they are hand counted, great. If they are fed into tabulators, then the tabulators are the issue.

I'm not sure any of the bills specifically address the tabulators. Here in Vermont we have paper, but over 50% is tabulated.

I need to find out for sure if Holt's paper is the actual ballot or just the record for the 2% audit.

If it's just for the 2% audit, i'm very surprised that VV would support it so strongly. I though they were against DREs??? What, do they think the 2% audit will solve everything? or is Holt's paper the actual ballot that still needs to be counted?

Gary

[Wilms]

50. I'm pretty sure "Holt's Paper" is "just the record for the 2% audit"

I'm not sure of VV's reasoning. But if DRE's are deployed WITH A BALLOT PRINTER, it's a bit better than DRE's without. This way we can continue our effort to have the generated ballots printed by those machine used for all counts.

Should non-ballot printing DRE's be deployed, we're in trouble because it would take additional funding to replace or modify them in the event we do get a paper ballot based count.

[garybeck]

45. the Verified Voting description is ambiguous, I'm still confused

in the paragraph 1 that you posted, it is not clear if the paper printout from the DRE is the ballot or the record of the ballot. It seems to me that if it is the actual ballot, then it's not a DRE. Do you agree?

I mean, let's say the machine just prints a ballot, and the ballots are counted on tabulators.

Is the machine that prints the ballot a DRE?

Please tell me it's not, or I'm completely confused.

If your interpretation of Holt's bill is correct, that the printout is only for the audit, that would not be good and I'm surprised that Verified Voting would be supporting this. I guess they think a 2% audit is mathematically and statistically sound to guarantee the rest is correct?

So now I have a question - is Ensign any better?

[BeFree]

11. "....gold standard for e-voting"

This is just puting lipstick on a pig.

E-voting, if we are to allow it at all, must be done on government produced and coded machines, that are open to the public's inspection.

That's the paper ballot's process, why not stick with the same process? Why invent a new, privately operated process? Why? To steal votes, that's why.

E-voting must be banned from having any secretive, private involvement.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. It's OK, BeFree.

In the land of the electoral moral derelict or plain idiot, "fools gold" is 24 carat.

[garybeck]

22. one issue per bill

no single bill does it all, let's support all the good ones.

holt bans DREs. that is good.

yes, we also need open source code. I believe Clinton's bill does that but we haven't seen that.

we also need to take partisan officials out of it all, and ....well you know the rest.

it's going to take more than one bill.

and guess what they might block them all from coming to the floor anyway.

gary

[BeFree]

39. The only VVPB

I would be willing to accept is one that tabulates as it goes.

It would work like this: As your vote is printed, along side of your record is the running total for each candidate you voted for..

I know, I know, you don't think you should know what the total is until you get home and they pronounce it on TV.

Well that's too damn bad. I want the running total printed out NOW. That way if the machine does screw up, and it will, the auditing will be very simple. Just look at the running totals and it will tell you what is happening in that black hole box that is being used to steal the election.

And who cares if someone blurbs what the running total is? It can't be changed, it can't be altered, it just is, and blabbing to someone about the running total on one steenkin' machine ain't gonna make anybody change their vote, otherwise polls would be outlawed!

That's the only way I will accept using machines as a way to record or tabulate my vote. Take it or leave it!

[kster]

13. How much

are we going to let these e-voting companies, Assault our democracy before we just say NO.

[Land Shark]

26. Let;s plug IDEAS not names of bills

because the Republicans have numerous amendments they want for any bill to pass, and they are (from our perspective) killer amendments. Then our previous "support" for Holt runs the risk of being support for something we no longer support.

[garybeck]

29. I AGREE, here are some KEY IDEAS we need

VVPB (voter verified paper ballot)
MMRA (mandatory manual random audits)
open source code
partisan elected officials out of election administration
standards for provisional ballots
strict penalties for election fraud
standards for distribution of voting machines

I'm glad that there is an opportunity to change the bills in committee with ammendments, etc. However I fear that the same thing will happen that happened in the last session - Republicans will prevent the good legislation from coming to a vote.

[marions ghost]

31. good suggestion

--to keep our own ideas in the forefront right now, while studying the various bills. Things may change. The important thing is to define the goals.

[Wilms]

36. Jaws, you really "Grasp It". Don't you?

And I agree.

[marions ghost]

38. Do you have any opinion landshark,

on the questions in the posts just above--about the Holt Bill's wording--paper "record" rather than paper "ballot." Doesn't this leave it open for proliferation of DREs under Holt, as long as they crank out some kind of paper record? I'm not sure we can just assume this "record" is the same as a VVPB. Any clarification on interpretation of this particular point would be helpful.

[trudyco]

27. Do any of these bills have penalties in them?

I want any election official that doesn't follow the law to get an automatic felony. Once certified, only election officials may touch the machine. Each party in the election has the right to videotape the precinct during an election as long as no voter privacy is violated. No machine may have a default value. Random audits will be picked by all parties in the election and within public view and videotaped. Any citizen of a state may request poll books, paper votes, absentee ballots, provisional ballots accepted and rejected as early as 48 hours after vote certification and as late as ?? and election officials must comply within 48 hours. Failure is an automatic felony. Citizens who have had their absentee or provisional ballot denied must be notified and given time to challenge the denial.

Failure to have precincts open 90% of the posted voting times, or to have lines more than 1 hour long, or to not have paper ballots for every vote, or to have voters travel far to reach their precinct is an automatic felony. Provisional ballots will not be denied for federal elections based on the fact they were cast in the wrong precinct.

Any of these bills covering any of this stuff? Most importantly, are any of them putting in teeth to really nail crooked election officials?

trudyco

[LeahD]

41. Where's Andy??

Any input for us?

[eaglenetsupport]

47. I think we should get serious or just quit.

The republiclones will NOT let anything gut their plans. Anyone that believes any federal legislation under the current circumstances will do anything other than spin our wheels is just a hopin and a dreamin. I don’t mean this as any kind of put down to well meaning folks, It’s just cold hard reality as I see it.

Let’s say there are ten items that need fixing. Five bills address one or two items each, weakly, before the clones amend it weaker yet. Half of our best and brightest spend the next year trenching it out and get 3% of a pie arguing that the 3% is better than 0%. The clones spin it as 75% fixed and thus weaken the entire effort. I hear people postulating it’s better then nothing arguments. Not so, it is likely devastating to any real reform.

In the next two years if we do anything at the fed level it should be to find a rep. to introduce the full legislation that fixes everything. Of course it will die. We’ll be back in Jan. 2007 to introduce it again only this time from a position of power based on what we did at the state level. Our initiatives will get their attention and make them realize we’re not just kidding around, but serious as a heart attack. The message will be clear. Fix it or we will. Just as easy as we placed and won ballot measures for 2006, we could come back with a tactic that will scare the liven doo-doo out of them. We should make it clear from the get go we’ll take the drastic steps in 2008 if they don’t fix it. Once they see what we accomplished in 2006 they’ll get serious themselves.

Article V of the federal constitution is the article of change. No change so all encompassing as ending slavery, or the right of a woman to vote, could ever be effectively enacted without amending the constitution. So to is the importance of election reform. Article V is mute on the point of how to call for a constitutional convention. But by the dictates of Article V ALL states have within their own laws how to call for and organize a convention. The next round of initiatives just might have to read, “Should the state of Colorado call for an election of delegates to a constitutional convention for the purpose of considering federal election reform amendment”. This is why the congress in 1932, hurried up and amended to eliminate prohibition. The people were going to do it. The thought of people in convention with the power to amend was enough to stir immediate action. I submit the same will be true today.

Fixing this system will be a two step process. Establish a national agenda and demonstrate the will of the people in Nov. 2006. The veiled threat is they best get to work because either they fix it or we fix it, take your choice. Our 10-15 states we place measures in 2006, could easily be 33 once the people see the chance of real change in their own hands. And if that don’t scare the hell out of a republican then he’s already dead.

The pure unadulterated raw power of the booth will come to bear. I swear to god, if they make it necessary to go to the PEOPLE with a federal amendment, I will make sure we add a federal recall procedure for house, senate AND president and initiatives powers in every state, (43 have it now). Go ahead, “make my day”.

[Helga Scow Stern]

48. NYT says new Dem bill is the "gold standard"

snip--
Mr. Ensign's bill does not go as far as another paper-trail bill that has been introduced in the House by Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat. That bill is preferable because it includes other safeguards, like requiring an audit of some paper records as a spot-check for the electronic totals. Still, Mr. Ensign's bill would be a good step, and its Republican sponsorship and narrow focus could give it real momentum in this Congress.

The Democratic Senate bill, introduced last week by Senators Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and Frank Lautenberg, is now the gold standard for election reform. It would require not only paper records, but recounts in 2 percent of all polling places or precincts, and restrictions on political activity by voting machine manufacturers.

The bill would also take on lines at the polls - which stretched up to 10 hours this year - by requiring standards for the minimum number of voting machines per precinct. It would limit the states' ability to throw out voter registration forms and provisional ballots on technicalities, and prevent them from using onerous identification requirements to turn away eligible voters. And it would strike a blow against vote suppression by outlawing the use of deception - like fliers giving the wrong date for a election - to keep people from voting.

Some important big-picture reforms would also be made by that Democratic Senate bill. It would make Election Day a holiday, freeing up people to vote and serve as poll workers, and it would require states to allow early voting. It would bar chief election officials, including secretaries of state, from engaging in partisan politics. And it would require states to restore the vote to felons who have paid their debts to society; many of them are now barred from voting.

Election reform should not be a partisan issue. No member of Congress should be satisfied with a system in which voters are forced to wait in line for hours or to vote on unreliable machines. Americans from across the political spectrum were moved to see Iraqi voters going to the polls last month. Congress should take that idealism and direct it toward making our own election system the best it can be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/22/opinion/22tues1.html?

[tommcintyre]

49. Sounds really good but is it trying to cover too much?

It covers so much (truly needed) reforms, I wonder if the whole thing will be shot down. For example, here in Hawaii, I wanted to know why our Bill does NOT address open source code. The top expert explained that there was no way they would get that this session. So rather than "throwing the baby out with the bath water" (having the entire Bill shot down), they are settling for VVPB, audits, etc.

I hope that's not the case with the Clinton Bill, but maybe there's a reason the Holt Bill doesn't contain all of this? Is it more realistic that Holts, (which is more narrowly focused, yet still covers the "esentials) will "get over the hurdles"?

As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm glad so many Bills have been proposed since it gives publicity to, and implies, that our election system is broken (also raising awareness of the possibility that there was significant fraud in the 2004 election).

But I find it very disturbing that (according to the NYT editorial) the Bill with the inside track is the weakest one, and is most viable because its Repub sponsored? WE will have to counter this with a massive grass roots action once we sort out which Bill is a combination of the best features AND the most realistic chance of passing.

[garybeck]

51. I can't believe VV is calling this a gold standard

it's still a DRE

only 2% of the votes get verified

98% of the votes are just like before, invisible ballots, and they will not ever get checked

[LeahD]

52. Why oh why....

has this dropped to page 2? Why no input from our resident expert, Andy?

[sacxtra]

53. Kiss your right to vote goodbye. Go ahead PASS IT, be dumb.

Your vote will disappear the moment it is digitized.

Sure you get a paper COPY.

But the ACTUALL vote can be hacked.
Is someone watching all the telco lines, phone records, software, digital components, analog components, in between where your vote was digitized and where it was counted? Can you travel and see physically at the speed of light (The speed of electricity)




Paper Ballots
Count Manually
Ban electronics, digitized data and insecure networks.

They have NO PLACE in the elections of the United States Of America.

[NationalEnquirer]

54. Thanks for this info.

It was getting pretty hard to separate the wheat from the chaff..