I strongly disagree with these two statements.

[garybeck]

1) HR550 is the Gold Standard
2) HR550 does more harm than good

disclaimer: no offense to those who agree with either of these statements. it is just my opinion.

[marmar]

1. I apologize for my ignorance....

but what's HR550?

[FogerRox]

2. Rush Holts bill that gives us paper in 50 states for the upcoming election

in Nov. '06

[madeline_con]

3. Text here:

H.R. 550: Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2005

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-550

[marmar]

6. Thanks for the link...

:hi:

[garybeck]

4. HR550 is

HR550 is a bill in congress. it attempts to mend the problems with electronic voting machines.

in this forum there are many election reform activists who feel strongly about either supporting or rejecting this bill for a variety of reasons. There are those who call it the "Gold Standard" of all election reform bills (there are several) but I disagree with this, because it only calls for a 2% audit of the paper ballots, in other words, 98% of our ballots are never checked against the machine counts for accuracy.

there are also those who feel that because of its inadequacies, the bill does more harm than good. I disagree with this because it clearly institutes at least SOME spot checks when we currently have none.

that's it in a nutshell.

you can read more about it here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-550

[marmar]

5. Claro que si. Gracias....

I need to read more about the bill.

[Land Shark]

7. problem is, by calling it a "spot check" you are ASSUMING the very point

being debated. That is, the checks will check or catch nothing. Because

(1) the method of sampling used will create a relatively broad margin of error allowing small to moderate frauds to slip through
(2) the precincts that will be sampled are announced in advance, and at an average of just over 1 per county, a county official not wanting the limelight has plenty of time to make the numbers match
(3) because even the proponents of the Holt bill admit the audit is flawed, it will never withsstand a legal and political onslaught like Florida 2000, which is when WE NEED IT MOST

and

don't forget

(4) it only creates paper records that are totally useless and never matter UNLESS the audit shows "inconsistency or irregularity"

After Holt, the following will be true:
1. the "audits" will be clean, and if not clean, tossed or discredited
2. Joe Q Public will think "paper trail = totally fair" based on the slightly msiconceived past education of the movement of the public, before paper trail was changed to paper ballot
3. to beef up the audits we will have to convince Joe Q Public to support something that many activists don't understand in a shorter period of time than most activists have to devote to it.
4. States will not be able to create a paper BALLOT for DREs because Holt says it should be a paper record, to prevail only if inconsistent with the DRE count
5. DREs announce the winner and the loser gets the consolation prize: the flawed audit is on their side.

That's not progress, IMHO.

[FogerRox]

8. hey you-- dont forget

recommend the ERD NOW . . here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=nominate&forum=203&thread=422803