Definitive Proof (no stats): Holt Paper Audits Will NEVER Stand

[Land Shark]

N.B. This analysis applies to DREs (touch screens) but not to optical scanning or other systems where the paper record and the ballot are one and the same under the Holt bill (HR 550)

Predicate Fact: The "paper record" created by the Holt bill IS the opscan ballot, so the two are one and the same. But with DREs, the paper record has to be created, of course. But the fact that a paper "record" is created does not change the state law definition of "ballot" in any way shape or form. When the first count is done and results are announced, it is the "ballots" that are counted. For everything except DREs, the ballot and the paper record are the same thing.

It's critical to recognize that Holt creates only paper records, not ballots, on DREs, and that these records "prevail" over "inconsistent or irregular" machines counts "IN AUDITS OR RECOUNTS" as Holt says. Here's why:

It's not a "semantic game" between ballot and paper record, because the ballot is what will get counted in the all-important FIRST COUNT. Then the audit or recount will or can count paper.

We know this to be the case because (1) it's the current case right now under state laws (2) Holt doesn't attempt to modify that reality by pre-empting the definition of a ballot for federal races, and (3) Holt implicitly acknowledges that the DRE makes the first count when it says the paper will prevail "in case of inconsistency or irregularity". Inconsistency with what? Paper can't be inconsistent with something that doesn't matter. Besides a recount obviously comes after a count and not before, the audit precincts are "announced" within 24 hours after the state posts its final results. Translation: First counts and winners are DRE winners.

Therefore, DREs where they are abundant give the nod like Bush got the nod in Florida 2000. The candidate in the position of Gore has recount rights, and there will be audits under Holt (though those audits are not rights of the candidate per se). We already know that recount rights are problematic, but the audits will NEVER work, for simple non-statistical reasons.

If the Holt paper record was pronounced a "ballot of record" we'd have a good argument for paper on the first count.

Holt hype says the bill creates a "paper ballot" which is not true at all, because nothing is "created" in the case of opscans, etc., and the DRE paper record is not a "ballot", unless we have a new kind of ballot that somehow is not counted on the first count, only counted later. That flies in the face of the central meaning of ballot. Also, a voter can not have more than one "ballot" or it's a felony, so maybe that's why Holt calls it a "paper record", or "hard copy" (in the title portion) and so forth.

You know that over the years Republicans have publicly advocated on radio shows lying to exit pollsters, etc.

All they need to say or any political force needs to say to put the paper audits and recounts in terminal doubt is DON'T TRUST THE PAPER TRAILS IN DEMOCRATIC CITIES, WHILE NOBODY'S LOOKING THEY WILL CHANGE RECORDS SO THAT THEY CAN CHEAT TO GET A NEW ELECTION OR WIN THE RECOUNT!!

FYI Democratic cities are the very best place to beat Dems, electronically. Significant fraud in high Dem precincts will not be very exit poll detectable....

THE KEY, A NEW PERSPECTIVE:
With a real "ballot" that is One of a Kind, the thing is, you can vote it in secret because the only person you can screw is yourself. You check and balance yourself, in other words, and "mistakes" or what have you hurt only your own choices.

But with a "paper record" you have a second, free shot, and it doesn't necessarily hurt you to play with it. It gives politically motivated people an easy chance to screw not with themselves but with the system as a whole. They can refuse to verify it. They can verify it and announce "I lied on my verification" on the way out. There will be a minority who claim or actually do trust machines. We can't force people to verify the ballot, at the point of a gun, or otherwise.

In fact, some *activists* might even mess up their voter verified paper trail just TO PROVE THE MACHINES WRONG or just for the hell of it.

The only reason "voter verified" works is with a ballot: because with your one and only ballot the only person you screw is yourself. That's not true with parallel systems. Think: parallel books, the second set that's not the "real" one is the one you get to play with...!

Audits are great, but they have to be audits of ballots, darnit. Only with a single ballot that counts are there the checks and balances to protect: you can only screw yourself. But a lot more than your self can get screwed if you audit something other than ballots.

[fooj]

1. Thank you for bringing this BS to the light!

Holt hype says the bill creates a "paper ballot"

Peace.

[Land Shark]

2. Paper Ballots, Accept No Substitutes!

[lonestarnot]

3. There are no substitutes!

[Kurovski]

4. K&R(nt)

[autorank]

5. Here's the application, a "recount" in Virginia in 2005.

In Virginia's 2006 election, the Democrats carried the Governorship by about 6 points and the anti Republican vote provided about a 9% margin.(including 2.5% for a real moderate Republican running as an independent).

The Lt. Gov. and A.G. races were much closer. The Democratic Lt. Gov. lost by only 20,000 votes and the Democratic A.G. lost by only 300 votes.

It's recount time is it not. NOT.

There were 200,000 optical scan ballots. The court masters who ran the recount refused to allow those to be hand counted. They were run through the machines again.

There were a couple of million additional votes on DRE's. The court masters ruled that the "recount" was to be simply local officials pressing a button on the machines to re tabulate the count. There was no examination of the underlying software of methods for errors.

This is the recount that wasn't. If this is what we're headed for than we're whistling by the graveyard if we think any bill that fails to require paper ballots, hand stamped by the voter, as the primary ballot. That would be a good use of our federal legislative mandate.

Great post. Thank you.

[Land Shark]

8. thanks auto!

[Cos]

15. You're undermining your own argument

Under Holt, if Virginia had used DREs, the DREs would've produced a paper record, and the recount would have been required to use the paper record rather than simply pressing the button on the DRE again.

Under Holt, what happened with the optical scan ballots would have still been possible. H.R.550 does not address this problem, as far as I know. It also doesn't prevent anyone from solving the problem, at the state or local level. We can pass laws that say hand counts are preferred in a recount, and many states already have them. Holt does nothing to undermine that.

So all of this is consistent with everything I and other H.R.550 proponents have been saying all along: This bill makes some small but useful improvements. It fails to solve many problems, and some of the improvements it does make aren't as good as they could be, but everything it does do makes things better than the status quo.

None of us here are saying that H.R.550 is all we need, or that it solves all the problems, or that it's ideal. But the burden is on you, opponents of the bill, to explain why it is harmful.

Here you present two problems:
* One of them is partially solved by H.R.550
* One of them is unaffected by H.R.550

It seems to me you're supporting my stance on H.R.550, not yours.

[Land Shark]

19. It's just my legal opinion: these audits won't survive WHEN it COUNTS

because they can't survive big resources being placed against them in attack mode.

So the audits fail when they are tested (you seem to assume finding a discrepancy is some kind of revelation and people will be rushing to fix it when they'll be rushing to CHALLENGE it)

So)
(1) they can't survive attack by parties with resources
(2) you can't even see the attacks COMING because you are committed to pretending most of my points have no force while technically saying they are not what you really would like to see
(3) the arguments post-Holt are very technical and mostly weak, ones I don't relish making at all

[Cos]

24. Your opinion still doesn't support your point

Your opinion is that audits will be challenged and won't stand up. You haven't explained why this is so inevitable. You may be only partly right: sometimes they will be successfully challenged; other times, they'll do their job and trigger a hand count.

But even if you are 100% correct and these audits never ever result in a hand count even when they discover a problem...
... that still doesn't explain why it's better to not have them at all. If we have them, even if they fail to do their job and trigger a full count when they turn up problems, at least we'll know something we wouldn't otherwise have known. And we can use that to support our further work and lobbying.

In other words: Stop telling me why H.R.550 doesn't do enough. Start telling me why you oppose it. None of your reasons, not even this one (which I don't buy), make sense as supporting reasons for that.

[Land Shark]

26. Because they don't measure anything, because they will get our hopes

up only to be guaranteed failure when it matters, because if it matters there will be opposition....

need to go away here in a few... see ya tomorrow... maybe one more post at most

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. umm, don't you mean it is just your Definitive Proof?

I'm sorry, but I don't find this mode of argumentation very persuasive. Seems like your subject header wrote a check that your argument couldn't cash.

I do, of course, accept the point that the audit doesn't inevitably lead to Justice Being Done. If we were debating the resolution that HR 550 is a panacea, that point would be decisive. We're not. As Cos points out, if you want to argue that HR 550 is worse than useless, you actually have to argue that.

[Land Shark]

40. I have argued that, altogether over several posts

but I'm not going to make a really long post in order to try to persuade the committed-unpersuadable.

BTW, it's interesting that you would steal/adapt Martin Luther King's line about a check marked funds due from his I Have a Dream speech about civil rights, and use it in this context. you'll probably be puzzled by the question of what SPECIFIC point I'm trying to make in saying that, but then you probably go to art museums and are similarly puzzled when you're not able to divine something specific. not that my sentences are art, but sometimes things are merely evocative and not specific.

Next step: OTOH takes the word "evocative" applies it broadly to the entire argument and again argues that I can't "evoke" an argument I have to specifically "make it". Which shows both his unfairness in stretching the work evocative and that he doesn't get it.

Instead: Now that I said that, OTOH will say he had no such intent, and is puzzled by my lack of appreciation of his position.

And since I said that, he'll express his befuddlement at me going down this "tangent". Patterns are forming OTOH

bottom line OTOH is that you are poisoning the well with your sarcasm. Either you are overly emotional despite your objective pretensions, or your detractors are right in suggesting that you just want to bait people into writing things they otherwise wouldn't and in wasting their time.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. what on earth?

I think you have this completely upside down. You are taking every post to its polemical bleeding edge, and now you seem to be thumping a newbie for not revering your experience. And you think I am poisoning the well. OK, think that.

The point remains: under the status quo, there is no audit trail. Under Holt, there would be an audit trail. You think that isn't progress; a bunch of us think it is. I can't speak for anyone else, but you should know damn well already that I am not committed-unpersuadable on HR 550. However, we probably do have some divergent and irreconcilable assumptions. That's politics.

[autorank]

33. Welcome to DU!!! I didn't make an argument, I cited an example.

I have a couple of points here and then a summary of others as a reply to the OP.

The optical scan ballots would not have been counted. Why not have that in Holt? It's just
an oversight. That's why they have markup, to put in the things the missed and mess up the
things they put in. It's not ALL about DRE's and about 15-20% of VA votes were on optical scans
by Diebold mainly.

As far as 2% goes, the elections I mentioned were decided by 1.15% and 0.01%, the latter just 323 votes. The total votes for each contest were 1.9 million each. A 2% recount (of all DRE votes or all votes?) would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack, in the case of the AG race 0.01% difference and not too much better in the case of the Lt. Gov. race 1.15%. In addition, there is no method specified, other than EAC's opinioin concerning the need.

Candidates, LT.GOV
Bolling - Rep - 979,265 - 50.47%
Byrne,L - Dem - 956,906 - 49.32%


Candidates A.G.
McDonnell - Rep - 970,886 - 49.96%
R C Deeds - Dem - 970,563 - 49.95%

These were extremely important races to Virginians. The Rep Lt.Gov. and the and Rep A.G. were heavily funded by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Kaine, whom I workedk for, the Dem candidate for governor won by about 8-9% when you factor in the Moderate Republican protest candidate (Potts) votes. Yet down ballot Dems (one liberal, one moderate conservative NRA endorsed) trailed significantly.

I'd like a solution to this.

It seems to me that the federal government should guarantee my civil right to know that the right person won, the person with the most votes. A mandatory recount, state wide, would have been the appropriate outcome for both races given some of the pecularities in both races. But we got no protection of our rights by Virginia courts and HR550 doesn't do anything either.

I like parts of the bill. The recount piece doesn't work for these two elections and they're the type that require reasonable examination.

I have a question for you. What happens if the EAC comes in, does a recount and finds out that the county/locality results are wrong? What is the impact on the election?

[Cos]

49. These are different issues

Yes, I'd like laws that require hand counts of the ballots instead of feeding them back through optical scan machines. Most states already have such laws on the books, in fact. H.R.550 doesn't mandate this, AFAIK. If it did, that would be an improvement, I agree. We'll have to handle it at the state level for the time being, if H.R.550 passes in its current form, or doesn't pass. This doesn't make H.R.550 dangerous or harmful or something to be opposed, of course. It's just one of many problems the bill doesn't address.

When it comes to the 2% audit, you're making the same mistake kster did in his post about 100 people on an island. It's not a 2% recount, it's an audit of 2% of precincts. Completely different thing! Each precinct audited would be audited in its entirety - 100% of the ballots in that precinct would be counted. If the audit of 2% of precincts, randomly selected, turns up problems, that would be grounds for a recount. H.R.550 doesn't suggest that the recount should be of only 2% of ballots, or only 2% of precincts. That would be ridiculous. The purpose of the audit is to discover if the voting machines counted correctly, not to come up with an official vote count.

When it comes to really close elections - well, all vote counting methods have some margin of error. Even hand counting paper ballots will produce some error in the count, though not as much as a machine count in most cases. That's why if an election is very close, within the margin of error, we should always do a recount with the most accurate method possible, which is a hand count. At this point, audits don't enter into the picture anymore. If the election is close enough to be within the normal margin of error of the machines used to count the votes, we should do a hand count - not because we think the machines were buggy or there was fraud, but simply because we know hand counting has a lower margin of error, and the election was really close.

For the most part, H.R.550 doesn't address that, though again, most state laws do. H.R.550 does make one significant contribution: it bans paperless DREs, which makes a hand count at least possible in cases where it would otherwise be impossible.

[troubleinwinter]

6. Voter Verified PAPER BALLOT = Ballot of Record.

[EFerrari]

7. Exactly. K&R

:kick:

[Febble]

9. I think Amaryllis

addresses this point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=422833&mesg_id=422833

In Holt's own words:

2) An audit is not the same as a recount. A recount seeks to determine the actual results of an election. By contrast, an audit ensures proper functioning of a voting system by spot-checking its tally against the voter-verified paper records. By testing randomly, an audit deters malfeasance because potential bad actors won’t know which 2% of precincts could be audited. If discrepancies are found, a larger audit follows, and potentially a recount.

A recount needs to be a recount of a ballot, because whatever is counted needs to have the legal status of a ballot. This is important, but it is not, AFAICS, the purpose of the Holt bill.

The purpose of the Holt bill is simply, no more and no less, to audit the machines not to recount the vote. To audit the machines, you need a paper record (not necessarily a ballot) so that you can check that the count from machine matches an independent count of the records. It isn't a question of one being the ballot and the other not being. If they don't match, the audit fails.

Or at least that is my reading. Amaryllis can put me right.

This is why I don't share your pessimism, or your view that the bill is counter-productive. A first, vital step, is simply to verify that the machine count equals the total number of voter-verified records.

The next huge step is: what happens when they don't? I'd like to see a full recount - I expect you would too. It's what happens in the UK if the candidates dispute the count. And in that case, you'd need paper ballots.

But the Holt bill doesn't prevent that - it just doesn't go that far. If Holt is passed, and the audits happen, and the machines turn out to be crap - next step is: mandate proper recounts with paper ballots.

It sounds like a way up the mountain to me.

[Land Shark]

10. My points apply to audits of machines or precincts the same as results

it doesn't make any difference at all, why would you think it would, and quote amaryllis? Amaryllis is great, but you're the statistical expert, Febble.

[greatauntoftriplets]

11. Kicked and recommended....

and sending it back to the front page.

For Andy....

[garybeck]

12. I must be missing something

it my understanding, as you state, that Holt's bill requires all DREs to print a paper record. this is verified by the voter.

the paper record takes precedence over the machine count if there is a discrepancy. it becomes the ballot of record. the legal vote. the DRE count gets tossed; it is worthless. The VVPAT is the legal ballot, come audit or recount.

isn't that what we want?

it seems you are worried that the voter will purposely vote one way on the DRE and another way on the VVPAT, just to screw up the system? I don't see why anyone would do this. If you want candidate A to win, I would most people would make sure the candidate they want is on the DRE and on the VVPAT. Why would they risk voting for the other person on either one.

I guess I'm missing something here.

[Cos]

13. What ARE you talking about?

You say many true things, but none of them connect in a way that makes sense if the core claim you're trying to support is that the Holt bill is somehow damaging or harmful. Semantic quibbles about what the word "ballot" refers to only matter if we're arguing about definition of terms, but that's besides the point.

Let's just all agree on a few things I think we all agree on:
- Hand marked paper ballots are superior to DREs because they inherently require each ballot to be created and verified by the voter. Check.
- If there were a bill requiring hand marked paper ballots for all elections, we'd all be in favor of it. There is no such bill currently in Congress. Holt's bill doesn't ban DREs. Check.
- DREs are already in use, and more of them will purchased soon. Check?
- A DRE that creates a VVPAT gives a voter a chance to verify that the paper record created matches their intent, but the initial count given by the DRE is not of that paper record, and could differ from it. That's bad. Check.
- Let's forget arguments about whether that paper record is properly a "ballot" or not, by avoiding use of the word ballot. However, we agree that the Holt bill requires that if the paper record is counted, the results of that count trump the DRE's electronic count. Check.

So far, we're all saying the same thing. Now here's where we diverge, and where I don't understand what you're trying to get at:

• Currently, many DREs do not create a VVPAT at all. We get the electronic count, and that's it.
  
• Holt's bill bans the use of such DREs. It requires a VVPAT. If a problem with the machine count is detected, the VVPAT gives us the ability to count votes that voters had a chance to verify themsevles.
  a) Yes, some voters may not have done so, and it's possible their paper records are incorrect.
  b) Yes, it's possible that the electronic count has problems but they're not discovered, so the count we actually use will not be a count of the paper record.
  

===> Despite these two points, significant though they may be, this is still <strong>better</strong> than allowing fully paperless DREs, which is the non-Holt status quo.

• Currently, no audits are required.
  
• Holt's bill would require some audits. These audits would be full hand counts of the paper record (either a hand marked paper ballot, or a DRE's VVPAT) in randomly selected precincts.
  
• If there is a problem with the electronic count, either due to bugs or fraud, these audits could find the problem some of the time.

===> Despite the fact that sometimes the audits will not discover a problem when there is one, this is still better than not requiring any audits, and missing problems more of the time.

Now, I believe you, like Bev Harris, are calling H.R.550 "harmful", "dangerous", and actively opposing it. You want it not to pass. If it doesn't pass, we'll have the status quo: Closed source, paperless DREs allowed, and no audits required. If H.R.550 does pass, we will have open source, paper records that the voter can see as they vote, and some audits required - this year. By advocating that we not pass H.R.550, you're favoring the status quo, out of those two options.

Why is the status quo better???

That is something none of your posts or arguments have made a convicing case for. Please focus on that, and that only. We don't need to hear more about the flaws in the Holt bill, the imperfections, they ways it falls far short of what we want. WE KNOW! Drop it. Tell us why you think the status quo is better.

[nashville_brook]

14. big amen

[Land Shark]

23. thanks nashville_brook, jump in, if you dare : )

[Land Shark]

16. arguments for further reform are very weak once 550 is passed

that's why I used the metaphor that this is not a good way up the mountain. What arguments are YOU going to make and why, post-Holt?

[Cos]

18. Huh? Why?

You're making an assertion. I can see no reason whatsoever to believe that assertion. Back it up?

I do lots of election reform work, and I know lots of election reform groups. I have yet to run across even one who plans to stop working once H.R.550 passes, or who even thinks they'll lose any motivation. On the contrary, most of us believe that having one victory will help us have more victories, give us more press, recruit more activists, and create more positive energy in the movement to propel us further.

[Land Shark]

21. sure the activists will continue on, it will be a lot harder to convince

the public that there's any kind of problem at all when there's (1) paper trails and (2) the world is now the way you pushed so hard for without (3) telling anybody especially the public what the next steps are and the final vision you want to achieve.

So what's next after holt? And how do we get there, konwing we have to convince Joe Q Public that now that he's got a receipt "just like his ATM" there's still a major problem here... all in the context of multimillion dollar ad campaigns by governments and vendors extolling the newly beefed up DREs?

[Cos]

28. It was hard to begin with

A few years ago, hardly any of the public had thought of the need for paper in the first place. As with all political reforms, it's our job to educate the public and get the word out about the changes we need. We will always have to do that. It's an ongoing process. We've been making some progress, and we have a strong and growing movement that can continue to make progress.

All this speculation that somehow H.R.550 will make it harder to convince people of the other reforms we need, boggles my mind. A DRE with a VVPAT is superior to a DRE without. A hand marked paper ballot is superior to any DRE. If we haven't made the case for that second claim yet, then we haven't made the case. We need to. The presence or absence of H.R.550 on the books doesn't change that. Same goes for making the source code available to the public, and actual public ownership of the source code. Or requiring that there be a paper ballot, and requiring that hand counts be preferred in case of problems. In each of these cases, if we haven't convinced the public of the second half, we need to. H.R.550 doesn't change that.

Like I said a couple of days ago when I first entered the fray, all of this smacks to me of "things need to get worse before they get better". Or people who wanted Bush to win in 2004 because they thought that would make the revolution come sooner. Or drug legalization advocates who oppose marijuana legalization because it will make it harder to legalize other drugs. Hogwash, I say. That's a nihilistic, defeatist strategy. It doesn't work that way. Victory begets victory. Take what progress you can, in small steps, and you'll build your movement and make more progress. Spurn it, and you banish yourself to the sidelines, likely to never make any progress at all.

[Land Shark]

31. I take it your the leader of some major group? or your own blog at Kos?

I don't know which person you are for sure. Anyway, I've been saying, again and again, that HR 550 makes things worse. I'm not going to retype it all because you don't read it. I say that because you say I WANT things to get worse, so it's a wasteful discussion right now.

But I'm nevertheless open to where you think I need to improve. Which of these do you think i should do to learn more? I don't have all the experience in the world. There's so much to do, what would benefit me the most in terms of adjusting my head into reality or at least learning more?

1. Serve in a legislature as an aide
2. political campaign field experience
3. hire lawyers to litigate e-voting and/or graduate from law school and practicing law
4. authoring a scientific study on e-voting
5. designing t-shirts/sloganeering
6. suing e-voting vendors/local government over voting
7. actually succeed in removing DREs somewhere
8. work on an appeal regarding e-voting
9. write a book on e-voting
10. do speaking engagements around the country
11. have an audio CD made on framing elections issues
12. see if reporters would do op-eds or not on my approach
13. record television programs
14. serve on boards for media distribution regarding elections
15. serve on a big board of directors for nonprofit, $15 M/yr plus
16. post a lot on DU Election Forum (OK, already doing that...)
17. write a chapter for a book on voting, let others do the rest
18. complete thousands of hours of legal research on elections/e-voting
19. just attend conferences and learn from other activists?
20. actually know what a fraud case involves/how to prove it
21. work or serve where a professional lobbyist is employed to be more savvy
22. start a nonprofit/activist socially responsible business
23. others???

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. no

Cos did not say that you actually want things to get worse. And yes, you've said a bunch of things over and over again, but that in itself isn't basis for the inference that someone else isn't reading it. If you are convinced that anyone who disagrees with you must not be paying attention, well, sorry about that.

Some of your experiences may improve your political judgment; some may actually worsen it. There is no way for us to tell, although the sloganeering is not working so well for me right now. (And I think that your time on DU probably has weakened your argumentative skills, because as I've pointed out before, it hasn't been that often that anyone here actually bothers to disagree with you. Of course, that is partly because you have good values.) However, if you do not present persuasive arguments, it is irrational to be influenced by this list. If the experiences do not help you to form persuasive arguments, then something is wrong.

And if you do not understand why Cos is not and could not have been persuaded by your responses so far, well, you ought to reflect on it some more IMHO.

[Land Shark]

38. well good for you OTOH

when you do resist sloganeering it's one of your strong points but you also get really sarcastic sometimes so that blows your spock-image. I am asking where Cos things I should learn the list is not a list of things entirely already done.

Cos said, in response to my post:
"Like I said a couple of days ago when I first entered the fray, all of this smacks to me of "things need to get worse before they get better"."

So, Cos said "this" "smacks of" things need to get worse" but you say he "did not say that you actually want things to get worse"

that is not a very big difference and it gets even smaller when together with other statements, but you can do that for yourself this is a tangent away from "important work" which, if you continue it, will be a fault of its own.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. no, it isn't a small difference at all

Way too often, your rhetorical strategy hinges on making big differences into small differences into no differences. "no such thing as half-legitimate" is a case in point.

I am sure you have been around politics long enough to understand exactly what Cos meant by that. Do you remember the last time you argued on behalf of something that your opponent was decrying as a worse-than-useless half-measure? or has it been too long?

I guess I will have to walk away again, so that if you want to see why some of us find your arguments unconvincing, you can do so sans obsession with the shape of my ears.

[Cos]

45. Let arguments stand on their own

I decline to get into a dicksizing war. Yes, I have some experience and have done some work on this issue. That's not the point. I've engaged you on the merits of your arguments, not on who you are or what you've done.

If there's something you think I don't know that I should, that would change my mind, tell us what that something is so that we know it. So far, I have seen you make many arguments about why H.R.550 doesn't do a lot of good, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't. I have yet to see you make a single convincing argument about why H.R.550 is actually harmful and should be opposed. Stick to the topic, please.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. Again, my experience

in reality does not bear out your supposition.

Despite getting a pretty tough law passed in my state, we have not clocked out and moved on to other issues.

You view seems to be, don't pass 550 because it *might* make our job hard.

Our job was hard from Day 1.

[Wilms]

17. Welcome to DU Cos.

Do you really think there's any prospect for passage this year?

What are the arguments against improving the bill now, or upon reintroduction?

I'd like to make a point that it was Bev Harris quoting Paul, not the other way around. I've found bringing her name to the discussion does nothing to inform it, and generally has degraded it.

While I can't argue for Paul, I don't see the status quo being better, rather, just the reality given my assumption the bill won't pass. Can you answer my questions, and/or disabuse me of my assumption about the bills prospects in this Congress?

[Cos]

20. I don't know

I don't know if H.R.550 will pass this year. I hope it does. I think we'll be better off if it does.

I have no arguments against improving the bill, other than that I don't want it improved to the point where it will be impossible to pass - and I don't know what kinds of "improvements" would cause that. I do know that Rush Holt has publically invited people to improve the bill in at least one way (increase the audit requirement), so he obviously isn't opposed to the concept either.

The main reason I'm engaging in this debate is not about whether the bill will pass, or whether we should improve it. I'm engaging in this debate because there are people who oppose the bill and want it to not pass. I think that's wrong. I want to undermine that position. That, and just that, is what I'm talking about here.

[Land Shark]

22. We still won't have legitimate elections after HR 550 passes.

or do you think they are legitimate now?

Or, if you think HR 550 restores legitimacy, doesn't that prove my point that you've had your balloon of progress deflated?

[Cos]

25. Correct. So?

We don't have fully open, verifiable elections now.
We won't have them after H.R.550 either.
I think everyone on this discussion board agrees on both of those points.

If "legitimate election" means fully open and verifiable, then no, we don't have legitimate elections now, and we won't have them after H.R.550. How does this support your claim that H.R.550 does harm?

If you could find some election reform groups that think H.R.550 by itself restores legitimacy to elections and their job will then be done, then you'd have the beginning of a point. I'd say the right response to that is to educate those obviously very poorly informed groups. But I haven't found any. Not even one.

So? What's your point? What harm does H.R.550 do?

[Land Shark]

32. So it remains illegitimate, but there's no such thing as half-legitimate

therefore we still don't have a legitimate government selection process, but you've made the position that we argue from worse and more ambiguous.

The only thing better is that YOU FEEL BETTER but that doesn't mean a damn thing compared to democracy. Some fleeting fancy you may have about verifying your ballot matters a little, but in a state of 6 million voters the integrity of democracy (you concede still illegitimate) matters about 6 million times more than your illusions combined with the extra data you suggest may come out of the audits.

We don't NEED any data to defeat secret vote counting. Don't confuse the media's reticence to cover the issue or the slower than desired fuse on public anger with a need to change position.

The position of your "enemy" matters a great deal. You don't seem to be paying attention to that kind of consideration, and what you "gain" doesn't add up to anything because it doesn't add up to democratic legitimacy. As you admit.

[autorank]

43. Semi legitimate is not possible; "half assed" is...

That's the story of our electoral system. There are only a few people who will stand up and
say it's a big joke, which is odd because voting rights was and should be such a clear issue,
favorable to "plain speakers" -- lets get as many people voting as possible, make it easy to count
and tabulate, and let everybody watch. Who would argue with that.

Looking at NM, the court case moved along smartly and the politics responded, as was the case on
your county. Maybe NY State A.G. will deliver a quick smack down to the EAC. That's our best
bet. Maybe getting to the NY A.G.'s office is our best bet.

I had a question earlier for COS and I'll ask you: If EAC finds an outcome in question, what's the
next step? Can they say, re-vote or reverse or what?

Great thread.

[Kelvin Mace]

55. It seems to me that would be up to the court

They will have an audit. If the audit shows the digital count wrong, the laws says the paper count is the ballot of record. The loser may challenge, which means it goes to court. It is unlikely that a challenge to the paper count would prevail since the voter saw the paper ballot, and the machine recorded it incorrectly.

I am unaware of any instance in which a digital count was held valid over a paper count when there was a discrepancy.

[Land Shark]

56. the "loser" will once again concede too soon, being advised by his

or her lawyers that the audits are unlikely to hold up because the discrepancy could be due to EITHER the VVPAT or the electronic count. there's evidence as to the VVPAT, the DRE of course generates no evidence to speak of, and seems "clean"

once again people will be frustrated that the candidate didn't fight enough, and the candidate is not going to waive the attorney client privilege to explain every detail as to why the decision to concede was made as it was.

[Kelvin Mace]

57. That is just nonsense

Any audit that finds a discrepancy is going to result in the PAPER record becoming that ballot of record, not the digital count. There is absolutely no precedent for the judge to rule the way you describe, and any attorney who advised his client that the audit wouldn't hold up is an idiot.

The VOTER saw his vote recorded on paper. The VOTER did NOT see what was written to disk.

In the case where the paper record is absent or shows sign of tampering, then the election authority or court will have to rule as to the remedy.

[Land Shark]

58. Election contests are SPECIFICALLY to contest "ballots of record"

just because it's a ballot of record doesn't make it incontestible.

I'm not an idiot... but I guess you knew that. : )

[Kelvin Mace]

59. I didn't say

it was uncontestable. ANYTHING can be contested. I also didn't call you stupid.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

60. this thread is a waste of time

this thread is just for destroying the hope of the rest of the country,
and preventing anything but litigation as the remaining but ineffective
strategy.

Lawyers are a dime a dozen, (except for those at EFF.org )
but hard work by a multitude of activists (working together) is priceless.

The folks making changes are doing so by hard work and not by
telling people that it is all or nothing.

The "all or nothing folks" are only coming up with - nothing.

Legislation is what is needed, and what has helped the states that could
get it.

Some states are frozen into paperless voting, and need the help of the other
states.

But they won't get that help from this forum, sadly.

[Kelvin Mace]

54. 550 is the next step in obtaining legitimate elections

[Wilms]

29. Thanks for your reply.

I find my self sharing your questions, though not your, or perhaps even Land Sharks, conclusion.

We don't know if 550 will pass this year. We don't don't know the point at which it's prospect for passage is ruined through the application of improved language. That's a hell of a lot to not know particularly with the general tone suggesting Paul's comments and activism represent some kind of an emergency.

I was not aware of recent invitations by Holt to improve the bill, or that any action has been taken as a result. Perhaps as a result of a discussion on the matter, which Paul has offered, we can move to a place where we make suggestions to Holt who is made aware the language is currently inadequate.

We think we're better to have 550, which I agree with to a degree. But I tend to agree with the concern that it could, not would, but could lead the public, and ill-informed public officials to conclude, as was done with HAVA, the problem has been addressed.

The "train-wreck" which is beginning already to occur, will do more to publicize the problem than passage of Holt's bill.

Paul "opposing" this bill is not how I see it, though I accept that's how others do. He is challenging the language of it. To the degree he finds it a bad bill to pass, based on arguments including ones many agree with, he prefers to not see it pass. But there, he too may have it wrong in framing the argument as such, because we've left open the question of the bills prospects for passage and our ability to get the language improved. That's a serious oversight.

Now you find yourself, rather than trying to answer the questions we've raised, engaged in the debate "to undermine that position" Paul has brought forth.

In my imagination, we might want to lift his argument, and aid in it's refinement with aim toward informing Holt's re-write.

Do you have any idea how many activist participated in the crafting of the bill in it's present form?

Paul has presented an opportunity. It only seems like a crisis when not looked upon in the fuller context.

[kster]

30. I add in the SILENCE factor,

the silence from our Government,the silence in the Media, I always figure that into my way of thinking, about all of this, to date there have been big problems reported (on the INTERNET) with the exit polls, the electronic vote counters, and still SILENCE from the Government and the Media on the issue.

Its hard for me to accept anything from a Government and a Media that remain SILENT on such an important issue.


Landshark has some serious concerns about the Holt bill, where is it being discussed, in a corner on the INTERNET.

[autorank]

35. Geez kster, you mean you have not seen all the press on HR550? n/t

:evilgrin:

[Kelvin Mace]

52. I have addressed this issue before.

Hand counted paper ballots are not going to happen nationwide. Multiple people counting long complicated ballots (like California's recall election) are going to yield inconsistent results.

Ballots must be counted by machine.

Machines can ONLY be trusted if:

A) all machine could is disclosed and examined.
B) paperless systems are REQUIRED to yield a paper record (ballot) contemporaneously with the vote cast so the voter can verify the vote has been properly recorded.
C) An audit is conducted post-election which counts random samples in geographically random precincts which then compares paper count versus digital count.

HR-550 gives of these requirements. No other bill does, or is as far along. HR-550 can be supplemented with state laws. HR-550 can be supplemented at a future time with other federal laws.

Stopping HR-550 means keeping the status quo, NO FEDERAL PROTECTION! NO PAPER BALLOT!

[autorank]

34. Three words "FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION"

FEC, EAC...sound familiar.

What can any of you recall the FEC ever doing to generate fair elections?

Nothing, that's what. Oh, they fine somebody every now and then and the
party in power tries to use them but these seats are split, like EAC and
the parties are damn sure that their nominees ARE NOT the kind of folks
who stray far from the party. Hence, nothing happens.

Now we have EAC. Why will this split panel of commissioners go head to
head with the DRE industry...which is, after all, what they'd be doing
when they, by their own standards, called for an audit. Remember, HAVA
was a bipartisan bill -- Mitch McConnell, R, KY and Chris Dodd, D, CT were
the co-sponsors.

The EAC would be a toothless dog that wouldn't want to hunt...and that's
how many of federal regulatory agencies are. Why would this be different?

That's not a rhetorical question.

Canada has all paper elections. It takes 4-5 hours to count the entire vote.
They have a preserved record, consistent across the country.

Why don't we get that? Because there are many who benefit from the current
system, because it would represent a change to empower the people, because the
current "winners" may not win under new rules.

Does anybody have a reason we don't get what Canada has, and does well with?

[Land Shark]

48. Why not like Canada? well, they say...

that US has longer ballots, so the hand counting canadian methods wouldn't work..... so it's a non-starter some say.

It may be politically not possible. But, the rule always seems to be that if it's inconvenient, 'tis better to sacrifice the integrity of democracy. What kind of rule is that? in effect, it's the rule often applied...

[livvy]

50. I've thought about this issue.

Now bear with me, I'm pretty much a novice on election reform, and I still have a lot to learn, and I could be naively stating the obvious.
Wouldn't it be possible to have more than one ballot? One ballot would be for major offices, another for lesser (judges, etc.), and a third, if needed for issues specific to a county or community. Each ballot would be clearly marked at top, ie BALLOT A. As voters exit, the ballot would be placed in the corresponding box. Wouldn't this simplify the recount process, if needed?
People fill out mountains of paperwork to take out a loan, so handling more than one ballot at election time shouldn't be an issue.

[eomer]

37. I have to admit to ambivalence on this issue.

Here's my inner conflict:
It seems to me that the effect of Holt is primarily to force more data into the open and it is difficult to see how that could be a bad thing. On the other hand, throwing the blasted DREs in the ocean (or use a river, lake or pond as your geographic situation varies) is what we really need to do.

Wait a second, hold on... let's think that second part through better. Recycle the blasted DREs and make them into PCs that we can give to kids that need them. Don't throw them in a body of water. (I used to be a Republican so I can't be blamed for an occasional fleeting recidivism into an approach that will destroy the planet).

One other thought that complicates how I feel about Holt is that a paper trail system for DREs is not a trivial thing to design, implement and administer. It is added complexity and complexity is, in the more general sense, not a good thing for election transparency. So we have a balance between the intended benefit of this added subsystem and the added complexity that it brings. Further complicate the situation by adding actors with bad intentions. How this plays out is something I can't claim to figure out.

On balance I guess I lean more toward trying the DRE paper trail requirement and seeing what happens. I know for sure that the vendors will mess it up and I think there is a good chance that said mess-up will be the final straw and hasten the demise of DREs.

[autorank]

39. Here's how I handle my conflict....

Yes, the opening up of the systems in Hold is outstanding. If that survived, it would be huge because we'd find out what was really up. The court ordered examinations in NM by David Dill were
quite something and those were limited.

The enshrinement of DRE's by accepting that paper trails can ever be really hopeful if the "paper generator" is a turkey is the area of conflict. DREs are made by second string companies or, in Diebold's case, the second string of that company. In addition, they are th ultimate in denial
of democratic rights. They have to go. If they were just printers and the ballots
actually counted not the DRE record, that would be fine. Not the other way around. This is a
tough battle even in our own party. Nancy Pelosi did an interview with Raw Story and was basically
calling for more machines. Go figure.

Ultimately, this bill will look different if passed. It can't go online this year, as the language says (start date concurrent with HAVA 2002) because the states can't adapt and the vendors can't either.

When 2006 turns into a train wreck and the whole country sees what we've been seeing and what we know, then we'll have the basis for real reform, Canadian style.

Conflicted is a good place to be on this bill and debate and dialog is absolutely essential.

Who knows, maybe someone in Holt's office is actually tuning in and looking at the various points.

You never know.

[Cos]

46. Getting rid of DREs: Why H.R.550 is a positive step

Yes, I want to get rid of DREs entirely (except, as I mentioned earlier, if they're used only as optional ballot marking machines for disabled people who get to choose them instead of voting with a human assistant).

Think of it this way:

All around the country, as we speak, county and city elections departments are considering the purchase of new voting machines for 2006 and 2007. Many of them are considering DREs or planning to buy them, and a lot of those DREs are paperless. And many jurisdictions already have DREs, most of which are paperless.

Status quo if we don't pass Holt:

1. All DREs currently in place will remain in place
   
2. Many new jurisdictions will purchase paperless DREs this year

If we pass H.R.550:

1. Some of those about to buy DREs will reconsider, slow down or restart the process, and not buy anything new this year.
   
2. Some of those about to buy paperless DREs will get DREs with a VVPAT instead
   
3. All jurisdictions currently using paperless DREs will enter a new requisition period where they consider what to replace their voting machines with.

Keep in mind that every time a county or city purchases voting machines, it will result in inertia. They've spent the money, they think they've made the right decision, and they will defend it. On the flip side, every county or city that has to reconsider, or start anew, is another opportunity for local activists to get them to make the right choice, and one less fait accompli this year.

We all want DREs banned. Even though H.R.550 doesn't do so, it's still a positive and constructive step along that path.

[In Truth We Trust]

44. Want Democracy?!? Paper ballots and HAND COUNTS Now!!! nt

[pat_k]

47. Of course it's inadequate. . .

. . . The "meme" is "No Secret Vote Counting"

Lobbying for legislation that requires that the ballot of record -- the ballots counted -- be paper ballots actually does more to help Holt's bill pass than lobbying directly for Holt's bill. As a less "extreme" position relative to the "No Secret Vote Counting" position, Holt's bill starts looking more attractive to cowardly weasels.

Demand it all, and keep demanding it all. But demanding it all doesn't mean we reject taking whatever steps in the right direction we can get.

http://january6th.org/stop_stolen_elections_now.html

[lonestarnot]

51. KICK!