NEED FOR DU-ers to write to Rush Holt about the audit plan in his legislation.

[Stevepol]

Kathy Dopp of Election Archive is concerned about the lack of a strong audit provision in Holt's bill in Congress.

I think it would be a great thing for DU-ers to flood him with demands that he take this into account in his bill. Kathy Dopp and Election Archive have a very simple tiered plan that would be easy to adopt. Of course and across the board 10% requirement would be OK maybe, but just a small amount like 3% I don't think is adequate to insure fair elections. Here's Kathy's letter to me. Afterwards, I've included my letter to Rush Holt.

Rush Holt's address is: http://holt.house.gov/contact.shtml

Kathy's email to me:

URGENT NEWS: I heard today from a reliable source that Holt is NOT
seriously considering any tiered election audit plan (nor, I presume,
is Holt considering any requirement for minimum audit amounts) in his
new election integrity legislation.

If we want to ensure the integrity of our great American democracy
that so many people have fought and died for, and ensure the future
well-being of humanity, then we must all contact US House
representatives NOW to demand a tiered election audit and minimum
audit amounts for any range of margins between candidates.

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/FourTierAudit/TieredElectionAudits.pdf

A requirement for a minimum AMOUNT of vote counts to be manually
audited for particular margins between candidates, would result in
100% hand counts of 100% of vote counts whenever that is necessary to
ensure election outcome integrity, AND a minimum audit amount would
prevent election officials from subverting audits by aggregating
ballots into a smaller number of larger-size vote counts which to
cause any percentage-based audits to be ineffective; and allow open
season for outcome-altering vote fraud to continue.

Please show this newly revised version of "Tiered Election Audit" to
our US legislators:

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/FourTierAudit/TieredElectionAudits.pdf

PLEASE take action and also ask your friends to take action.

Demand NOW (today) that the US House requires tiered election audits
and a minimum audit amount for all federal elections, in order to
secure the integrity of US elections and ensure the future well-being
of all peoples on our planet.

http://www.house.gov/


--
----
Kathy Dopp
http://electionarchive.org

Here's no email to Holt:

Rush, (email address: http://holt.house.gov/contact.shtml)

PLEASE: Include some audit level in your plan to reform the use of electronic vote counting. The best form of this is provided by Election Archive and Kathy Dopp. Please look at this PDF file from electionarchive.org.
Link: http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/FourTierAudit/TieredElectionAudits.pdf

Unless there is a strong audit provision in your plan, the required paper ballot trail is much watered down and could be meaningless in many elections.

Steve Carter
Wichita KS
316-618-0731

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. you're right, a flat 3% isn't adequate

The best one can say is that it might not preclude adequate state-mandated audits.

ETA: Well, maybe one can say equally good things: it is adequate in some circumstances, and it's a lot better than a 0% audit. But I certainly won't support it for New York.

[redqueen]

2. Thanks for this post!

We need to make sure these people know what we want, so we can get it!

[stillcool]

3. done... n/t

[Wilms]

4. I do recommend this thread and calling Holt.

I'm not sure I want to bug him about accepting this particular audit protocol as I'd like to see one that's peer-reviewed.

The paper cited in the OP doesn't appear to be.

But yes, without a proper audit, we can't really determine the outcome with confidence.