Are Voting Machine Purists Standing in the Way of Reform?

[babylonsister]

http://www.alternet.org/story/48967/

Are Voting Machine Purists Standing in the Way of Reform?

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted March 19, 2007.

While a proposed law in Congress does not try to ban touch-screen machines outright, it may just regulate them out of existence -- but that's not good enough for some election activists.

Are Internet election integrity activists going to derail an attempt in Congress to regulate some of the biggest problems with touch-screen electronic voting machines? Will they scare off federal legislators who are going out on a limb to make it very hard for local, county and state election officials to keep using these problem-plagued machines?

There's the old political expression: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But some election integrity activists are letting their vision of a perfectly justifiable solution -- purging all touch-screen voting machines -- get in the way of backing a very good election reform bill now moving through Congress that will bring significant oversight, transparency and accountability to electronic voting systems.

The bill, HR 811, "The Increased Accessibility and Voter Confidence Act," introduced by Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., regulates electronic voting machines for the first time. After many well-publicized problems in recent congressional and presidential elections, from 18,000 missing congressional votes in Sarasota, Fla., to thousands of disenfranchised voters in Cleveland, the bill fills a gaping hole in federal election law: the current lack of any regulation on the newest generation of voting technologies.

The bill would require that all software used in the counting and recording of votes to be readily available to the public, which is not now the case. It would require all voting machines to produce or use a durable voter-verified paper record of all votes cast, which is not now the case. It would require mandatory audits of voter-verified paper ballots to check the accuracy of electronic tallies and deter fraud, which also is not law now. It would require that the audit process be open to the public, which has not happened in recent presidential and congressional elections.

more...

[graywarrior]

1. From the Sarasota Herald on Sunday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x450099

[BeFree]

7. Heh

Looks like Ms. Dent really put a dent in electronic voting. Thank you, dear. Your supervision really did make a difference. Had your precious machines not screwed up, Florida might still be wallowing in e-vote hell. As it is, the governor of Florida has called for spending $32M to buy a ladder up from that hell-hole ES&S buried them in.

[MasonJar]

2. How expensive could it be to go back to paper ballots immediately?

[mopinko]

8. very

having served a couple of tours of duty as an election judge, i can tell you that the view from the ground is very interesting. all election reform advocates should do it at least once.
it does cost a lot of money to run a paper ballot election. you have to both recruit and pay people. back in the day, they had a whole new shift of 'counting judges' come in at the end of the day. the people who worked the polls are too tired to count straight, i can tell you.
do not construe this as either for or against paper ballots. just answering your question.

[Wilms]

3. What nonsense.

If HR811 really was a good bill, I might agree. The torches and pitchfork crowd mistake heating the debate with advancing the cause.

Still, HR811 is a real disappointment, even if it banned touchscreens.

The audit it proposes is terribly weak, and in the case of a close race, it leaves it to the state to sort it out.

Great? :eyes:

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. be careful about trashing a 3% audit

Yes, it's inadequate to confirm the outcome of many close races. But if we had had a truly random, unfiddled, nationwide 3% audit in 2004 (and in order to make this thought experiment work, we have to assume voter-verifiable paper ballots across the country) -- well, that's over three million ballots. Do you suppose we would have spent all this time arguing about who won the popular vote?

Yeah, quite possibly we would have. Even if we went to 100% hand counts, how do I really know what's going on in other states?

I think Rosenfeld is more right than wrong. Trying to amend HR811 to ban DREs, fine. Opposing HR811 outright on the principle of "HCPB or bust" -- well, let me say plainly that I really, really oppose "bust." There may be other good reasons to oppose HR811 outright, but HCPB is the rallying cry I hear over and over again, and that alarms me.

[Wilms]

11. Careful about trashin' my post, bub!

:)

Of course you are right, while 3% is a whole 'nother story...

http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2007/03/hr811-fact-friction-part-ii_10.html


And so am I...or, er, Doug Kellner.

"I note that Lewis started right at the outset to explain the confusion in HR 811 between recounts and audits. I note additionally that Section 327 of the HR 811 audit provisions would exempt states from the audit rules if the states provide for recounts in close races. This is the only place in the bill that uses the word “recount,” but HR 811 does not define the meaning of “recount.”"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x469449

That's what I'm talkin' 'bout.


But, yes. There are things worse in life than 3% audits. Take internet connections for instance. :grr:

[galloglas]

4. NOPE!

The non-Hand Counters are stealing Democracy!

[fooj]

10. .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[BeFree]

6. HAVA

Is not 811 an act that would further HAVA?

If nothing passes this year would HAVA have any money left? And if there is no federal money for the machines then who can afford the damn things? And if no county can afford the expensive machines, is not the only fall back HCPB?

Have we got HAVA right where we want it, or what?

[troubleinwinter]

9. K & R