Holt's 2009 "‘‘Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act" worse Nightmare Than Ever Before

[Land Shark]

The paper ballots will still only matter in a recount or audit (read: NEVER timely in the Presidential election, see Bush v. Gore, 2000)

If the "voter-verified paper ballots" are damaged, or otherwise questionable they shall be subject to state law rules of admissibility of evidence (read: exclusionary rule) except that the electronic count may not be the "exclusive" evidence considered in an election contest (read: but there's precious little else, if anything, to consider in any event, so as a practical matter the voter verified paper need only suffer an accident of any sort in sufficient numbers to potentially change the result, and then EVEN IF the recount or audit were somehow rushed through in the presidency, or considered in the Senate or House races, the discrepancy between the paper count and electronic count will be used to argue that the PAPER COUNT is wrong.

And indeed, various studies will back up that assertion. While a relatively minuscule number of voters create ambiguous ballots (like in Minnesota there were a handful) and truly LARGE number of voters, (read: Majorities up to 100% of voters) miss the errors in a machine-printed ballot because the hman mind, when proofreading, sees what it thinks it OUGHT to see, and not what's actually there. That's why we are poor proofreaders of our own writing, and still miss error's in other's writing... In effect, technology is introduced to try to "force" voters to make a "clear" choice (ignoring the fact that sometimes we voters truly ARE ambiguous about who we want to support) in the minuscule number of problematic cases, but in its place appears a truly giant problem of error (see the studies cited in the "Ultimate Nightmare" piece at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_paul_leh_070521_ultimate_nightmare_f.htm

While some tweaks in the bill appear to accommodate a few minor citizen concerns, the present draft of Holt's 2009 bill, not yet filed with the House, is worse than ever before. In every respect it retains, and reinforces what I've previously written up and called "The Ultimate Nightmare for Democracy: High Confidence YEt Total Fraud."

Bottom line: With voter-verified PRINTOUTS, unlike voter-MARKED ballots, high percentages of errors slip through but, ASSUMING the system is allowed to work (in the presidency) and assuming it does work for a congressional race, it is highly likely to ratify a fraudulent result because high percentages of voters will miss the errors, or an "accident" of some sort happens to the voter verified ballots, leaving the electronic "record" as the original and "best evidence" of the voter's intent.

In fact, even with a hyper-vigilant effort to really get voters to VERY carefully review their printouts (which we all routinely assume match what we input on the screen but this assumption doesn't apply in voting like it does with our own computers), and even if that effort were successful, it would significantly increase the lines at the affected precincts, constituting a form of voter suppression.

Thus, for a hacker under Holt 2009, especially an insider hacker, they will be laughing their butts off knowing that at least 50% of their fraud will be approved by voters, verified by them, so that even a whistleblower's testimony won't change the result, because the voters "approved" the errors.

Holt again calls his bill the "voter Confidence..." bill of 2009. IT should always be remembered that "confidence" is the essence and a necessity for fraud -- because one must believe something that is not true. Conversely, the more distrust (checks and balances) there are in a truly open and transparent system, like bank tellers and customers counting cash, the better and the more accurate the results end up being.

Please see my "Ultimate Nightmare for Democracy" as Holt continues to make it even worse in the ways I pointed out a year ago. http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_paul_leh_070521_ultimate_nightmare_f.htm

It looks like (but analysis is not finished on this topic yet) that the bill will also remove any real chance of New York keeping its levers if it wishes to do so. This is a counter-revolution against federalism in elections, without being up front about the implications of that so we can have an honest debate.

Holt 2009 also means that disputes, which are virtually guaranteed, will be litigated and decided either by federal courts or the federal congress, not by voters.

This is not "incremental" improvement, this is just about the worst legal nightmare I can imagine, a law that is designed to produce confidence yet profoundly and powerfully facilitates insider fraud, and institutionalizes secret vote counting as the law of the land, and nondisclosure agreements (if we show you the relatively meaningless source code, we'll have to gag you forever). Any violation of these Nondisclosure agreements must be "silent" on damages and reference state trade secret laws.

But if you're a lawyer or you know the law, what that really means is clear, yet not disclosed in the bill: violations of the NDAs mean punitive damages and attorney's fees, even in those states that outlaw punitive damages generally like Washington state.

Plus there's more money to study yet more complicated means of techno-voting on vapor ballots. We are led to believe that a prohibition on connection to the internet should reassure us -- it's not the voters who are the big risks (via the internet) -- although they are risks to be sure -- it's the government determining its own power, composition, and taxing authority through secret counts that is vigilantly institutionalized and preserved by Holt's 2009 bill.

If we as activists support this bill, then it's our "darling" and one shudders to imagine what amendments will be made in the "democratic" process to incorporate the views of the "other sides" of the debate so that we activists via Holt are not running the whole show....

Like I said, a nightmare.

[Land Shark]

1. Alternatively, a shining beacon of light showing us what NOT to do. nt

[demodonkey]

2. Could we please just NOT go through this again?

The bill is in draft form and not even introduced yet.

I respect your right to disagree with it and say you don't support it if that's the case, but how about at least waiting for the bill to come out in its introduced form before you "analyze" it, K?

Please.

[Land Shark]

3. Who released the bill AGAIN? (Holt) Copies are circulated. Is only praise allowable?

What's the point? What can little people like me say, then? Just "We support you?"

If you want the substance of the post in somewhat less confrontational terms, it would be "Rush back to the drawing board, no pun intended"

[demodonkey]

5. I believe they are not fully OFF the drawing board yet.

Copies of a draft of the bill are being circulated for the purpose of allowing organizations to see the bill and consider adding their names to a list of supporting groups.

If you oppose or dislike the draft I am sure you could likewise send Rep. Holt's office that information and constructive suggestions as well.

But it is premature, and not constructive IMO, to engage in public "reviewing" of this or any bill's provisions before it is introduced.

[Wilms]

12. Quit spewing nonsense, demodonkey. Why was the draft introduced?

So the cheer leading squad can have time to develop their talking points? :shrug:

If you disagree with something LandShark wrote, say so.

"Shame on you" for trying to turn the community into the politburo.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. paperless DREs are better

and why all the panic? the only wrotten federal legislation that has a chance of voting
would be Feinstein's bill - if it is introduced.

[Fly by night]

10. Yeah. Right.

PS: The Feinstein bill is the worst one produced so far.

We know that. You should too.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. sorry, though you knew me enough to detect sarcasm

I guess you just dont know me at all.

Thats what my years of work in getting paper ballots in my states gets me,
I suppose.

[Fly by night]

17. I apologize. You're right -- your comments were so outrageous that I should have known better.

I've not been around this forum for a while, for obvious reasons.

Maybe LS's OP was sarcasm also, but I doubt it.

Again, excuse my comments. But maybe for new folks on this forum, it's good that we had this little exchange, so they'll also know sarcasm when they see it.

Since there is almost no information listed on your DU profile, I don't even know which state you live in. Maybe you could PM me with that information (and any more you want to share, including your name), so at least I'll know which state you live in. I've never hidden my identity around here so I am at a bit of a disadvantage in this exchange. Thanks.

Bernie Ellis
www.votesafetn.org

[Fly by night]

24. Still waiting for a PM ....

I know who Land Shark, DemoDonkey, Bradblog and On the Other Hand are. I am clueless about who you are. I'd love to know, if nothing else, what state you live in. In the absence of some information, you must forgive my not knowing sarcasm from serious opinion. Again, I'm not in this neck of the woods much anymore, though I used to be here every day.

[Fly by night]

27. <<< crickets >>>

[troubleinwinter]

29. Kindly see post #29.

She does not "hide" her identity. She is highly respected as a dedicated and accomplished election reform activist, who has given her name publicly here many times. You say that you have not been around this forum much. You seemingly missed posts where her name and work are shown. She appears not to be online presently.

She has said that her comment was sarcasm, and those here who know her and her work recognized it as obvious sarcasm.

Your repeated call-outs are uncalled for.

[Fly by night]

31. 000 hoot-owls 000

Now I'm just playing with you, net nanny. (I also don't know who you are "on the outside", but I expect we've met there before.)

If she PMs me, that's fine. If she doesn't, my earlier posts stand.

Since she has another thread going in this forum now that was also posted today, maybe she's spending all her on-line time there. Don't know, don't care.

I do not post on DU presuming that everyone here knows who I am (since there are 43,000+ of us now). I also can't find the sarcasm thingy, so I try not to be sarcastic. I prefer to say what I mean and mean what I say. (Probably why I'm still fighting with the feds after 6+ years.)

Thanks for the "hint" as to her identity, though.

Does that also violate DU rules?

[Fly by night]

32. BTW, this is post #29 (?)

By any chance, did you mean post #26. (That's the one you put the "hint" in.)

Just to let you know, another long-time ER/DUers has already PMed me with the mystery woman's identity. I have a lot of respect for that person and am just sorry she took offense this morning because I didn't know who she "is" here and thus could not recognize sarcasm that required that knowledge of her true identity beforehand.

She truly lives in a beautiful state. Since I don't know where you live, I will suspend judgement until I know who you are. Feel free to carry on the rest of this conversation via PM, s'il vous plait. Or not.

[troubleinwinter]

33. My apologies for the typo.

Yes, post #26.

"Since I don't know where you live, I will suspend judgement until I know who you are."

I don't know the meaning of the comment. Judgement of what?

I choose the "Or not" option.

[Fly by night]

34. I was referring to the state you live in -- don't know that info either about you, so ....

... I can't say that you live in a beautiful state also, as I did about JM's state.
(Thanks, friendly ER/DUer who will remain anonymous, for clearing that mystery up for me via a PM without resorting to "clues".)

Just to let you know, the "beautiful state" comment is something I learned from the Navajo. Regardless, I'm happy to stop this exchange.

See ya', bye.

[troubleinwinter]

35. Oh. Yes, I live in a "beautiful state".

I live in Navajo country and spend a week a year with Navajo friends on the reservation. I went today to hear a talk by a Navajo woman about the history and culture.

It was a good part of today.

[Fly by night]

36. Ya'at'eeh

You live in the most beautiful of states.

The Dineh saved my life (literally and figuratively) 15 years and 14 days ago, in Gallup. You are very fortunate to live among them and to walk the "beauty way" with them.

I recently wrote this about a long-time Dineh woman friend (Hedy Begay Yazzie):

"... we have somethings we don’t want to lose -- the chaste comfort of each other’s company, even if only every other year, for single nights in small towns on the edges of open deserts. Or in our occasional dreams, colored by the magic of her Navajo people, and of mine ...."

Thanks for the PM. Much appreciated. Now it's up and at 'em here on the farm.

Mitakuye Oyasin.

[bleever]

6. We can put a man on the moon,

but we can't count pebbles in boxes?

Back to basics. Complications, and their advocates, might have motivations non-concordant with the original intent to just count every damn vote.

:thumbsup:

[mod mom]

8. Those in control don't want an accurate vote count-imho

[kster]

7. Manipulate the Mind, Holt is like David Blain if the first Illusion

doesn't work, try try again.

Enough of this bullshit. We all have Common Sense, Hand Count the God Damn Ballots before they leave the polling place.

Its that simple, if your polling place has no ballots to count at the end of the day, they, the volunteers, are unknowingly helping to run an election scam (period)

K&R

[Fly by night]

9. We need a national law requiring paper ballots AND mandatory random manual audits.

In Tennessee, we passed the TN Voter Confidence Act (TVCA) (which mandates the above) overwhelmingly, but only because the corrupt Rethugs, clueless Democrats and on-the-take state election officials postponed its implementation until 2010.

Then, when the Rethugs won EVERY OPEN SEAT in our legislature in November (giving them control of our legislature for the first time since Reconstruction (think Georgia 2002 -- same m.o., same result)), they have now announced that one of their three legislative priorities this year is to repeal the TVCA. As Gomer Pyle would say, "Sur-prize, sur-prize, sur-prize."

Rush Holt has been one of the few US Congresscritters to understand the vulnerabilities of our non-verifiable voting systems and to work to remedy the problem. I agree completely with DemoDonkey -- this time around, we need to work to submit, amend where necessary and finally pass a national mandate to allow free, fair and verifiable elections. The last time around, our so-called "election integrity" movement did more to scuttle this effort than the real bad guys. That remains a major embarrassment and source of frustration for me and the many others (like DemoD) who are actually doing the footwork in our states to protect the vote.

For once, it would be nice to put principle before personalities in this effort. Otherwise, we just keep shouting from the rooftops while the Rethugs go on laughing at us and stealing elections.

If LS or anyone else has suggested amendments to Holt's latest effort, have the courtesy and good sense to work with his office, instead of braying your complaints here.

Now it's off to the Garden.

[troubleinwinter]

15. Right on!

And ya really MUST have known WYVBC was over-the-top sarcastic. She is a true activist who puts her heart & soul & energy & smarts and activism into making an actual difference. She walks the walk.

[Fly by night]

18. Again, I've not been around here for a while.

I have absolutely no idea who WYVBC is, and I couldn't learn anything from her DU profile. That's why I've asked her for more information about herself. Likely, we've walked the same walk together in the past. The difference is I have never hidden my identity around here, so I am at a bit of a disadvantage.

Again

Bernie Ellis
www.votesafetn.org

PS: DemoDonkey and I once had an exchange with Brad Friedman (Bradblog) on this forum. He kept reaming both of us out (over a very similar issue) until we let him know who we really are. (At which time, he issued the same apology I have.)

I understand the value of anonymity on an internet forum, but anonymity among friends (and allies) causes misunderstanding. No one has to post their identity here unless they want to. But if you want me to recognize you, a short PM would be appreciated.

[troubleinwinter]

26. I have followed your work most appreciatively.

While WYVBC has identified herself here by name many times, and most in this forum are aware of who she is and the great work she has done, I don't feel it's my place to name her (against DU rules).

But here you go: http://www.ncvoter.net/index.html

[Fly by night]

28. Thanks, I can guess. Once again, I haven't been around here a while, though I was here for 3+ years.

I don't remember WYVBC ever identifying herself during that time here. However, if my guess is right about who she is, she shouldn't have a problem PMing me since we have corresponded for years. I like to know who I'm dealing with when I can. My responses to her stand. I always expect that a forum like this still occasionally gets new readers and they would be as clueless as me (a very old-timer here) about what she really meant (without the sarcasm thingy in the post -- there was nothing sarcastic about her post or outside the range of other things posted here before.) For example, we have had people defend the Feinstein bill here before.

I do remember such things, since I expect I have met many here "on the outside" and I like to know who I'm dealing with (here and elsewhere) when I can.

Except "kster". I am sure I've never met the "kee-ster".

[Pooka Fey]

11. Bookmarked, K&R, thanks for posting!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. I would say it with less hyperbole, and point out that we need to focus on the newest threat

The newest threat to our elections is internet voting. It is already taking root in our
elections, first with "Democrats Abroad", also with the Michigan Democratic Party, and
with the Arizona Libertarian Party. Now some states want to spread it to military voting.
Washington is looking at that now, thanks to SOS Reed.

There's no money to spend on voting machines. (Thank God).

If any new federal money came out, and if it made its way to my state,
more electronic gizmos WOULD be purchased with that money.

So while I sympathize with states that don't have paper ballots, I would rather
not see any new money make it to my state or others who have michief makers.

My state used left over HAVA money (left over because we made DREs much less popular) to purchase electronic poll books and laptops for every single county.

I don't want my state to get another dime, and I have a feeling that many states are looking
for a way to get more federal money.

But its time to pay attention to the current emerging threat to our elections,
the promotion of internet voting.

There's also the "new" crop of voting machines, supposed optical scanners that seem to be trying to
bring in the complexity of DREs combined with a paper ballot.
If states purchase the newest of "optical scanners" they may get crap like the Seqouia Image Cast,
an optical scanner with the ballot marker -attached- to it.

[troubleinwinter]

16. Guess who is an Arizona Libertarian right-winger.

Jim March, Bev's partner in crime Qui Tam. He is also a "computer consultant" to the AZ Dem. Party. Yippee.

[crikkett]

19. 'hman mind' misspelled in bolded text - does that mean I can be a proofreader? eom

[troubleinwinter]

20. ya forgot

"and still miss error's in other's writing"

[crikkett]

22. Aha! I didn't read that far. Stopped after I found the first error

[Land Shark]

23. Irony is, you've still missed a bunch. nt

[Fly by night]

25. 'Spell-check" is our friend. Spell-check is our friend. Spell-check is .....

... ad infinitum.

[2 Much Tribulation]

30. Sure, but not on spelling tests where the idea is to catch the errors! nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. Acting with the utmost urgency, in this matter of these continuing attempts to render elections

vulnerable to fraud by the use of technology - which IT experts concur can never cease to be vulnerable to fraud by its very nature - before substantial expenditures on voting machines, will give a clear marker as to Obama's credibility, as a democrat who believes in the right of the voters to completely fair elections, not in any way partaking of the nature of a charade, or allowing such to be perpetrated on the American public ever again.

Not only are fair elections more vital to Americans now than ever, so is it all the more important that the kind of money wasted on crooked voting machines, and on endless costly election disputes, should be used for good purposes.