On HR 811: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjFHNfKWkCs

http://www.bbvforums.org...essages/19523/47394.html

KILL THIS BILL

... susano said...
"(abbreviated url snipped)"

susano's URL above got truncated so here it is wrapped in a...
LINK

http://www.bbvforums.org...essages/19523/47394.html

I don't trust people who say "kill the bill" or "save the bill" if they offer no rationale. That is so fundie, like the "one true religion".

I am appreciative of those who have debated the issues deep within the various versions of the bill, showing where it can be made better, and where it is failing, and most importantly, why.

That is what the folks in congress and the folks who vote need ... detailed discussions of the strength and the weaknesses, discussed on an issue by issue platform, so they can proffer "perfecting amendments".

After all, HR 811 RH is an "amendment in the nature of a substitute" at this juncture, and it needs some detailed perfecting amendments to help it along.

After the perfecting amendments are voted up or down on the floor, we will then see the official and resulting "amendment in the nature of a substitute" as perfected.

Then the unbiased person will be able to determine whether they are still for it or still against it. No need to have a knee jerk reaction and then try to convince everyone that the knee jerk reaction is actually intellect.

Those who are for or against an entire bill before it technically even exists in finality are just biased political hacks from the gadfly party.

Please read this document which explains the nature of amendments in the House of Representatives.

You will then know the difference between an "amendment in the nature of a substitute", a "substitute amendment" (which is entirely different from an "amendment in the nature of a substitute"), and a "perfecting amendment".

I have yet to see an article anywhere that distinguises the meaning, purpose, and import that these differing amendments have.

The use of the word "amendment", without explaining the type being discussed, lacks fundamental clarity.

Likewise the use of the word "law" can lack clarity in some contexts, because regulations, statutes, constitutions, and cases are all "law".

But as it works out, like House amendments, they are entitely different issues in practice and implementation.

The link susano provided is to research on HR 811 by a variety of people (including me) so her comment is quite valid.

As for Dredd's made-up-as-he-goes BS attempting to obscure what is happening with the bill... that's part and parcel of Dredd's nonstop shilling for passage of this bill.

Did the furrynurs find this or did I?:

The appropriate election official at each polling place in an election for Federal office shall offer each individual who is eligible to cast a vote in the election at the polling place the opportunity to cast the vote using a pre-printed paper ballot which the individual may mark by hand and which is not produced by a direct recording electronic voting machine. If the individual accepts the offer to cast the vote using such a ballot, the official shall provide the individual with the ballot and the supplies necessary to mark the ballot, and shall ensure (to the greatest extent practicable) that the waiting period for the individual to cast a vote is not greater than the waiting period for an individual who does not agree to cast the vote using such a paper ballot under this paragraph.

(Holt HR 811 RH page 21, lines 16-23 thru page 22, line 7, emphasis mine).

Doesn't that mean we do not have to use the EVM, and instead must be allowed to cast a paper ballot vote instead? Notice further:

Any paper ballot which is cast by an individual under this paragraph shall be counted and otherwise treated as a regular ballot for all purposes (including, to the greatest extent practicable, the deadline for counting the ballot) and not as a provisional ballot, unless the individual casting the ballot would have otherwise been required to cast a provisional ballot if the individual had not accepted the offer to cast the vote using a paper ballot under this paragraph.

(id at page 22, lines 8-18, emphasis mine). It seems to me that it could be argued that anyone can cast a paper ballot under Holt HR 811 RH, and furthermore, that the paper ballot must be counted.

Nelson's S. 559 IS and Holt's HR 811 IH and HR 811 RH have some other good text:

The manufacturer and the election officials shall document the secure chain of custody for the handling of all software, hardware, vote storage media, ballots, and voter-verified ballots used in connection with voting systems, and shall make the information available upon request to the Commission.

(S 559 IS, page 13, lines 12-18; Holt HR 811 IH, page 14, lines 6-12; Holt HR 811 RH, page 18, lines 17-24).

Is anybody here opposed to that principle?

Nelson's S. 559 IS, Holt's HR 811 IH, and Holt's HR 811 RH have some more good text:

No voting system shall contain, use, or be accessible by any wireless, power-line, remote, wide area, or concealed communication device at all ... No component of any voting device upon which votes are cast shall be connected to the Internet at any time.

(S 559 IS, page 12, lines 16-24; Holt HR 811 IH, page 13, lines 11-19; Holt HR 811 RH, page 17, lines 18-25 thru page 18, line 6).

Is anybody here opposed to that principle?

Nelson's S. 559 IS, Holt's HR 811 IH, and Holt's HR 811 RH have some more good text:

The voting system shall require the use of or produce an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot of the voter’s vote that shall be created by or made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter’s vote is cast and counted. For purposes of this subclause, examples of such a ballot include a paper ballot marked by the voter for the purpose of being counted by hand or read by an optical scanner or other similar device, a paper ballot prepared by the voter to be mailed to an election official (whether from a domestic or overseas location), a paper ballot created through the use of a ballot marking device or system, or a paper ballot produced by a touch screen or other electronic voting machine, so long as in each case the voter is permitted to verify the ballot in a paper form in accordance with this subparagraph.

(S 559 IS, page 2, lines 7-25 thru page 3, line 2; Holt HR 811 IH, page 3, lines 4-24; Holt HR 811 RH, page 3, lines 17-25 thru page 4, line 11).

Is anybody here opposed to that principle?

Which Sounds like a Winner? “Romney/Gingrich, Romney/Thompson or Romney/Giuliani”

The National Republican Party is starting to streamline its focus towards selecting a 2008 Presidential Candidate ticket. “Romney/Gingrich, Romney/Thompson or Romney/Giuliani” ticket scenarios will all be filtered through the lens of questions like;

1.Can They Win a visual media campaign? I.e. “Can they look good on TV?”
2.Do they have any appeal to the “Low Income Non Ethnic Voter”?
3.Can they create a passion that will mobilize the “Religious Right Wing”?

My answers:

Romney/Thompson [NO]
Romney/Giuliani [NO]
Romney/Gingrich [YES]

Sen. Fred Thompson’s good old country boy southern sound has appeal but the cynical voter will see him as an actor more so than a national leader, that will be opposite the dynamic of Ronald Regan.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani seems like a nice guy but his appeal is only regional at best and he is not physically very attractive. He can raise big money but money will be a non issue for any Republican Party Nominee.

Rep. Newt Gingrich has that divisive rallying quality that can motivate the powerful Republican Party base of voters. This party needs someone with “Super Star” like qualities that will not be confused as a closet liberal.

The National Democratic Party seems to be committed to using their big money generating candidates to win the White House [Clinton/Obama in “08], with John Edwards waiting in the wings to replace Obama in the event of any missteps or negative changes in public opinion polls.

What Do YOU Think??

We can fix the machines but until we fix our election laws to catch up with technology, our election processes will continue to be broken. Touch screens, ballot scanners, voting machines…Computers, paper, people will fail. We must revamp election laws to recognize technological voting anomalies and statistically improbable results. In 2006, it was the failure of Florida's election laws that permitted an election with statistically improbable results to stand (Sarasota’s 18,000 undervotes). Our 2000 debacle with the pregnant chads resulted from failure to maintain the voting equipment properly. However it was the failure of Florida's election laws that permitted the chaos that followed. Had Florida's election laws been on par with technology, both elections would have been an automatic re-do.

While the heroine in A MARGIN OF ERROR: BALLOTS OF STRAW scoffs at the notion of a silent coup marching across America in her fictitious voting machines…. It could happen more easily than any of us want to believe.

Lani Massey Brown, MARGIN OF ERROR: BALLOTS OF STRAW, political intrigue of a stolen election, Amazon com.

Nelson's related bill (S. 559) to Holt's bill (HR 811 IH and HR 811 RH) has some good text:

It shall be unlawful for a chief State election administration official to take an active part in political management or in a political campaign with respect to any election for Federal office over which such official has supervisory authority.

(S. 559, page 46, lines 11-15). In my opinion, this language would outlaw the Ken Blackwell syndrome, where Ken Blackwell was Secretary of State in Ohio, and at the same time he was a campaign manager for Cheney / Bush.

Likewise, Debra Bowen would not be allowed to be the campaign manager in California for Hillary Clinton's campaign while Debra is Secretary of State in California.

Is anybody here opposed to that principle?

I say draw a black line through the whole god damn bill, and change it to

No electronics will be used except to PRINT a ballot to be hand counted with public oversight, or to assist the disabled to PRINT a ballot to be hand counted with public oversight.

I hate this god damn nonsense.

Use a radio teletype, use a radio packet, use a modem, use a wireless phone, use a dumb terminal to PRINT a ballot for the astronauts who want to vote down on earth.

As long as no electronics are used to COUNT the actual votes. As long as public oversight exists on both ends.

QUIT COUNTING ELECTRONICALLY!

PUT SAFEGUARDS IN TO *PRINT* ELECTRONICALLY!

What's with all this unofficial crap?

These people are going to pass an unofficial bill to be official, a bill that apparently changes dynamically each day, a bill that the public can barely keep up with, a bill that continues to allow "God knows who or what" to actually count votes.

Give the people the right to remove the corruption from office, if that corruption is democrat or republican I don't care.

I want the right to vote, so that the constitution can be restored.

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!!

If I wanted trails I would take acid.

I have it from Committee staff that the meeting was canceled early this morning. No followup has been scheduled at this time.

Dredd, I would like to get into each of your posts but I simply don't have time right now. Hope to get back to you on those tonight.

I too am lit on the susano link!!

Sacxtra! Approved!

I hope folks have the bandwidth to even listen to it.

What with the Just US departments hatred of net neutrality and all, maybe we won't have a voice pretty soon.

And dredd,

I don't hate ya.

I sense a lot of folks getting exhausted with ya.

I will still go with ya on that beer one of these days.
Your a citizen just like me, and have the right to shoot your load just the same as me.

You have a lot of good points you bring up, but I have just one fuckin plan now.

Restore the Constitution.
Remove the OATH OF OFFICE breakers.

Another constituent letter to share for anyone to use in whatever way.

Re say No to HR 811 AND to MoveOn

Dear Congresswoman Woolsey,

This is letter #4 to you this week from me on this topic. Unbelievable.

Here is yet another incredibly compelling reason to dump HR 811, go back to square one, and start all over again with this whole election reform issue, with the goal being this time to do the right thing for the citizens of America, instead of doing the right thing for the electronic voting machine industry.

The Automated Teller Machine industry, which includes Diebold, has an amazingly successful business model, if you use company profits as its sole measure of success. Under this model, Diebold and the other touch-screen machine companies, first eliminate American jobs in the banking industry, by training banking customers to use ATM machines instead of going into the bank and having a human being process their banking transactions. After all the jobs that can possibly be eliminated are gone for good, resulting in a reduction in operational expenses followed by increased profits, the only way for this industry to continue growing is to outsource the self-service ATM operational expenses to wherever ... Bangladesh, New Delhi ... it doesn't really matter as long as operational expenses are reduced for the touch-screen machine companies, a reduction resulting from reducing payroll expenses.

I don't think that any sane American citizen feels that this is a good thing to be happening to them, to their jobs, and to their communities, yet it is happening, and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it.

Now, we have this same business model exerting its influence in the realm of elections, and the companies that are doing this to us are the same ones that did/are doing it in the banking industry. It is very clear to many of us exactly what is going on here, and I hope it is clear to you and to your staff before you develop a final position statement re HR 811.

First the electronic voting machine company AKA the touch-screen machine company takes over the operations of U.S. elections. They do this by lobbying our legislators, and creating and influencing legislation that will hand over the running of our elections to them. They spend gobs of money, start-up money, venture capitalist money, doing this. This is the stage of the business plan we are in right now with this industry.

It is very clear that HR 811 is NOT a piece of legislation that will save future elections from being stolen again. It is a piece of legislation that will allow the electronic voting machine company to outsource the operational expenses of our elections to wherever ... Bangladesh, New Delhi ... anywhere except the United States.

This is ultimately where HR 811 will take us. Anybody who can't see this, or just refuses to consider it, is simply not paying attention.

I am beyond disappointed at MoveOn right now for sending out to its membership a "poll" to see if the organization should support or reject HR 811. Before asking members to "vote," it "informed" its membership about HR 811 using loaded language and rhetoric, such as "[w]ith time running out to secure our voting machines before the 2008 election, ..." and "[HR 811 is] our only chance to make significant national progress before the 2008 election." No wonder, with directed statements such as these, MoveOn's "poll" resulted in almost 3/4 of its respondants replying in support of HR 811! That the organizers of this MoveOn "poll" stooped to this level of membership query is unforgivable, and I hope that you and your staff will communicate with them about this. This is no way for a powerful citizens advocacy group to legitimately conduct itself.

If we allow HR 811 to move forward, we will be setting up a scenario in which, later on down the road, things will be happening to our elections, to our communities, and to our nation, that no sane American citizen would support, and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

We CAN do something about it now. I am once again, in a very informed manner, requesting that you assume a leadership position on this issue, with this bill, and work to defeat HR 811.

Phil #20

"I will still go with ya on that beer one of these days"

Same here.

Bob #17

I will be patient, take your time, I appreciate your concise thoughts.

After all, we are commenting on these things to benefit others first, ourselves second. That is what I like about you, John, Brad, and a whole host of posters on this blog.

It is the best blog IMO.

A reminder that a paper ballot in Holtese is really a paper trail, and not an undepedent indication of the voter's intent. With reluctance to count thermal paper, when in the end no mandate in the bill to reconcile anomalies, we are stuck exactly where the bill's non-disclosure lets officials off the hook.

Meaningful audits would be needed, or they shouldn't have electronics.

Existing law supports voter generated hand-marked paper ballots, and not the trail, which voters don't look at, can't find errors, and can be gamed to be different from the legal, secret vote inside.

That said, and however I like static mechanical means of voting, an optical scanner can confirm that hand count, which, too, isn't completely reliable. In NY, we are trying to promote an open system, not trade secret, where we operate ourselves top to bottom. A good compromise.

After the system technology, we need to protect precinct counts and a well-organized Election Day, to avoid a mass vote flipping and other changed totals like we have had since DREs have been in place.

BAN DREs, with 100% audit for the one at the poll site if necessary, just like CA. The vendors are hoping distrust will fade as the voter likes the video game.

And try to convince Steny Hoyer he represents the country as Majority Leader, the entire state of Maryland, and not just his state's National Federation of the Blind (which is not even representing their own constituency by promoting electronic touchscreens).

Linda, thank you for reminding about the business plan. It's more in the open now, but not enough, as people would be less reluctant to go along if they knew.

Time again for another media expose. I remember around 2004, with information going back to the 70's, maybe 80's, with a Christian fundie company owner, the usual low lifes who started Diebold, who no doubt hoped to persuade policy by secret and manipulated vote counting.

That's another unintended consequence of an election. Media framing of how they won, with money and policy changes to match.

The whole amazing scam needs to exposed, now, when people are paying attention, finally.

The bills seem to be coming straight from the W.H. with lobbyist input. Heard Harry Reid say a while back re. the immigration bill..he talked to the prez. and the repubs. would have to have enough votes so that his freshman senators could vote no. It was more important than party lines. Does this seem like democracy or dictatorship. Pelosi was against the bill giving bushco more power to spy on US. Isn't it supposed to go the other way around with house, senate and then the prez. giving it the o.k.? Maybe somebody has some pictures of him and Jeff and the nightmare will go away. Think it would be mean a lot to the south if they knew their man likes men.Nothing wrong with that but that's how bushco got in...that and racism.

Dredd, getting back to your posts:

Dredd #3

"I don't trust people who say "kill the bill" or "save the bill" if they offer no rationale."

I agree, sometimes to my colleagues' chagrin.

Those who are for or against an entire bill before it technically even exists in finality are just biased political hacks from the gadfly party.

I do not agree. There are some important things missing from your synopsis of how the process works. Chief among them is the role of the Majority Leader and the various Committees that touch the bill along the way. Consider, for example, that the Rules Committee, at which this bill is currently logjammed, can decide to limit which amendments will be heard on the Floor, IF ANY. If it so desires, the Rules Committee could simply say that none of these "perfecting" amendments will be allowed, at all.

You cannot simply hold your breath and hope that a flawed bill will be made whole by a magic bullet amendment. You have to deal with the bill in its current form. I don't think that makes someone a political hack. Its simply prudent.

Dredd #5

The problem with the bill's "paper or plastic" provision, as written, is that it does not specify when the paper ballots must be counted. So, three weeks after the election results are announced would be fine, for example. If you think I'm being silly, recall the HAVA fiasco - it specified that provisional ballots had to be offered, but neglected to specify that they had to be counted. Result? Many weren't counted.

Dredd #6

Such information should be made available to the public, not the Commission. Our elections must be transparent. Giving access to four Presidential appointees doesn't cut the mustard.

Dredd #7

Parse the language you quoted again, very carefully. You'll notice an odd thing. At first it talks about "voting systems", but later it refers to a "voter device". Is there a difference? According to HAVA, yes. The upshot? The machines that actually tabulate your votes, the ones that determine who gets elected, CAN be connected to the internet.

Dredd #8

Remember that the language you quoted has been modified by the so-called Manager's Mark that Hoyer and PFAW wrote. Durable paper ballots are no longer required. Thermal reel-to-reel printers are an acceptible substitute. These printers failed a comprehensive study at NJIT so badly that the NJ Superior Court declared "this is a crisis" and ordered an immediate plan to scrap the state's DRE systems.

Dredd #11

You are quoting the Nelson bill, and not the Holt bill under discussion, and potentially up for debate. The Nelson bill is moot, according to my sources. Since the Senate has its own bill under consideration (S1487), it is unlikely to give Nelson's any consideration.

General reply

I think what you did is exactly what people ought to do, and I appreciate that you took the time to read the bill, which many folks have not. However, I want you to consider something. You tried to pick some of the most innocuous passages you could find in Microsoft 811. Yet, even those passages all had serious problems. Does this not suggest to us how badly flawed this bill truly is?

This was in response to another similiar article and is pertinent here as well.
How about 'paper ballots' instead of 'machines'. Overall, probably saves $$'s, creates local employment, a sense of community and then they won't have to be concerned with TOO EXPENSIVE, TOO CUMBERSOME and I like that last one, OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE.
Also, 'paper ballots' are easily implemented and then there'd be no need to postpone deadlines unless of course that is the objective so that nothing gets done at all or too late and politicians can roll-play without end.

I'm not a paper technical specifications specialist, but I notice the term "Thermal Paper" coming up over and over again. Look I can't follow every damn technology, but thermal paper is a joke. And I say that even though I am promoting Paper Ballots Hand Counted with Public Oversight.

DO NOT ALLOW THERMAL PAPER. I could spill a friggin coffee on it and the information will disappear!!!

Whatever the technical specifications of our "Paper Ballots For America" should be, I don't know, but that should be figured out. As well the INK.

We don't want ink smearing with that glass of water.

Personally I've always used pencil, because when the paper gets wet, my data remains intact. Where if you used pen, and the paper got wet it can be lost.

A sweaty handed poll worker could screw it up.
Some might argue that pencil can be erased. I don't disagree, but so can a PEN be erased. That's why you have PUBLIC OVERSIGHT.

Anyway, just trying to give more pre-thought to solving this problem, If we are no longer going to COUNT electronically, but still allow PRINTING electronically, then we better figure out the technical specifications on the PAPER and INK which is required, which will be allowed, and which will be banned.

The thought of using Thermal Paper to me brings up two ideas, a.) someone want's to cut cost again and b.) someone wants to introduce the possibility of yet another exploit (e.g. The erasing of data by using heat) to the system and blame it on cost.

This shit needs to be WELL THOUGHT OUT.

Then hit it with a BILL

Time is a wastin...