Done and thanks

To all who frequent this website I say that I have known the work of Ms. Harris for a rather longish time and know that she works tirelessly to ensure that our election process is free of taint and fair. I would urge everyone to sign this petition.

Bev, its been a bit of time since the democratic underground days but you are still one of my heroes. Thank you for your continued work. You are a true American. (and now a movie star of sorts I noted....).

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 5:50:08 PM
 

I too am a great admirer of Bev and always will be.

But there a few minor problems with Nancy's letter:

1. It does not call for the immediate removal of all machines from our elections process. Where optical scan machines and central tabulators are used, effective citizen oversight becomes impossible.

2. Even if the machines have been properly certified, as the letter calls for, it does not mean that the certifying body and/or local Secretaries of State will not issue waivers to permit the use of uncertified machines in order to facilitate the elections process.

3. In their eagerness to gain public support for this letter, they accepted the endorsement of the racist Minutemen, as I pointed out in this diary:

Could Nancy Tobi and Bev Harris be Wrong?

I've been called a purist (and a whole lot worse things), but I wouldn't put my name on something that was endorsed by the Minutemen or the Ku Klux Klan even if doing so would gain me the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

I have an alternative petition calling for the removal of all machines from our elections process here:

Remove all machines

You'll notice that it only has 433 signatures and no group endorsements. I haven't asked for endorsements from groups, as I believe that each person has the right to make up their own mind rather than have a group do it for them.

Some of the people who post here are staunch Democrats. But comes election time, they don't let the Democratic Party cast their votes for them.

The rationale for some of the compromises in Nancy's letter are the usual ones of practicality and political reality. But as Paul Lehto, who worked on the letter with Nancy, has written here "The subject of 'realism' in politics is fascinating, because for one thing the mere mention of 'realism' often causes people to sell out their ideals, usually for absolutely nothing."

--Mark

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 11:52:41 PM
 

This is inaccurate

1. The Minutemen are not a supremacist organization and we would not accept signatures from such groups.
2. This is not a Compromise position. It is a proactive, practical solution that will unquestioningly achieve the goal of election integrity. I challenge Mark to bring our plan to HIS election officials and ask their opinion.
3. The matter of being a "purist" or not is irrelevent if the goal is defined as achieving election integrity. We are not interested in defining a singular method to achieve our goal. We are interested in helping to save democratic elections in a way that can work without breaking the system entirely.

I am happy to discuss this with anyone who has any questions at all. 603.315.4500. Call me.

Nancy Tobi

by Nancy Tobi (71 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 11:48:12 AM
 

My post is entirely accurate.

Nancy, I have your exact words in front of me, however they were posted to a private mailing list, so I cannot repost them here without the list owner's permission, which I have requested and I am awaiting a response.

But you did say that the Minutemen had signed your letter and that you despise their ideology. If they're not a supremacist group, why do you despise their ideology? And if you despise their ideology, why did you let them sign your letter?

You wrote:

"I challenge Mark to bring our plan to HIS election officials and ask their opinion."

They are not MY election officials. They were appointed, not elected. They are dependent upon their vendors and not responsive to the voters they are supposed to serve. If you are trying to cater to election officials rather than to serve the voters of this country, you are making the same mistake that they have. Elections officials exist in order to serve We the People, not the other way around. They should be responsive to our will, not we to theirs.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 12:44:58 PM
 

The Minutemen

I despise their ideology because I believe that in the area of immigration reform we should not be targeting the "tired and the poor" but NAFTA and other structural problems that lead people to risk their lives in crossing the border to America. This does not, however, preclude this group from having the right to sign our letter to Congress.

I am sorry to hear that your election officials are appointed. You should work to change that in your state.

by Nancy Tobi (71 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 2:04:54 PM
 

Why not just count the ballots in plain sight?

Wouldn't it be a lot better to just count the ballots in plain sight? Hand-counted paper ballots in view of the public at the precinct avoid all of the software security issues of the electronic machines. Pay local citizens to count the ballots instead of sending millions to a handful of vendors. No optical scanners that can be rigged, no attempt to trick Congress with a "disaster recovery plan", no useless audits. Just hand-count the ballots in plain sight.

by Michael Richardson (87 articles, 15 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 8:51:55 AM
 

Nobody is trying to trick anyone

States are mandated by Federal law (FISMA) to have in place Disaster Recovery Plans for Information Technology (IT) systems. Therefore, any jurisdiction using IT for their elections must have in place a disaster recovery plan, which would be hand counted paper ballots. Additionally, our plan calls for a GAO study and analysis on best management practices for vote counting systems. With this, those jurisdictions that no longer even know how to conduct HCPB elections will have the information on how to do this.

Additionally, our plan calls for restructuring the EAC so that it is 50-state representational instead of a partisan 4-Commissioner group that goes about granting waivers and running a fraudulent certification program, as it is now.

The combination of these things means:

1) Every jurisdiction in the country will have in place HCPB systems, using best practices
2) Federal certification programs will come under representational citizen oversight, and therefore should stop being fraudulent
3) Disaster plans will be called into play for situations considered disasters, which can include anything from the bogus tech breakdowns that we have seen around the country to a State finding itself with uncertified equipment and not wishing to run their elections illegally.

People need to understand that Federal legislation does not and should not answer all problems. If you are worried, as is Michael R above, that states will give waivers for uncertified equipment, then get passed legislation in your state forbidding this.

We are not helpless, for heaven's sake. We must fight for democratic elections AT HOME in our communities first and foremost. The work at the federal level is an attempt to undo the damage already done at that level and to prevent more from happening.

by Nancy Tobi (71 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 12:03:20 PM
 

If it's not a trick, why not be honest?

Nancy, one of the many reasons that hand-counted paper ballots are superior to machines, is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the process.

Since most of the states currently use machines, and since they have partisan officials, restructuring the AEC by allowing the states to appoint members is not likely to solve the problem.

I'll answer your points one by one:

1) Every jurisdiction in the country will have in place HCPB systems, using best practices

That doesn't mean that they will be used. Yoko Ono had a gun when John Lennon was killed, but couldn't get it out in time and didn't use it, so John is just as dead as if Yoko hadn't had a gun. Having something in place is totally worthless if it isn't used.

2) Federal certification programs will come under representational citizen oversight, and therefore should stop being fraudulent

That "representational" oversight will come from the same people who brought us the voting machines and who didn't represent us well when they did so, and are not likely to do so in the future. Leaving the foxes in charge of the henhouses does not guarantee honest oversight.

3) Disaster plans will be called into play for situations considered disasters, which can include anything from the bogus tech breakdowns that we have seen around the country to a State finding itself with uncertified equipment and not wishing to run their elections illegally.

It is the elections officials who will decide what is and isn't a disaster, and from their record of overlooking discrepancies of 16,000, 18,000, or even more votes, and failing to penalize themselves for using uncertified equipment or running their elections illegally, I see no reason they should be trusted to do so in the future. They can't obey the laws already on the books and aren't likely to obey new ones.

Your proposed solution, asking legislators who have passed bad legislation in the past, not to pass any more bad legislation in the future, would be excellent if it did not include suggestions for precisely such bad legislation.

There should be no more legislation regarding voting until the deleterious effects of HAVA have been investigated, other than to get all machines out of our elections and return to hand-counted paper ballots at the precincts with full public oversight. Once the effects of HAVA have been investigated at the federal level, it might be possible for there to be further legislation that does no harm. In the meantime we should all be supporting Dennis Kucinich's HR6200, which calls for hand-counted paper ballots at the precincts, and not rush to hand any more authority to federal, state, or local elections officials who have abused that authority in the past.

by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 1:03:06 PM
 

I respect & appreciate Bev'd Work but These Ideas Fall Short

Please see

click here

For a point by point evaluation of these recommendations.

by Kathy Dopp (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments) on Friday, January 5, 2007 at 8:44:27 PM