I think you mischaracterize what "the primary concern" of others is. You characterize yourself as a "top expert," but readers should know that your expertise is only in one area: computer security. You do not possess any more expertise in constitutional law, audit design, or the legislative process than anyone else, and thus one would hope that you would qualify your claim to expertise accordingly.
Here are some staggeringly large problems with the Holt Bill that you overlooked:
1. By making the EAC permanent, under the appointment of the White House, this bill fundamentally changes the checks and balances of our system of government in an extraordinarily dangerous way.
2. This bill contains a billion-dollar unfunded mandate for "text converters." My organization, Black Box Voting, would love to obtain the budget worksheet for how Holt's office concluded that 185,000 $7,000-machines with text conversion properties can be purchased for $300 million, but since the US Congress made itself EXEMPT from the Freedom of Information Act when it passed that act, putting only the Executive Branch under it, none of us can ever learn what transpired between "top experts" and the U.S. Congress in crafting this bizarre unfunded mandate.
3. It's fascinating that the audits in the bill are NOT designed to make sure the right candidate is put in office (Holt's office's own words), but just to provide "confidence" and find random errors. Even Holt's office admits that the audits have less than a 50% chance of catching fraud. Holt's office certainly were provided with models for more robust audits, but chose to ignore them.
4. And speaking of unfunded mandates, the Holt Bill prohibits voting machines that contain undisclosed code -- and includes firmware (software housed on chips) in this requirement. That would effectively ban every voting machine in America (perhaps not a bad thing...) but, again, provides no funding for such a radical move.
It isn't up to the manufacturers, of course, to disclose all that code -- many of the chips containing firmware are made by third parties, so the voting machine vendors have no authority to release the source code -- in fact, they don't even have it in their possession, and in some cases it is in the custody only of companies in Asia.
I was very surprised to see that you were involved in writing this bill, since the absolute prohibition against any undisclosed firmware, and the resulting unlegislatable complications due to such firmware being owned by foreign companies, certainly IS in your area of expertise.
But carry on. As will the dozens of election integrity groups, election officials, and disability rights organizations that are AGAINST this bill.
is that this most serious and agregious violation of the basis for democracy, the fair and free election of our office holders, is greeted by the public with ennui and lethargy.
We certainly get the government we deserve......
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 10:04:42 AM
It's obvious who benefits from HR 811, and that alone disqualifies it from even being considered. What it says loud and clear is, we don't care how you want to vote! You have to vote our way, or else! You have to use the machines otherwise the makers of the machines won't support our campaigns anymore! Hurry, Hurry, pass this bill because if you don't we're in deep shit! We all have one option left to us, and it's an old one, but it works; a general strike. If Bush/Cheney decide to bomb Iran, send a message. Don't buy anything. Stay home. If we're not allowed to participate in our government, then it's time to stop the pretense. And Congress needs to decide who they work for- is it Bush and the voting machine companies- or for us. When your country is on strike, it sends a powerful message.
by
Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 10:16:50 AM
HR 811 will create a brand-new multi-billion dollar voting machine lobby and effectively obliterate The Vote into a figment of the imagination. Yet the Congress will sign off on HR 811.
You may remember discussion on BBV some time ago about whether or not it was time for a convention, and what I failed to make a distinction about, is that an Article V Convention and a constitutional convention are two different things. An Article V Convention has limits a general rump convention does not. And because of a federal lawsuit the convention clause has been defined. The is a paper going into a Harvard journal next month.
If America can coerce the Congress, as a branch of government, to issue the call for America's first convention held under the authority of the U.S. Constitution, I have no doubt you would be elected as a delegate from the great state of Washington, and you would be able to propose an amendment concerned with electoral reform that the Congress now never will. Bev, the Congress, because of the influence of money, is seeking to obliterate the vote.
Please consider adding BBV as a member organization: http://www.foavc.org. When we talk about Article V it's not as if we're talking Russian or Chinese--the Congress will never propose the changes our electoral system desperately needs. This legislation, this year, the vote will be cut adrift and we may never get it back. If the Congress does not act, your group and others should band together in demanding a national convention from Congress.
Because of the rulings last year, it is up to Congress as to whether it shall ever issue the call or not. That means we don't have to worry about gathering thirty-two state applications for a convention. It's up to Congress to decide--which means we need groups to band together to help it decide.
John De Herrera
by
john de herrera (36 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 158 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 5:13:39 PM
Anyone who is a computer expert, who has an interest in the American voting system, has a conflict of interest. A totally unbiased evaluation of our voting system must include the possibility of dumping the computer entirely. Anyone who is in the computer business, or research, has an interest in keeping the vote computerized. I guess it's possible for such people to make it clear that they are willing to consider elimination of computers in the voting process...
I am not at all challenging Avi Rubin's or anyone else's integrity, but I do suggest that people who are in the computer world may have a hard time imagining a solution that does not involve computers.
Actually, this was written by Rob Kall, when I was logged in doing some fixes for Anthony, on his user page.
by
Anthony Wade (153 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 621 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 7:30:47 PM
Your point regarding the lack of any "teeth" in HR811 is important.
Is there anything in HR811 that says the results of the manual audits need to be used to correct the election results, or are election officials free to ignore the results, and thereby require House candidates to come up with sufficient funds for court cases; swearing the wrong people into office like in Christine Jennings race?
Kathy
by
Kathy Dopp (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments)
on Sunday, February 18, 2007 at 11:19:11 PM
Is HR811 not FIXABLE with a few simple ammendments or add-ons?
Why not RIDE THE WAVE of the Democratic Congress wanting to PRETEND to do something about Election Reform and FIX the bill so that it accomplishes that goal?
They are GOING to pass this bill, whether we like it or not. Why don't we spend our energy making it BETTER, rather than squander our energy fighting an uphill battle we can't possibly win?
Unless, of course, the Election Reform movement has not even ONE member of Congress willing to put up the appropriate ammendments and fight for them. In which case, we have already lost, and all that is left is the "counting." (Sort of like most of our elections.)
Charlie L
Portland, OR
CLL2001@gmail.com
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 715 comments)
on Monday, February 19, 2007 at 9:34:00 AM
7 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
