well said, nancy

this is a wonderful article for people to read who are confused about this whole voting 'thing'.  thanks for laying things out so clearly.

hey, voters out there! weigh in on the debate.  the whole ball of wax is at stake here.  you can't afford to stay on the sidelines and wait this one out!

joan brunwasser, voting integrity ed., OpedNews 

by Joan Brunwasser (133 articles, 3335 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 589 comments) on Friday, April 27, 2007 at 11:00:25 AM
 

whose advice to follow or thinking for yourself

For sure the vendor lobby and Election Center agree with Nancy that HR 811 is a bad idea. Their reasons may be different (EC and Vendors hate paper) , but its all the same. 

I prefer the advice of David Dill, Professor at Stanford University, and founder of the national organization the Verified Voting Foundation. Dill's organization went to the trouble to engage experts across the country to endorse a resolution in favor of voter verified paper ballots. That was several years ago, and thousands signed on.

The Verified Voting foundation has provided assistance and advice to many states including North Carolina to get VVPB legislation passed.  David Dill is aware of the state-by-state struggle to fight for legislation. VV.org has assisted states in writing legislation and in getting it passed by providing action alerts.  Now the states have mostly exhausted their efforts, some just won't be able to vote with paper in 08, or maybe ever. 

Another paperless election in ANY state is unthinkable to me. It would be shameful for states like Georgia and South Carolina for example, to hold yet another paperless Presidential election. Worse, if federal legislation fails this time, we may see another decade of paperless voting.

Meanwhile, the anti paper election officials still fight on in their respective states (Including my home state), and hope to amend or repeal VVPB laws that have been passed.

I have read HR 811, or at least some of its versions. I have worked for, worked on and passed legislation at the state level (shaped after HR 550, 811's predecessor) and appreciate how the process works. I have worked with David Dill's organization, and found that he does provide a solution. 

I do not feel that Nancy Tobi provides any solution, and that her advice is based on a narrower focus and  narrower experience. 

The horses are already out of the barn, and if we don't put up a fence now, they will be long gone.  If HR 811 were perfect, I would have to say "Breaking news! A world first has happened - a perfect bill has been created.

I will listen to David Dill on this. I feel more comfortable with his broader knowledge of the 50 states' situations, his wisdom, experience and knowledge base  on this one.  David Dill and Verified Voting have never let North Carolina down ever.

The majority of people will not even read the legislation to make an informed opinion. They will go for catchy sound bites etc.

by ncvoter (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 103 comments) on Friday, April 27, 2007 at 12:48:04 PM
 

Which expert opinion matters?

I did not think this debate comes down to this absurd level of which expert opinion people should listen to. I am a citizen of this country. I, as you indicated about yourself, NC Voter - I believe you are Joyce McCloy, are you not? - have worked to understand the legislative process, which, by the way, is also something that belongs to everyman and not experts as well.

There is something about today's political climate - does it really all just come from the seemingly successful while despicable swiftboating campaigns? - that leads some to believe that they will succeed through misdirection from the issues to transparent challenges of a personal nature.

Challenge away, NC Voter. I have never claimed to be anything other than what I am. I am just a gal on a mountainside taking an interest in and writing about my democracy, my government, my country, and my beliefs about all of the above.

But unlike the ivory tower experts who are populating the round tables of decision makers, I, at least, have volunteered my time in my local election polls; I have been honored to be called to service as a counter in our NH state recounts, and I have taken considerable time listening to, observing, and learning from state and local election officials.

With the generous help of other activists, I have taken myself to witness the very disturbing deliberations made among our national "election assistance" commission Commissioners of the Count, and their advisory groups, and I have done a fair amount of listening to American voices on the subject of what matters in our democracy.

Additionally, I have personally hand delivered hard copies of my articles on the EAC Certification Ponzi Scheme to the EAC Director of Certification Program Brian Hancock and to EAC consultant NIST Division of Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Chief Mark Skall, with the open invitation for them to critique and advise on any inaccuracies or errors, and they, like you, have not responded in any finding any factual errors in what I have written.

This debate goes deeper than a cock fight over which "expert opinion" matters. If you have substantive points to make on any factual errors in my writing, logic, analysis, or conclusions, please let us all know. We will be richer for it.

Prove me wrong. 

But if you are more comfortable clinging to expert opinions forged in ivory towers, by all means, go in peace on your way.

by Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Friday, April 27, 2007 at 2:58:21 PM
 

weighing all factors

IMHO, David Dill is a very wise man, who is not just a computer scientist but someone who has managed to build the first national organizion that advanced the issue of "verified Voting" and that supported state organizations with expertise, advice, and action alerts. He has a much broader perspective IMHO of the entire country, and of all 50 states.

I feel that Nancy's viewpoint is based on a much narrower focus, from a narrower perspective. 

Having worked for and passed legislation at the state level, I am used to the challenges and hurdles involved.

David Dill has NEVER steered us wrong in North Carolina. For me, he started this movement. VV.org was my starting point, and they have been there all the way, even after our law was passed and we had to defend it.

Oh, our law isn't perfect. 

Nothing wrong with Hand Counted Paper Ballots, and HR 811 doesn't preclude them either.  See hand counted paper ballots in various countries:  http://tinyurl.com/ytzsjd

But I am not debating the pros and cons of HR 811.

I am stating my reasons for having full confidence in David Dill and in extension, my confidence in his opinion. 

"Every voting system (perhaps every system of any kind) is insecure. Making them more secure is a desirable secondary priority, but unless we focus everyone on ensuring both auditability and effective auditing,  we're just going to create an impossible muddle." ~ Dr. David L. Dill, Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation

by ncvoter (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 103 comments) on Friday, April 27, 2007 at 4:44:03 PM
 

Hidden Undercurrents of Holt Bill HR 811

Point of interest, former Colorado Secretary of State and present Chair of the EAC, Donetta Davidson, has been known to jail candidates who dare to contest questionable elections.  We have had two of them, Richard Bowles and Lotus (his legal name) on radio talking about their experiences.

Richard Bowles, the brother of a former Colorado Lieutenant Governor, was an Independent candidate for Teller County Commissioner who took a case challenging then Secretary of State Donetta Davidson and the legitimacy of the outcome of his election/race thru Colorado Administrative Law, only to discover that those administering the case answered directly to Donetta Davidson.  It is my recollection that Bowles was jailed by Davidson, for a period, in the process of pursuing his case.
 
Lotus ran for Mayor of Woodland Park, Colorado and challenged the legitimacy of the outcome of his race on the basis of the optical scanner voting machines used in that election.  Lotus tossed nine teabags at the voting machine in protest and was arrested for interfering with an election official.  Later, he donned a three-cornered hat to make a point in court.  Lotus took his case, "The Second Tea Party Court Case," to the Colorado Supreme Court and was arrested, fined, and jailed for a period of weeks, just prior to the Supreme Court session, in an apparent attempt to prevent him from presenting his carefully collected evidence.
 
Further, Al Kolwicz, Director of CAMBER of Colorado, a tenacious advocate for election integrity, was a Republican Canvas Board Member for Boulder County, Colorado, in 2004, when he was forcibly removed, at Donetta Davidson's behest, by a sheriff, from an official ballot test session for bringing excellent test ballots to the ballot test session.

All of these men can personally attest to their unfortunate experiences with Donetta Davidson with respect to her true track record on fair elections.  From what we have learned from the testimony of these three, Davidson has an apparent history of creative obstructionism where election integrity is concerned in Colorado and, if the EAC is to be truly accountable to America's elections - versus the clearly political vested interests of the executive - is the worst possible choice for Chair of the EAC.  Given this track record, in no way should we confer further powers over America's elections to Donetta Davidson and the executive-appointed EAC.

While the valiant efforts of all who champion and defend our democratic elections with the best of intent are to be commended, these are just some of the hidden undercurrents, which render HR 811 and the corresponding bill in the Senate, as written, too dangerous for democracy indeed.

Sharona Merel, Co-founder, National Ballot Integrity Project & New Hampshire Ballot Integrity Task Force; Member, New Hampshire Fair Elections Committee; Founder, Concerned Humanity (a network)

by Sharona Merel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, April 27, 2007 at 3:26:33 PM
 

Well layed-out thoughts, Nancy. Thanks~

Joyce, bottom line is that Mr. Dill is a computer scientist, so of course he views things through those eyes. Regular, non-computer scientist citizens should be able to VIEW their vote and have that vote counted transparently, in plain VIEW. Our entire democracy rests on it. Just about every aspect of OUR country has been taken over by big corporations, including voting machine corporations. We need to take OUR country back. "We"=We the People. Period. 

by Pamela (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, April 27, 2007 at 5:51:43 PM
 

Propaganda tactics are unhealthy for citizen oversight

A certain propaganda tactic appears frequently in the manuals used by the military. It's called "appeal to authority." It involves urging people to follow an authority or an expert.

Let's not urge people to weigh the number of initials after one communicator's thoughts with the number of initials after another. Let's appeal to common sense, rather than pushing a course of action by appeal to authority.

"Listen to Mortimer Snerd, PhD., and ignore Paul Revere, (no initials)."

"I trust and revere Dweebly von Fascist, JD, Dir of Special Policies Institute; please, people, do what Dr. von Fascist says, pay no heed to Ben Franklin, (no initials)."

 Appeal to authority is a bona fide propaganda tactic, whether intended or not. It's a false frame.

The essence of citizen participation in a democracy is that an informed citizenry is the best and most trustworthy steward for the government which, after all, the citizens themselves own.

This silly reliance on initials and titles is even more inappropriate when you realize that some experts possess only expertise in an unrelated field. Dr. Dill is a computer scientist who runs an organization specifically designed to lobby for computerized voting with paper trails. Dr. Dill has two areas of expertise: Computer science (irrelevant to the discussion of what a democracy is) and he founded and sits on the board of a lobbying organization, which gives him experience with how to lobby, and how to run a lobbying organization, but does not automatically bestow expertise on what a democratic election should look like.

Some of the greatest thinkers in our nation's history, and some of the most sensible ones, had no initials at all after their name, nor were they directors of any organization. I'm reminded of some of the profound, though often controversial writings of Mark E. Smith, when he began signing himself:

"Mark E. Smith, E.I.E.I.O"

Really, truth has a wonderful way of bubbling up to the top, and the folly of many an abuser of power has been the underestimation of the common man and woman's ability to see what is true and what is not, as well as their ability to rise to an occasion that merits it, with resolve and perseverence.

Just think for yourself. Setting aside for the moment who said what, which of these issues truly makes sense to you, as a citizen of this nation? It is the issues we should be discussing, not who can claim the most suffixes after their name.

by Bev Harris (73 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, April 27, 2007 at 8:35:38 PM
 

well said by the someone who knows

Propaganda and marketing, very similar arent' they?

BJ Dudley
How to Unbezzle a Fortune
Hot Ratings: A Physicist's Guide to Accelerating Sales
How to Market to Associations and Newsletters
Top Ten Publicity Blunders
How to Raise a Cash Cow: Unconventional Guide to Capitalizing Your Business

"I come from a long line of inventors," she says. "My grandpa reminded me of that eccentric scientist in the movie Back to the Future -- he had gadgets stashed all over the place. My Dad is a physicist who holds a bunch of patents. Together, he and I wrote a very cool new report "HOT RATINGS: A Physicist's Formula for Acceleration of Sales Revenues."

by ncvoter (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, April 28, 2007 at 4:48:41 PM
 

whats your response to Professor/Atty Lindgren?

Professor at Law James Lindgren had questions about the 990 filings by Black Box Voting.

Lindgren advised:  "I find it hard (but not impossible) to come up with a scenario under which this charity is operating legally with nearly a million dollars in receipts and over $600,000 in cash-on-hand at the end of the year with no interest or investment income for the year. "

http://volokh.com/posts/1155464872.shtml#contact

by ncvoter (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, April 28, 2007 at 6:38:23 PM
 

We have provided multiple iterations of solutions

Joyce, you continue to state that you don't think "Nancy Tobi has provided any solutions." You also imply that I have no concept of the legislative process. Both statements are false. Our solutions were launched in easy to read formula at www.wethepatriots.org last December.

I have also personally submitted comments to Michelle Mulder of Holt's office on the Dec. 2006 draft of the bill, which is the only version that Ms. Mulder has allowed me to see (and which did not include the multibillion dollar nod to the technovote industry and the misguided liberally oriented PFAW - the text converter).

But, as we know, only a few select "citizen activists" - ie, those who agree with the Holt strategy - are allowed to participate in the draft legislative discussions with his office.

Being SHUT OUT of the discussions does not mean that we are ignorant of the process. To the contrary, it shines a brilliant light on the process Holt's office is employing in the drafting of this legislation: they accept input only from computer "experts", PFAW, and others within their circle of private interests.

We also know that they allow in only those "citizen activists" who are affiliated with the notorious VoteTrustUSA, whose entire raison d'etre has  always been to pass the Holt Bill, and which positions itself as a citizen activist group, but whose agenda and ethics MUST be called into question following their acceptance of funding from ChoicePoint sources and their admitting onto their leaders listserv the wife of ChoicePoint CEO Doug Curling, under an assumed name no less.

Needless to say, VTUSA does NOT represent the likes of me.

So please, if you feel you have the "inside track" on how legislation is crafted and passed, perhaps a little humility is in order since the inside track you are on is littered with the droppings of private special interests and questionable ethics.

As you meandor down such a path, it is always advisable to tread awfully carefully. I would hate to see any unsuspecting citizen, such as yourself, step on something explosive or harmful on your path.

In stark contrast, those interested citizens with whom I work on this issue expose our deliberations and discussions to the open air and sunshine of democratic dialogue, and we have, as I note above, posted our very fiscally sound, workable, and partiotically responsible, solution on the website, wethepatriots.org.

our solution has also been sent to Congress (with more than 1500 citizen signatures, of which we are still collecting more and people can sign up on the website), but it apparently doesn't fit their technoelection framework YET.

by Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Saturday, April 28, 2007 at 9:21:55 AM
 

New Hampshire as an example to the rest of the US

New Hampshire is fast becoming an all optical scan state. 

Hand counted paper ballots is clearly in need of advocacy at the state level.

If New Hampshire, with its own local "hand counted paper ballot advocates" can't hold onto HCPB, why would we think that those same HCPB advocates can persuade anyone else to switch to HCPB?

From a NPR show on March 10, 2006:

"Tobi and others urged the Ballot Law Commission to require Diebold to open its program to public scrutiny and install random hand counts to verify the machine tallies.

Short of that, Democracy for New Hampshire asked the Commissioners to simply require hand counts statewide.

When asked about the real world implications of that plan, Secretary of State Bill Gardner recounted one Manchester Ward in 1970.

T.14
4:49 ... it was about 3 am in the morning and they were counting ballots. And the local official said we can't do this, we have been here for so many hours. We are tired....so they decided instead of counting certain constitutional amendment questions that they would stack ballots in 100 and estimate the count. And they went home.

Gardner said in light of those kinds of episodes, local election officials slowly adopted machines.

After more than three hours of testimony Commissioners voted 4-1 to accept the new Diebold program....

 http://www.nhpr.org/node/10407

Maybe HCPB advocates in New Hampshire can show the rest of the US how to get rid of computer voting  - starting with New Hampshire.

by ncvoter (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 103 comments) on Saturday, April 28, 2007 at 4:41:38 PM
 

Joyce, what exactly is your point?

Joyce, your responses are becoming amusing. You still do not address point by point any of the issues about which we are talking. You try to win points by making me look bad?

This is a very silly and immensely transparent approach, usually employed by people who have nothing substantial to say, as I am sure most of the very intelligent readers of OpEd are aware.

However, I'll answer your "charges" about New Hampshire for what it is worth.

EVEN THOUGH THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HR 811 AND MY CRITIQUE AND ANALYSIS OF THIS TROJAN HORSE OF A BILL.

New Hampshire is NOT "fast becoming an all opscam state" as you allege.

55% of our polling places use opscams. Decisions about voting systems are all made at the local level in New Hampshire.

The Ballot Law Commission hearing you cite had to do with approving new firmware for the existing machines already in use in New Hampshire; it had nothing to do with expanding the use of machines in New Hampshire.

It's a long story, one not suitable for telling here, but I'm happy to share with anyone interested (actually it is all well documented on our website).

Nor are the people of New Hampshire OR our election officials asleep at the wheel. We are all working diligently to find the best solutions for our state, and YES IN THIS RESPECT WE ARE A MODEL TO THE NATION.

You are welcome to come and learn how this works - you know, the whole "working together" thing. The whole "respect each other" thing. The whole "let's listen to each other, identify the issues, and try to solve them" thing. The whole "grassroots democracy" thing.

Come to New Hampshire. Then, maybe you will actually know what you are talking about if you want to write about us.

In any event, I do not position myself as some messiah bringing the whole country to hand counting. I am simply someone working on this issue at both the state and the federal level. I am someone who understands this is a long term process, one which requires patience and an open and listening heart as we figure out all the various things that need to be figured out along the way.

Now, does this have anything to do with HR 811 and its aggregious flaws and the threat it poses to our democracy, as well documented in every piece I have written about the bill, or have we both just spent time in misdirection and obfuscation (you opening the rabbit hole, and me running down it)? 

by Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Saturday, April 28, 2007 at 8:14:07 PM
 

Propaganda tactic #2

Thread hijacking: A propaganda tactic to be used when someone posts information deemed perilous to the cause. Distract and litter any ensuing  discussion by posting nonresponsive information, personal attacks, changing the subject, and encourage debate on these unrelated ubthreads until the original information becomes lost in the confusion. If anyone rebuts the personal attacks, you win through success in changing the subject.

 The best way to deal with propaganda tactics is to identify the propaganda techniques when they are used, and avoid any response to personal attacks because the very act of responding causes the propaganda tactic to succeed. Instead, illuminate the propaganda tactic and then immediately return to discussion of the very issue that the propagandist is attempting to distract attention from.

Along those lines, I'd like to  discuss the "all or nothing" issue that Nancy Tobi points out.

It seems to me that the crux of Nancy's argument it that the waters are being muddied by treating the Holt Bill as though it is "all or none" -- as if it could ONLY be passed with the dangerous and unweildy provisions sitting side by side with the less controversial provisions.

And yet -- isn't political persuasion really about capturing the areas of consensus and trimming out those items that people disagree with?

If that's the case, I must say I am intrigued by the idea of either stripping the EAC and its accompanying fat out of the Holt Bill, or simply end-running the Holt Bill with one that is not tainted with the EAC and techno-extravaganzas like text converters.

To this end, it still behooves us to examine what items in the Holt Bill enjoy wide consensus, and which items are contentious and/or  abhorrent. Once identified, a stripped-down bill could be submitted, could it not? One which is palatable to a greater portion of the citizenry?

by Bev Harris (73 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments) on Sunday, April 29, 2007 at 1:54:56 PM
 

More than we bargained for . . .

I can understand why voters in states with no paper record would welcome HR 811 (Holt II). Certainly Cynthia McKinney in GA and Christine Jennings in FL would have liked ANY documentation to support their recounts.

But the continuted existence of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the huge loophole of Sec. 327 which permits states to bypass the promised audit, the untried and underfunded "text conversion," and Microsoft-endorsed opposition to full software disclosure make Holt II as written (and likely revised) unacceptable to me.

If David Dill, Rush Holt and some activists want a paper record, then strip everything else from the bill and mandate a voter-verifiable paper record. I would love a meaningful audit, but Sec. 327 renders the Holt audit of little use. Worse, it may give uninformed voters a false sense of security that elections are credible.

I appreciate NCVoter's desire to end paperless voting, but our experience in Ohio and the "extra features" of Holt II noted above, make HR 811 a bad move.

by John Burik (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, April 30, 2007 at 5:16:23 PM
 

Here's a new proposal for you

This simplified bill would remove EVERYTHING except for five simple items in simplified language. This would be a one-page bill, as opposed to the 50+ page Trojan Horse now being marketed as a "paper trail" bill.

1) Checks and balances, citizen oversight: Paper trail required for all techno-election systems (method to be determined by each state in a state plan process and not mandated in the bill - see HAVA description of State Plan process below)

2) Sunshine, checks and balances, citizen oversight: Mandatory manual audits and public access to all reports from electronic voting systems (method to be determined by each state in a state plan process and not mandated in the bill - see HAVA description of State Plan process below)

3) Fiscal responsibility and stabilization of state governmental administration, checks and balances, citizen oversight: BUYOUT funding for states wishing to replace DRE systems with paper-based (optical scan and/or hand count)

4) Checks and balances: Dissolution of EAC and responsibilities reallocated as described below)

5) Fiscal responsibility and stabilization of state governmental administration: Prohibition on any unfunded mandates in the bill

by Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 10:44:03 PM
 

Hands and machines both

I agree that voters should either fill out ballots by hand or use a machine that writes individual, reviewable paper ballots for each voter, and I agree that the hand count should be the official count.  But:

(1)  there could be an immediate machine count on election night, which would decide nothing but our bedtimes; and

(2)  there's no reason why we can't use machines to assist the hand count.  A sorter could sort ballots into piles:  votes for A, votes for B, votes for C, couldn't read it.  Humans would then verify the sort, puzzle through the last stack, and count the stacks.  I think this sorta takes the horror out of hand-counting over 100,000,000 ballots.

No big networks, just simple unconnected machines. 

Cliff 

by Clifford Story (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 5:50:12 AM
 

What are you talking about???

I read the article on Truthout.org, I got down to the 8th paragraph or so, and I am still left wondering, what the heck is HR 811 and what does it do? I am going to counterbalance the compliments made by other readers. This article is terrible, it is confusing,

I have no idea what the facts are.

by Asdf (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 8:30:12 AM
 

Sorry to confuse you

It's not about Dill and Tobi, but Dill and Tobi have been talking about this stuff for a long time, so if you are new to it, I appreciate your confusion. We end up talking a different language. Even my husband agrees with you; he thinks I speak a lot of gibberish but he's not all that interested in this stuff.

Anyway, I apologize again. You should contact me with any questions you have. My email is at bottom of this comment. 

In short, the Holt Bill is an election reform bill, but it is filled with a lot of crap that is Really Bad for Democracy. Here's a concise bulleted list that tells you about that:

Thirteen Significant Problems in H.R. 811, the New Holt Bill