After years of work to get a bill to the floor that would get rid of paperless voting, you want to stop that?

Its ironic that anyone would want to oppose positive election reform and help the anti paper forces maintain their strangle hold over so many states.

Its worse that anyone would push for a bill that ensures that the Democratic National Committed does not get its wish for internet voting!

I am from a state that passed a verified voting law modeled after the older Holt bill, and we have had two post election audits and several recounts across the state. 

Because of how our elections have improved, I support HR 811 and look forward to all 50 states having paper, audits and recounts.

Read this great blog about HR 811

Your vote at risk: why you must care about HR 811

There’s a very important bill that will reach the floor of the House of Representatives soon. Its very importance may well be the reason you haven’t heard of it. The political and media forces that brought us an illegal, insupportable, and immoral war in Iraq can hardly be counted on to tell you how best to protect your vote....

by ncvoter (19 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 112 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 5, 2007 at 9:53:59 PM

  (0+)

Our proposal, which maybe you have not read, although it is simple and straightforward, and unlike the 62-page complexity called the Holt Bill, is easy to read and understand, fully supports paper ballot elections and offers a simple, straightforward way to achieve that by 2008: Federal BUYOUT.

In contrast, the bill you support will not achieve this by 2008, and does not even strive to achieve it. It strives to achieve phony paper "records" instead of real paper ballots.

I am tired of this bullshit propaganda about the bill that you and others continue to spew.

Just as you and others continually say "there is no other plan!"

In fact, there IS another plan. It is clear, straightforward, workable, and embraces the democratic principles brilliantly articulated in the US Constitution.

The Holt  emperor has no clothes, and I fail to understand why anyone who wants paper ballots and real election reform continues to support it.

by Nancy Tobi (79 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2007 at 8:48:20 AM

  (0+)

There is a segment of the "e-voting" activist community who are directly opposing the federal bill, H.R. 811: The Voter Confidence & Increased Accessibility Act.This bill would mandate voter verified paper ballots in all states for 2008, and replace any thermal printers on touchscreens with durable ballots by 2010.

Susan Pynchon, of Florida Fair Elections Coalition, writes why she supports HR 811 after just passing a verified voting law in her state. With permission posting in full her letter  

#

"The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure it is right."  Learned Hand (1872-1961)  Famed American Judge

Dear Colleagues,

We learned some hard lessons about legislation and about political realities in our fight for paper ballots in Florida. We ended up supporting a truly terrible bill with regressive provisions simply because it gave us paper ballots. We weighed the pros and cons and decided to support it because we felt that paper ballots were necessary in order for future changes to occur. Essentially, all the Florida bill does is introduce the concept of audits, but that in itself is a big step for Florida. Now that "audits" have been introduced as necessary, we will educate our legislators over the upcoming year and fight for better audit provisions in next year's legislative session.

I have read and re-read HR811 in its entirety. Many of the things that people are complaining about can be fixed in the Senate version or fixed next year in the next legislative session, or the year after that. Meanwhile, please allow me to tell you the positive things that I believe HR811 will do for our country (Please correct me if I get any of these wrong):

At the very least, HR811 does the following:

It introduces the concept that audits are important. Audit provisions can be strengthened over time.

It introduces the concept that there are certain times when it is appropriate to examine election-related software and disclose the results of that examination. Better disclosures can be achieved over time.

It requires that all voters be offered the option of voting on a paper ballot. This is a major shift and cannot be underestimated as to its importance.

It clearly states that uncertified voting equipment may not be used in any election.

It provides many protections and guarantees of equality for disabled voters.

It will prevent the introduction of Internet-based voting in any state or by the military. This is also an important preventive measure that should not be underestimated. For example, the Florida Democratic Party is currently exploring internet primaries. This would stop them from pushing for that option, and save us from having to fight against it and other such misguided efforts up the road.

It introduces the concept that wireless technology is not appropriate for elections. These provisions can be strengthened over time.

It addresses secure chain-of-custody and emphasizes the importance of that security. Many Florida counties have non-existent or very poor chain-of-custody, and just the recognition of its importance would be very helpful.

It allows any person aggrieved by a violation of HAVA Sections 301, 302 or 303 to file a complaint with the Attorney General. This is such an important provision.

It allows for the observation of ITA testing (although limited to observation by one person). The observation of testing can be expanded over time.

It requires the ITA to disclose all test protocolsl, results and communications between the ITA and the vendor to the EAC.

It puts a small dent in the opportunity for kickbacks and bribes by preventing direct payment to the ITAs by the manufacturers

It requires the EAC to notify the public as to which ITA conducted testing on which system, immediately at the conclusion of testing.

It requires the EAC to immediately notify Congress, the chief election official in a state, and the public if an ITA is de-certified, re-certified or has evidence of a significant security failure at any ITA.

It funds grants to develop better voting systems.

Of course it is not perfect, but it takes several important steps in the right direction. It also takes some wrong steps, so, yes, we have future battles ahead and more educating to do --
Can any of us guarantgee that it will help more than hurt our country,or vice versa?
Can any of us guarantee how easy or difficult it will be to implement?
Can any of us guarantee the exact effects it will have on our elections?
Can any of us guarantee there will be no unforeseen problems?

The answer to all of the above is probably "no."

I suggest that everyone re-read the latest version of HR811 in its entirety. If you have never read it from beginning to end, then IMHO you have no business commenting on it one way or the other.

If you have read it thoroughly and do have concerns, articulate them clearly and get them to Rush Holt and Diane Feinstein asap. Better still, submit specific revised language to help support your concern. For example, I think it's tragic that any portion of $1 billion may be wasted on DRE technology. But the science is in on DREs and now it's just a matter of time before our legislators realize it. We have a lot more educating to do!!!

Once the majority of legislators realize how terrible these machines are, they'll just have to allocate more money. Is it a waste? Yes. But it's better than what we have now. Because if HR 811 doesn't pass, we may be stuck with paperless DREs and toilet-paper printers for years to come.

As far as HR811 is concerned, I stand with Justice Learned Hand and his quote above -- I'm not too sure I'm right, and this has been a painful process for us all.

Best regards,
Susan
---------------------------------------
Susan Pynchon
Florida Fair Elections Coalition

by ncvoter (19 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 112 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2007 at 11:09:36 AM

  (0+)

That's why they are now saying they won't even implement any of it until 2008. It is UNWORKABLE.

The single provision for DRE Buyout or the 5-points articulated in the article ARE WORKABLE.

by Nancy Tobi (79 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2007 at 12:26:47 PM

  (0+)

Not me, but I seem to remember the "nc" stood for North Carolina, and it's quite apparent that "ncvoter" hasn't visited the website of a fellow Tar Heel named Chuck Herrin, Republican computer expert, member of Mensa & NRA and successful businessman whose livelihood comes from companies that hire him to hack into their security systems. He states unequivocally that there is no computerized system of voting that can't be hacked- he even puts on a PowerPoint slide show to demonstrate how you too, can get the results you want in easy to learn step-by-step instructions. I wish everybody would make this website part of their "favorites" list so I wouldn't have to keep posting it.

<a href="http://www.chuckherrin.com/archive.htm">Hack the Vote</a>,

and I expect a full recantation from ncvoter after she has absorbed everything that can be found on Mr. Herrin's website. There's a lot there. 

by Chuck Garner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments) on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2007 at 11:58:07 PM

  (0+)

I am well aware that a handful of states will likely benefit with the passage of HR 811 (as written or as amneded/substituted). Christine Jennings in FL or Cynthia McKinney in GA would probably agree. But I remember two things.

Ohio passed HB 262 in 2004 to become one of -- if not THE first -- state to mandate a voter verified paper audit trail. Then we learned around ten percent of the paper trail rolls could not be used, memory cards went missing, and recounts in all but two counties failed to follow procedure. Thus our well intentioned and hard work went for naught.

Similarly, HAVA had the nominal intention of protecting voters' right to vote with provisional ballots, yet the reality in Ohio in 2004 was to force some 200,000 voters to vote provisionally, of which 22 percent were rejected.

So call me a cynic but Holt II didn't meet my basic requirements; the revisions watered it down; and the Feinstein bill in the Senate further dilutes its effect. Some may suggest not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but Holt's just not good ENOUGH for me.

--John Burik, CASE Ohio

by John Burik (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Jun 7, 2007 at 11:13:40 PM

  (0+)