DISQUS

Kathy Dopp · 8 months ago

Vote "YES" to the "Holt" bill:

BENEFICIAL FEATURES OF HOLT'S VOTER CONFIDENCE BILL

* Requires voter-marked paper ballots

-Replaces all paperless voting systems by 2010

-Requires voter-marked paper ballots at all polling locations by 2010

-Requires voter-marked paper ballot voting systems by 2016

* Gives individuals a private right of legal action to file complaints about violations

* Requires manually counting the ballots in 3, 5, or 10% of all precincts in post-election audits, allowing and giving incentives for using a more scientific alternative mechanism for conducting post-election audits that are approved by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

-Requires the entity conducting the audit to meet the GAO independence standard

* Unlike today’s DRE voting machines, the Voter Confidence bill requires ballot secrecy

* Makes Paper ballots the official ballot and the true and correct record of votes cast and says that in the event of damaged paper ballots the electronic tally may not be the sole basis

* Requires recounts of Federal elections to count ballots by hand

* Includes absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters in all requirements

* Requires accessible paper ballot verification for voters with disabilities

* Requires public disclosure of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) test protocols, all communications with the vendors, and to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the results of the testing

* Requires public disclosure of voting system technology (w/ a NDA) to “government entities with responsibility for the administration of voting and election-related matters”, “a party to pre- or post-election litigation challenging the result of an election or the administration or the use of the technology…”, “a person who reviews, analyzes, or reports on the technology solely for an academic, scientific, technological, or other investigation or inquiry concerning the accuracy or integrity of the technology.”

* Requires that any technology developed under its grants are non-proprietary public property, including

- a study overseen by the National Science Foundation (NSF) of accessible ballot verification for voters whose primary language is not English and for voters with disabilities

- research for development of “election-dedicated voting system software”.

* Decentralizes Power Over Elections, Giving it to Local Jurisdictions by:

- Prohibits the use of election-dedicated voting systems not certified by the State

- Requires States to reimburse local jurisdictions for costs for conforming to the requirements (Thus removing the ability of States to force all jurisdictions to purchase the same voting system)

* Prohibits wireless communications devices in voting systems

* Prohibits Internet voting

* Requires public disclosure of secure chain of custody for ballots and machines

* Prohibits conflicts of interest of Federal testing labs & establishes a process for voting system testing to meet Federal Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSGs)

* Requires the EAC to promptly notify Congress, State election officials, and the public when a testing laboratory accreditation is revoked, suspended or restored or experiences a security failure

* Funds the replacement of voting systems in non-conforming precincts


----------------------

For exact quotes from the bill and a link to the bill see:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-legislation/2...

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act would provide more voting rights and more election transparency than American’s have had in US history.

Please do not be misled by the forces that oppose federal election reform. Urge Congress to increase the transparency and verifiable accuracy of US elections and to increase the . Support this critically important bill that will ensure that voters determine who takes Federal office.

mcv2 · 8 months ago

Holt's Bill will provide a voter verified paper ballot of our votes. Please read the points provided by Kathy Dopp. Many states (13?) including my own state, Pennsylvania, do not require a paper record of any kind. Most of PA, including Pittsburgh and Philadelphia vote into a black box. This bill will put an end to that kind of voting and give us the paper record that we can audit and recount if needed, as Al Franken was able to do in Minnesota. Yes, we need more effective audits and recount procedures, but first thing is first -- We need a paper ballot, first, or we cannot recount anything. We have been fighting for years for a paper ballot bill. Here it is. Thanks to Holt. There are no other bills on the horizon. To oppose this bill is to allow states like PA to continue to tally their votes mysteriously. To oppose this bill is to prevent states like PA from recounting suspicious results. To oppose this bill is to PREVENT MUCH NEEDED PROGRESS. PROGRESS IS MADE step by step. Come on Progressives! help us move forward. Vote YES to endorse the HOLT BILL!

L. D'Andrea · 8 months ago

If you have posted this opinion big as life here, how do you expect people to vote? Don't you think most will all vote "no" after reading it? Why not have two arguments for and against published here? We need federal election reform so badly. Without it, we have years more of wrangling when we clearly know that what we are doing is NOT the way. At least Holt is SOMETHING. If your position is "no" on Holt, why ask us what we think?

Marti C · 8 months ago

Anyone who has followed this issue closely since 2000 knows that there are powerful, very persuasive forces aligned to stop virtually ANY election reform. We live in Texas, which is another state where paper ballots are not mandated. That means there can be no recount, if needed. If this bill is a step in the right direction, why oppose it? Seriously. Sometimes, like Obama said about the banks, the first thing to do is put out the fire, and then look around for who's responsible and what to do to prevent it in the future. Anyone who sows the seeds of doubt when it comes to moving in the direction of reform that is vitally needed, can't be trusted.

Robert D. Klauber, PhD · 8 months ago

Why not, as another commenter noted, provide TWO views on the issue, one from each side? PDA should post Kathy Dopp's comment as a second position paper on the Holt bill. Otherwise, this is little more than a "railroad" job, such as that PDA often accuses government entities of.

I have debated with Paul Letto and his friends on this issue for past Holt bills (that were thwarted by the Bush White House), and still, for the life of me, cannot comprehend why they insist on 100% of what they want or nothing. This, opposed to taking a bill that gives us 98% of what voting rights activists have asked for for years, and later working to get the last 2%, if one so wishes.

We have a good chance of getting the Holt bill. We have no serious chance of getting what Letto wants, and thus, by going in that direction, a high probability of ending up in the same horrid place we have been for years, with no end in sight.

The all or nothing philosophy, as opposed to taking what you can get, one step at a time, is quite beyond me.

Al McCullough · 8 months ago

I have come to realize that for over a century over 97% of the laws written in the United States are corporate laws. That is, as Frank Adams and Richard Grossman have so expertly documented and explained, laws that are written by agents of corporations, in the employee of the corporate, moneyed elite, for the benefit of corporations and those who hide behind that facade. They are not laws that groups of everyday citizens have gathered together and discussed and petitioned our representatives to draft and enact for the benefit of our families, communities, states and our nation.
Who actually drafted the Holt bill and who paid to have it drafted? That information should be required to be appended to the head of every bill for all the citizens to consider. That, indeed, might be legislation we everyday citizens need to petition to have drafted and passed into law.

PDA Maggie · 8 months ago

VOTE YES! Even though it is ridiculous that PDA has decided to decide about this desperately-needed bill with this stupid, unscientific, easy-to-freep poll (and then led off the "debate" with a horribly biased blog post against it), VOTE YES!

I live and vote in Pennsylvania and this bill will allow me and about 7 million other voters in around fifty of my state's largest counties to vote on hand-marked paper by 2010. But if this bill goes down, I (and seven million other Pennsylvanians) will be throwing votes down the black hole of a paperless touchscreen for the foreseeable future, maybe forever.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT, PAUL LEHTO AND PDA???

This new Holt bill is actually true reform and within our reach. As another poster says it gives us 98% of what we have been working for and we can go for the other 2% later. Supporting this bill is a no-brainer, and opposing it is so foolish and against democracy as to be beyond words.

VOTE YES.

PS --- PDA, as an organization you better think long and hard about the many supporters you will lose if in the end you decide to oppose this bill, especially after this stupid poll and one-sided biased articles against the bill. I will be one.

Dan Stanton · 8 months ago

The Help America Vote Act or HAVA was an open invitation for corporate corruption and fraud. The system HAVA created needs to be dismantled and a return of trustworthy elections starting with hand counted paper ballots on election night with results immediately posted in each precinct. In precinct, hand counted ballots under public scrutiny is the gold standard of a democracy. Voters not elections officials determining results. No other election system provides enough public oversight. Electronic vote counting systems constitute secret vote counting, " faith based elections". Elections officials are partisan and should never be trusted on faith, public oversight is the only answer..

s abrams · 8 months ago

why do none of the reform bills provide for receipts to the voters as groceries provide which could be used for issuing challenges and verifying samples or total votes. Machine entered ballots could be printed out and manually prepared provided with carbon type duplicates. Citizens wishing to challenge totals within their voting unit should be able to petition yhe local officials entity with a proportion of the voters with receipts which would be tied by coded number to their recorded vote.

zapkitty · 8 months ago

The "discussion draft" of Holt's latest is fatally flawed and contradictory in several places... possibly because the latest changes were simply piled on top of the old bill.

But even given that excuse it's painfully obvious that Holt is still up to his old tricks, saying one thing and doing the opposite:

Holt's primary concerns have *always* been in centralizing control of elections at the federal level (which will really work out well the next time a Karl Rove gains access to power.) and to service the corporations.

An example, just one, but it's the one Kathy Dopp was on about:

Holt's misled proponents:
"BALLOT SECRECY!!!!!!!!!"

The "discussion draft":

===

(III) The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verified paper ballots in any manner that makes it possible, at any
time after the ballot has been cast, to associate a voter with the record of the voter's vote without the voter's consent.

===

This is exactly the OPPOSITE of ballot secrecy.

The text "... without the voter’s consent." means tracking the voter with their vote is not only possible, it is allowed.

This is a violation of just *how* many state laws?

If the voter can be connected with their ballot after it is cast then the voter can be compelled to identify their vote... whether voluntarily or not.

Which of course renders the voter vulnerable to coercion and vote-buying.

This impossible condition will be changed of course... and in the changes something else toxic will be slipped in. Again. The "1 step forward 2 steps back" mutability of Holt's perenial "election reform" bill is legendary by now.

But the fatally flawed basis of the bill and the way it shifts powers from the states to the federal government and breaks the "balance of powers" model our system was founded on will never be addressed. And Holt offers nothing but a corporate power grab in return.

And the power it gives corporations at the expense of the public right to oversee their own elections is always there in his bill in one form or another.

People, we've been through this before.

And it's time you accepted that it's deliberate.

As a corporate-centered "New Democrat" Holt is apparently interested in the public good only so far as it furthers centralized control of elections and corporate interests.

It's same ol' same ol': with the new "reforms" as window dressing to distract and split the EI community... again... while Holt tries to "fix" the balance of powers system and also give the corporations as much as he thinks he can get away with.

Everything else is populist window dressing.

People, we need to talk.

the zapkitty

Randy · 8 months ago

I am not one who "wishes to waive their own right to vote in a transparently counted public election" and I doubt anyone on this site is so let's not forget we are on the same side and differ only on the questions of strategy and tactics. The question on Holt is whether supporting it or opposing it will more effectively restore our voting systems to a state allowing that right to be exercised.

Mr. Lehto, you imply that your experience spearheading laudable changes in California state law have informed you with the knowledge that similar changes on the Federal level will be as ineffective as they were in California. But it seems to me there is a very big difference and it appears premature to suppose the results would be equally disappointing. For example, the national and international newsworthiness of a clash with Federal law would be much greater. And perhaps the US Congresspersons whose names will be associated with the Holt bill will be able to influence the process more effectively than state politicians could.

But even if Holt proves as inadequate as your California reforms it seems to me likely that passing it and letting it fail will be the fastest way to prove that to a sufficient number of citizens.

Finally, I don't see what is wrong with telling our national representatives exactly what is wrong with the Holt bill at the same time we urge them to support it, so they will be clearly aware that it is only a step on the way to a solution similar to Germany's even in the minds of many Holt supporters.

dumpthedlc · 8 months ago

"But even if Holt proves as inadequate as your California reforms it seems to me likely that passing it and letting it fail will be the fastest way to prove that to a sufficient number of citizens."???????
Letting the system fail as in 2000-2004, arguably 2004-2006 as well? This allowing another neo-conservative(s) to control the 3 branches of Government and truly bring down this country. This is another make it or break it time in our quest to make our voting system fully transparent, safe, accurate and verifiable. If we don't get everything we need in a true voting reform bill right the first time, there will not be a do over! We need a reform bill that get the vote count right on election night and HCPB at the precinct level is the only way this can happen, period. This is our democracy, and again, we need a bill that gets it right the first time and the Holt bill is NOT the right bill, tear it up and start from scratch!

Valerie Lane · 8 months ago

Thank you Paul,
As one who has joined you in the front lines I understand your message. The present system is so full of holes it is a cruel joke. Any citizen election observer who has a clue as to what is taking place during our elections knows that there is no possible "meaningful" ' citizen oversight . The new Holt will not correct this critical problem. If and when the inadequate CA election code and regulations are violated there is no accountability. We just call it human error. Yes the audits can be, have been and will be "fixed" as well as the manual tally. I must ask those who support this bill why should we trust " the "independent auditors". Just exactly who are these independent auditors?
To file a valid complaint you have to have evidence. Ok, if you are lucky enough and you manage to get your evidence ...what happened to Diebold in Humboldt County?. What happened to the ROV in Riverside County when the independent audit found a failure to comply with 8 of 41 Conditional Use procedures? Good luck Charlie! I would be willing to guess that the defeat of this bill in the past was due more to the Vendors fight against it than the grassroots. II will be happy to discuss the issue and explain my opposing point of view with anyone who contacts me at savelections@gmail.com.

couchblog · 8 months ago

As one who values democracy above all else, I do not support this sham bill, and I am furious with Congressman Holt who I had believed to be a more intelligent man than he now shows himself to be in this sham legislation. As a NJ resident, I had hoped that he would one day run for the Senate or some other higher office, but now I see that he is just another corporatist who cannot be trusted. This bill would make us reliant on another piece of machinery, and that is just not something we can allow. The ONLY possible remedy for a democratically elected populace is an OBSERVABLE HAND-COUNTED PAPER BALLOT! CHEAP, EASY, & RELIABLE!!! NO CORPORATIONS NEED APPLY!!!

zapkitty · 8 months ago

While hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB) are, properly set up with transparency and oversight, are indeed one workable solution, I want to point out that opposition to Holt's bill does not and should NOT be equated with demanding that HCPB be mandated in the bill.

As long as hand counts are allowed by, and not impeded by, the bill that is the best that can be hoped for at this stage.

My own objections to the bill, for one, do not require that HCPB be mandated :)

couchblog · 7 months ago

Observable hand counted paper ballots are the ONLY way to run an honest election!

We have been "HOPING" for far too long, and if we don't start "DEMANDING," we will never make any progress!

Frank Henry · 8 months ago

1. no pre election day counting

2. have voter mark a paper ballot

3. bring all ballots to respective ward/precinct for check-in and count

4. count all ballots by hand or machine (CLOSING count)

5. after closing reports an sealing machines ( if used) do a VERIFICATION count
of all position of all ballots by manual hand count.

6 have an resonable RECOUNT process.


Machine count process and hand count process are bothe error prone.


Thanks and Good Luck
Frank Henry
Tel: 928-649-0249
e-mail: fmhenry4@netzero.com

Stephen Unger · 5 months ago

"Holt Bill - Yes or No?" by Bryan Buchan is right on target. He makes the critical point that we need an election system that gets it right the first time, Long experience shows that we can't rely on post-election procedures to detect and correct errors or fraud. And we can't expect any inspection scheme to detect clandestine features of e-voting systems, whether DRE or optical scan.

Fortunately we don't NEED high tech systems for voting. Hand-counted paper ballot systems (HCPB) do the job very well, provided reasonable efforts are made to ensure that the entire election process is out in the open, properly monitored by representatives of competing political organizations. If there is not such transparency, then disaster is likely regardless of the level of technology. Actually, cheating is much easier for high technology systems. HCPB is also less costly than e-voting.

More detailed support for Buchan's arguments can be found at
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/man...

Stephen Unger

williamjkelleherphd · 2 months ago

Maybe Holt is wrong?

“PAPERLESS ELECTRONIC ELECTION UPHELD BY GERMAN SUPREME COURT.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/PAPERLESS-EL...

Two losers in an election to the Bundestag applied to that body for “a scrutiny of the election.” They argued, inter alia, that the high-tech process was undemocratic. The Bundestag denied their claim. Then they appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court. After a careful review of the issues, the High Court upheld the election. I suggest that the legal arguments in this decision pave the way for Internet voting in Germany, and by implication, the US and the world.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
InternetVoting@gmail.com