14-Page Expose of Electronic Voting Problems

[JohnGideon]

As many of you know VotersUnite.Org is the group that has produced the two issues of "Myth Breakers" which are primers on voting machines, HAVA and other related issues. "Myth Breakers" is 70 pages long.

http://www.votersunite.org/MB2.pdf

We have now also produced a short version of "Myth Breakers" that has a lot of the same material plus graphs and graphics. This version is 14 pages long.

http://www.votersunite.org/info/ElectronicVotingInBrief.pdf

You can find both of these plus other valuable documents at:

http://www.votersunite.org/info/flyers.asp

Make copies of any of the documents on this page. Take copies with you when you go to the library, dentists office, bus station, or anywhere that people congregate and might be looking for something to read.

[understandinglife]

1. Excellent resource material. Thank you (nt)

PROVE MY VOTE COUNTS

[emlev]

2. This document is really great. I hightly recommend it

All sorts of stuff I haven't seen elsewhere. Personal stories that are quite effective at illustrating problems. Highly recommended!

[nashville_brook]

3. ATTN: culture jammers

leave at:
doctor's offices
bars
on cars
at the coffee shop
at the gym
lunch counter
with free newspapers
your church

this is great stuff! need to download and bookmark...great resource.

[satya]

4. This is outstanding--thanks! nt

[tommcintyre]

5. Great! It's nice to have the summary (short version) also n/t

[helderheid]

6. Thank you!!

I will see if I can't fax this to all my county clerks, elections offices and representatives. Has anyone had luck with efax with such documents?

[paineinthearse]

7. Thanks!

:kick:

[marions ghost]

8. KICK

[garybeck]

9. John, does VotersUnite! (or do you) have an opinion about the bills?

I'm still surprised that VerfiedVoting is calling Holt's the gold standard when it still allows for DREs with only 2% mandatory audit. It's not a paper ballot, it's only a paper record.

Please, if you have an opinion on the bill please let me (us) know. I'm guessing anything you say about the ballots would also apply to the Clinton bill because I think they have a similar plan (2% audit).

thanks
Gary

------------------------------------
the solar bus
ELECTION JUSTICE CENTER
your home for updated information on the fight for democracy in America
http://election.solarbus.org
------------------------------------

[JohnGideon]

11. Gary, Thanks for the question....

Legislation is very tricky as you are probably aware. What has a chance of even getting a hearing? What has a chance of getting to the floor?

I tend to agree with Bob Kibrick of VerifiedVoting. He works with the staff of some of the authors of legislation. He knows what has a chance and what is going to fall on it's face.

Holt's bill is probably the best, over all, of the bills that are out there. It has almost no chance of getting out of committee unless a miracle happens and there is suddenly a mind change by a bunch of Repugs who will sign-on as co-sponsors.

The Ensign bill has a bit more of a chance simply because Ensign is a Repug and he screamed bloody murder last year when he found out that HAVA did not include a vvpat as he expected it would.

Clinton/Boxer; while it has some good ideas it has less than zero chance just because the sponsors are Clinton and Boxer.

The Dodd bill is garbage for a vvpb but it has some things that we need like "jurisdiction" being more broadly defined. The Conyer's bill is a bit better but still weak for the paper ballot and audits.

These are all just my opinions. I have not read any of the bills in any great depth. Some of my opinion just comes from common sense.

The big issue is that Ney has already stated that he doesn't want any changes to HAVA until after the 2006 elections because HAVA won't have been completely in affect until then. No changes is no bills.

So, in my opinion and based on Ney's statements we should all be calling at different times and supporting any of the legislation just to keep election reform in the forefront. This is another issue that will take people going to the streets before the media picks up on it and then a long slog until something is changed.

Of course, there might be something in the HAVA bill itself that can be used to get rid of all of the machines. **wink** **wink**

[garybeck]

12. thanks John, so do you agree

with these statements:

1) None of the national bills actually call for a paper ballot. All the proposed national legislation still allow for the widespread use of DREs.

2) Verified Voting's raving endorsement of Holt is not so much saying it provides a paper ballot, or that it will prevent fraud, it's just the best one available so they are supporting it? (then why the "gold standard" comment?)

3) Having a paper record (not a paper ballot) is not really a solution that prevents fraud. It would be easy to print a paper record that matches the voters intent but not the vote that was cast by the DRE.

I realize you can't speak for VV but I am just really confused as to why they are endorsing Holt so strongly, especially if they don't think it will ever get out of committee and it doesn't provide a paper ballot. I've tried to contact VV but no reply yet.

It appears that state legislature is the only place to get a paper ballot requirement. We got it here in Vermont (although we still have opticscan). I see no reason why it couldn't at least be proposed in the national legislature too.

I'm just getting concerned that orgs like MoveOn and even Verified Voting are sending out the message that if some of this legislation passes, everything is fixed, while in fact all the legislation falls short of preventing fraud.

No one seems to have addressed this directly in any published commentary of the proposed legislation. I'm going to write an article to this effect if no one else does in the next few days. Your confirmation of the above 3 comments will help me know I'm on the right track.

[JohnGideon]

13. Discussion On 3 Comments

First, to be clear; I am not speaking for VotersUnite.Org only for myself.

1) A paper ballot is a paper ballot is a paper audit trail is a paper trail is a whatever. They are all the same thing IF they are all defined the same way in legislation. In other words the Calif. paper audit trail is the same thing as a ballot as long as it is described that way in law. The passage of that law with that wording gave legal standing to a paper audit trail. This past discussion of ballot as a legal document is all fine but it takes away from the real discussions.

2) The real argument is do we get a voter verified paper ballot and do we get audits to ensure the machines that produced those ballots are working properly or do we get hand counted paper ballots. To me the best possible system would be a ballot marking device like the AutoMark of any of the DREs that produce a paper ballot that is verified by the voter and then counted by hand at the end of the day.

3) I know Bob Kibrick, the vv.org legislative expert, very well. I won't second guess the reasons why they(he) has taken the stand that they have taken.

4) I very much agree that state legislatures are where the rubber meets the road. That is the battle ground where we should be fighting this and not in the Congress.

I hope this helps.

[mod mom]

10. thanks v u! The 14 pafe overview will be easier to get others to read!

[voto]

14. the use of computers actually changes the very nature of voting!

May be I'm naive, but I think electronics can't be used to collect votes and the reason is not technical but theoretical.
The problem is vote secrecy: nobody (really nobody) should ever have a chance to know the way each elector voted.

The only way to guarantee vote secrecy is to collect and store each vote in a complete ANONYMOUS way: no info able to link each vote to its elector can ever be collected nor stored.

Thus a file of votes should be made of records of the following kind:

an unknown elector casted his vote for candidate "A"

It's easy to see that in the above situation no votes verification is possible! Nobody knows who could verify each vote since each vote could be verified only by the one who casted it, but he is unknown!

Anyway, even if we could know the identity of the voter (sacrificing the secrecy of voting) we could'nt trust his verification! Infact we can foresee

• illicit pressure on him to confirm or deny the vote recorded on his behalf
  
• changes of his electoral preference
  
• and even his will to mess election up.
  

Nobody can verify whether each of the recorded votes is the one expressed by its (unknown) elector.
Thus any electoral result (being based on anonymous electoral records) is unverifiable, too!

What do you think about that? I don't think it is stupid, is it?

If you like do read more, please have a look to:
http://www.electronic-vote.org

[newyawker99]

15. Hi voto!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[voto]

16. thanks for the welcome

I apreciate your welcome very much!
Thanks from Italy

BTW what do you think on what I wrote?