Count Every Vote Act--What to do?

[snot]

I've been solicited for several weeks by Kerry and H. Clinton to back the Count Every Vote Act.

I was told here at DU that the best place to check out which legislation's really good and which isn't (since some would make things worse or do nothing) is Verified Voting (http://www.verifiedvoting.com/article.php?list=type&type=43 ).

But their site continues to just say, "Comparison in progress".

Can anyone here confirm whether the Count Every Vote Act is worth backing, and does anyone know what the hold-up is at Verified Voting?

Thanks!

[garybeck]

1. tell Hillary and Kerry this:

the Count Every Vote Act DOES NOT COUNT EVERY VOTE!! it is a farce to call it the Count Every Vote Act.

It only seeks to count 2% of the votes. The other 98% are never counted. They just sit in a pile in case discrepancies are found in the 2%.

is that counting ever vote?

is that democracy?

It's almost as bad as Bush's "Clear Sky Initiative."

I don't want to shoot down the whole thing because there are some good things in it. But it is very annoying to see it called the Count Every Vote Act.

Also it will never get passed because it includes a national holiday for election day.

Basically it needs work if it ever wants to pass and it has a misleading title.

I would start by changing the 2% hand count to AT LEAST 5%.

Then I would change the name to accurately represent the bill's intent.

[Bill Bored]

2. I agree but even 5% is not enough.

There needs to be some legalese that says that the outcome of the election must be mathematically certain.

This doesn't mean you have to count every vote. It means you have to know who won and who lost with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!

Who will have the balls to vote against such a bill? I know: The REPUBLICANS WILL! But if they dare, they can be held accountable in the media, and so on, i.e., "WTF? They don't want to know the outcome of the election with CERTAINTY? Hmmmmm..." That's all it would take. So, who will have the balls to write such a bill???

These arbitrary auditing standards that don't prove shit not only create a false sense of security, but take attention away from the main issue which is: WHO WON AND WHO LOST?!

They can spin a victory any way they want, claim all kinds of false mandates, etc. but I could sleep at night just knowing that the wrong guy or gal didn't get elected fraudulently.

So 2%, 3%, 5% and 15% audits are just a starting point. Write a law that says:

"Whereas voting machine or system counts are not independently verified, there shall be a hand count of enough voter-verified paper records or ballots to confirm the outcome of any election with mathematical certainty."

And they may not even have to be RANDOM hand counts. Let the candidates pick the machines where the election was actually decided. In Ohio, it would have been about 3 counties! And if any discrepancies are found, the auditing must continue until the results cannot be changed no matter how much additional count corruption is found. That's mathematical certainty. It's the Truth. Pure and simple. (OMG, I'm beginning to sound like TIA!)

[snot]

3. THANKYOU!

That's exactly what I needed to know. I did write them and referred them to the Voter's Unite site, and asked why they weren't backing the bills most strongly recommended there.

Thanks again.