Let's cut to the chase: What is the "Paul Lehto" plan for saving democracy?

[IndyOp]

Independent of criticism of anyone else's plan - what exactly is the "Paul Lehto" plan?

I am NOT calling out Paul with this post. I am asking EVERYONE who is rabidly anti-HR550 to state, point-for-point exactly what you DO want in a national law?

WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU SHORT OF 100% HAND-COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS?

Nothing? Time to pull out the guns and let blood flow in the streets? Bull.

[IndyOp]

1. What I would like to see...

I am *not* in favor of paper ballots 100% hand-counted.

I will work to significantly amend HR550, but I will not work to destroy HR550.

I am working on the ground in my county, in my state -- doing radio, TV, and newspaper interviews - talking to groups, meeting with legislators and this is what I advocate:

1. Casting and counting votes must never depend on electronic voting machines. I want to retain precinct-count optical scan readers to process many thousands of ballots quickly, but will not approve of any voting system that is dependent on a machine - and this includes voting machines that print a paper receipt.

a.) All votes must be marked by the voter on a piece of paper - an optical scan ballot. Thus, voters can mark their ballots even if voting machines aren't working; voters cannot be disenfranchised by having too few voting machines at a precinct; and states/municipalities can hold completely open & transparent audits of 2%, 20%, or 100% -- as they desire.

b.) The HR550 audit requirements need to be adjusted for the size of specific counties and need to specify when they must occur - election evening or the morning after. Also: HR550 needs to be very specific about how great a disparity can occur between the hand count and the machine count for the audit before a county-wide recount is triggered.

c.) Counties are SOLELY responsible for not having adequate supplies of correct, complete optical scan paper ballots on hand at the precincts -- no passing the blame on to vendors.

d.) Source code must be open to the states and citizens must be able to meaningfully participate in pre-election testing. Citizens must be able to meaningfully observe all phases of the election.

100% hand-counted paper ballots -- destroying HR550 -- I cannot support.

[enuffs_enuffs]

2. Why not?

Perhaps slowing down the process to not fit within the 24hr news cycle might be for the best. Systems, all systems have their vunerabilities and faults and our current system is SHIT. Fuck all the bullshit and start from the ground up.

[IndyOp]

3. Why not? It won't pass. The political will does not exist.

A majority of the public want paper ballots, they will not buy into hand counts. I go lots of places and talk to lots of groups and that is my opinion.

The conversations about 100% hand-counted paper ballots goes on and on in small discussion groups and has, in my opinion, turned into "groupthink" -- nothing less is acceptable and anyone who doesn't tow the line is a traitor or is in favor of the Rethugs stealing the next election and/or in favor of fascists taking over the world (led by voting machine companies).

What is acceptable short of 100% hand counts?

[enuffs_enuffs]

4. Scrap the ol' secret wash and bring in the transparent new...

Anything short of that is bull. In my thinking, FAST results ren't as important as VERIFIABLE results. And at this point paper is the only option. Since all systems are fallible... why not?

Again, why not. We shouldn't have "speed" voting nor should we have "speed" counting. This is far to important to let impestious desires of "results NOW!" interfere with the process. Paper takes longer... so be it.

Why should we be forced into electronic when one of the foremost experts in electronic acounting, Diebold, provides us with shit. When they can provide a secure and transparent system, sure... they have failed us thus far and to give them any more room to fuck us is asinine.

They have thus far provided swiss cheese security. They have stonewalled reports verifying that fact. They have bilked us for how much thus far? Let THEM prove it works FIRST. We've wasted enough money already on their systems.

I personally don't care if it takes longer, costs more or whatever. I simply don't give a shit... besides, they can't design... sell and implement a new system by 2008. What can be put into place is PAPER.

Lets kill some trees for democracy.

[IndyOp]

5. Have you talked to a member of your Board of Elections about this?

Please. Try it.

Democracy means that compromise is required. Until there is the equivalent of 'nuclear war' for an election there won't be a dramatic shift to paper ballots 100% hand-counted.

I believe we can shift them to optical scan precinct count -- but we won't get them to paper ballots 100% counted.

[enuffs_enuffs]

6. We once tried to compromise. And here we are.

As time slips by... so does our democracy.

[Land Shark]

41. Boards of election Love the lack of accountability in elec voting

relative to physical ballots. They are servants, eventually they have to follow an order rather than give us commands or constitute separate powers with which we must compromise. heck boards of election can't even vote, and the individuals therein have votes equal precisely the same as everyone elses. I'm not going to be able to respond much here since i'm in the hospital. But you may be able to imagine my response to the forces of socalled "Realism" by reading this piece.
I know IndyOp did because she PMd me about it (the underlying essay, not the new intro), the only nonsupportive PM I got.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2791861&mesg_id=2791861>

[kster]

14. You really know whats going on

Please stick around, and welcome to the DU.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. well...

Unfortunately, it is very hard to convey to people in the grip of groupthink that they are in the grip of groupthink.

I don't even mean this as a dig at HCPB advocates, per se, but I definitely worry about the dynamic you describe.

[BillORightsMan]

9. New Hampshire is "groupthink"?

from Democracy for New Hampshire:

"We're Counting the Votes" videos

These videos are being made available to promote the use of hand counted paper ballot election systems nationwide. The videos show the easy, transparent, observable, secure, and fair nature of this method of vote counting when done within the community by members of the community and administered by good and honest election officials.

What you see in these videos is the civic and community component that is present in proper election administration, as well as the methodology. Our hope is that people will begin to remember the heart that is the grassroots, community-centered American election.

Watch the videos (requires Windows Media Player)

Lyndeborough (~18 min.)
State Recount (~10 min.)
Wilton (~10 min.)
(video links at DFNH link above)

Take some time and read through DFNH's We're Counting the Votes Kit

I don't think the voters and volunteer election workers in New Hampshire consider themselves "groupthink" or think the fascists are taking over the world.

This isn't a football game where you get all the scores on SportsCenter at the end of the night. Does the so-called 24-hour news cycle DEMAND every ballot be counted by midnight? What's the hurry? I'd rather have to wait a few days for an honest complete tabulation of votes than rely on some mysterious machines to give me INSTANT "results".

So many think an optiscan is so reliable and honest but conveniently forget how EASY they are to "pre-program".

The Howard Dean Demo
Howard Dean Guest-hosts Topic "A" With Tina Brown

:patriot:

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. as long as you are ignoring the question...

what is the population of Lyndeborough?
what is the population of Wilton?
what is the population of the largest city or town in New Hampshire that uses HCPB?
about what percentage of New Hampshire voters use HCPB?

I think it's fine that Nancy Tobi wants to promote HCPB nationwide, and wants people to "begin to remember the heart that is the grassroots, community-centered American election." But if she is going to campaign against election audits while she is waiting for people to finish remembering, then we have a problem. That problem is what the OP is about.

I hardly think you need to lecture IndyOp on optiscan security risks, or any of the rest of this.

[IndyOp]

19. My question remains to you...

What short of 100% hand counts will be acceptable. Do nothing? Blood in the streets?

I know opscans are easy to mis-program or to pre-program -- I know that, I really, really do and if there are audits (with teeth) that are automatic, immediate, and random in every county they will catch mis-programming or pre-programming. If the deviation is sizable then we hand count the whole county and the hand count stands. If audits show miniscule deviation then we know the counting was fine.

Optical scan ballots, precinct count allow all counties that WANT to do 100% hand counts to do so -- it is just that 100% hand counts will not pass nationwide - based on my conversations with members of Boards of Election. I can barely get them to acknowledge that paper is necessary.

Are you working on the ground to get legislation passed in your county? In your state? How are they taking to 100% hand-counted paper ballots?

[Land Shark]

56. Real Question: WHy, with 92% public support for WITNESSED vote counting

and obtaining information about vote counting per the August 2006 Zogby poll, why IN A DEMOCRACY can we NOT get from our "representative" Congress, a voting system that reflects the near universal intent of Americans to have visible ballots they can witness?

What's Paul Lehto's plan? For those who don't know, I am Paul Lehto, and it matters little what my plan is compared to what the AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT. What they want is identified above. It is overwhelming. HR 550 / the Holt Bill totally fails to deliver on this value and instead helps to institutionalize electronic ballots, so it is therefore utterly deficient for that and many other reasons. See, for example, <http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nancy_to_061118_stopping_h_r__550_be.htm>

If there is any area at all in which the Congress is OBLIGED to truly serve, it is in the area of their own Damn Re-election. They have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS DICTATING POLITICAL REALITY TO THE CITIZENS REGARDING THE TERMS OF THEIR OWN RE-ELECTION.

NONE.

ZERO.

NADA.

ANYBODY WHO CLAIMS OTHERWISE IS LUCKY THEY ARE NOT A CONGRESSPERSON, BECAUSE IF I EVER HEAR A CONGRESSPERSON TALK ABOUT "POLITICAL REALITY" IN TERMS OF WHAT LEVELS OF ASSURANCE THE PUBLIC IS going to be "ALLOWED" CONCERNING THE LEGITIMACY OF CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS....THAT'S THE TALK OF AUTHORITARIANS GIVING EDICTS NOT THE TALK OF DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES SERVING THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

just leaves me shaking my head in utter disbelief...

[Bill Bored]

30. Dean's Demo had nothing to do with HCPB!

It was a question of precinct total aggregation which has nothing to do with ballot counting. And in the same show, another hero of the movement, Kevin Shelley, explained exactly how to solve that particular problem.

What is amazing though is how the problem has been repeated ad nauseum, but not the solution, which is transparent aggregation of precinct totals.

Looky here:
<http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section08.pdf>

[GuvWurld]

35. Why is legislation easier (more important?) to change than political will?

If the political will doesn't exist, why not focus in generating it?

In my opinion, there is a case to be made for focusing entirely on political will, not just on this issue but for all issues. If the intention is to influence politicians and/or change or create legislation, such effort will by its nature be about giving power away. That is, we'd be asking others to make decisions that we like, but ultimately the decisions are not made by us.

Recent "election" results notwithstanding, we live in a time without accountability, where those in office do not genuinely represent us. We are in no way assured of influencing their decisions through any critical mass of phone calls, letters, or other demonstration of popular support. I believe there is a direct correlation between the amount of effort spent (wasted) trying to influence politicians and the amount of control these same people have over us.

If we want politicians to truly represent us, We The People must have the political will to make it untenable for them to do otherwise. Politicians should be routinely run out of town on a rail, or perhaps tarred and feathered as in colonial times. We The People should never ever ever accept the behavior of anyone acting against the greater good, especially while doing so under the auspices of a public office.

This is the bottom line right now defining the relationship between the government and We The People: No presumed innocence, no privacy, signing statements, and no election verification - we are not Free People and we are not a nation of laws. To work toward modifying a pending bill, or even to propose new legislation at this point, only perpetuates this illusion that we are Free and living in a Democratic society. If restoring such ideals is truly the goal, it will only come from establishing the political will to accept nothing less.

[diva77]

8. they install modems in some of the precinct opti scans which is the same as

having an unlocked ballot box all day that can be manipulated. Even without a modem, there could be an easter egg in the code which causes vote flipping, machine breakdowns, etc. -- I'm sure you're aware of all those problems.

Having worked as a pollworker where everything is done by hand except the counting of the votes, it seems like such a scam to take the counting away from citizens.

At the precinct level , all those who would be needed to count live close to where they vote (with the exception of absentees -- but absentee ballots should only be issued for special circumstances anyway IMHO) and would be willing to come in and count.

Once the ballots leave the premises or once they are tabulated by computer, you have lost the highest form of quality control possible.

Hand counting at the precinct level has the built in 100% audit on the spot (everyone double checks everyone else); you have an idea of the political climate of the neighborhood - so an outrageous result could trigger yet another count before the ballots leave the premises.

If anyone tries to mess with the ballots or the results, there are other people around to act as a check and balance.

Even if there is hanky panky at the precinct level, at least it's confined to individual precincts rather than someone punching a number into an excel sheet and changing the entire election centrally or transmitting data via precinct scanner modems or shaving votes off with malicious code in enough precincts to swing the election without detection.

Why are you against HCPB??

[IndyOp]

17. I am aware of all of the problems you mention and I thank you for giving

me the benefit of the doubt that I am.

It's a multi-step process to make sure that if the code that counts is wrong for any reason (error or cheating) we will catch it:

1. Voters mark on paper ballots so that we are not dependent on machines for casting our votes.

2. Then the ballots go through the scanner.

3. Then we automatically randomly select precincts and hand count ALL ballots in those precincts.

4. If the deviation between hand count and machine count is non-trivial then we hand-count the whole county and the hand count is the legal count.

All of the steps above must be carried out "the right way" -- selection has to be truly random (not pre-selected by the county), if the deviation between hand count and machine count is off then the whole county must be hand counted. It is up to citizens to make sure the steps are carried out the "right way" just as it would be to make sure a hand-count of paper ballots is done the right way.

My objection to 100% hand counted paper ballots is that the members of Boards of Election and the citizens I talk to who are not election activists WILL NOT go for 100% hand counts. They think it is absurd, beyond absurd.

The BOE members I know think using ANY paper is absurd - "Why go backwards?" they ask me, when we have these convenient, accurate, reliable machines that don't require us to deal with printers, haul paper, securely store ballots...

We will NOT get 100% hand-counted paper ballots, but if we go to a precinct-count optical scan ballot system we will *always* have the option of doing a 100% hand count in any county that is willing!

[diva77]

24. The argument that " if we go to a precinct-count optical scan

ballot system we will always have the option of doing a 100% hand count in any county that is willing" is overly idealistic if you look at what happens in a recount situation; see some grotesque examples here:

http://www.iwantmyvote.com/recount/ohio_reports/

Why not capture the count at the source, i.e. in the precinct on election night, by hand when you have the best chance for the most accurate count to be accomplished? What is so absurd about that? Yes, you have to plan to have people who are wide awake and can count to 10 and stack piles. So what? Where is the absurdity?

[IndyOp]

25. Go talk to members of your local Board of Election and ask them

about 100% hand-counted paper ballots. I am not your problem. Reality of the people on the BOEs and state and national legislators are...

[diva77]

26. The megavendors and their lobbyists have inappropriate and unfair advantage

in having unlimited access to BOEs and legislators and to the funding. Citizens have to fight for 3 minutes of time at Board of Supervisors' meetings and they have to miss work to go speak out on the issues. Something has to be done to even out the amount of access. That's what I call absurd.

[IndyOp]

27. I agree that citizen access to BOE and legislators is unfair --

and, still, we have to have an impact on the BOE and legislators - that is "the something that needs to be done" to change access. If we pass rules / legislation that dramatically reduces the impact vendors can have on BOE operations then we have more access. In the meantime we have to push our way into BOE offices and talk to directly to them and figure out what is *possible*. That is the hard work that has to be done. It is really hard if you are in a place where no one else is worried/working on this...

[Febble]

36. Oversight

at precinct level is the problem. How easy would it be to stack a precinct with partisans? You need a bigger unit to count in. Our votes are hand counted at constituency leve - about 40,000 voters. Small enough to be doable, but large enough to attract crowds of overseers, and, of course TV cameras.

[diva77]

37. Yah, you could stack a precinct with partisans. How does a machine or

moving the ballots to a central location guarantee this to be any less of a problem? We can have cameras and overseers at the precinct level.

No method is perfect. We can improve the security of handcounting. There is a lot more oversight per person at the precinct level since you're only dealing with maximum 1000 ballots (but most likely far fewer -- we had 350 in my precinct) and in my precinct we had 6 pollworkers with mostly Dems, 1 Republican, and a homeless guy. We were focussed on doing the best job possible and with 6 people overseeing 350 ballots, it would take a lot of manpower to pull off stacking enough partisans at the precinct level versus stacking the precinct based machines or central tabulators.

plus you could do another manual audit of the results during the canvass...

[Febble]

38. Well the way it is done in the UK

is that ballots openly are deposited in ballot boxes, which are sealed at the end of the day in the presence of two witnesses, and unsealed at the count in the presence of witnesses.

I agree it is a potentially weak point in the system, but I'm not convinced it is weaker than actually opening the boxes at the precinct.

[Wilms]

10. How 'bout these.

1. 550's audit capacity is atrocious. This seems a lot better.
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1664&Itemid=26

2. The administration of the audit concerns me as well, though I don't have a suggestion for a remedy.

3. Language that clearly spells out that HAVA doesn't require e-voting.

4. HCPB for, at minimum, Pres., Senate, House.

[kster]

11. Now why would I do that?

"US Congress: Demand that Congress Ensures Accessible and Verifiable Elections in 2006 and Beyond!
Urge Congress to pass HR 550 as written! Please provide the requested information and the following email will automatically be sent to your Representative. Your name will also be added to a petition that will be delivered to the members of the Committee on House Administration during the "I Count" Lobby Days, April 6-7, 2006. If you would like to learn more about the "I Count" Lobby Days, please visit www.ICountCoalition.org. For more information about HR 550 please click here".

http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=1

You Demand (or ask) Congress, the people who benefit from secret vote counting machines, the same people who REMAIN SILENT about the secret vote counting machines and the machines so called "Gliches" to help us to stop secret vote counting machines.

How does that work? I don't get it.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hedda_foil]

29. Why the "as written" request back in April?

Simple. To prevent the poison pill of photo ID language from being inserted into the bill if it ever actually got to the point of legislative markup in the past session. It didn't get to markup. The committee wouldn't schedule it. And frankly, there was very little chance that it would get through the committee before the election in the first place. Remember, there was no way to know whether the next Congress would be more or less sympathetic to the issue at that time. It has taken almost four years of very hard work on the part of many, many dedicated activists, most of whom (like me) gave up their livelihoods to fight fulltime for democracy, to get this legislation to the point where we have a chance of at least getting rid of paperless DREs in time for the 2008 election. That's not the end of what's needed to get honest and transparent elections -- it's a beginning.

[IndyOp]

18. Agreed - 550's audits must be strengthened and I like

Howard's paper very much. The trick is interpreting that into a law that can be applied nationally...

I am not sure "4" is going to happen - hand-counting for Pres., Senate, House.

The Boards of Election just don't see why they should have to have any paper at all involved -- "Why go backwards?" they ask me. I tell them over and over why -- they still don't see the reason. Their machines have never had a problem they say...

The purpose of my post was to try to get people to think about the reality of implementing 100% hand counted paper ballot proposal -- if that is the ONLY option to the "traitorous" HR550 -- then we are up shit creek.

We've got to get this conversation out of the small election reformer circles it is stuck in to the public and see what the public will is -- and I am just *not* getting feedback and 100% hand counted is feasible where I am. Even the people who are participating in my election reform group -- those who used to hand-count paper ballots -- nearly break down into tears when I suggest going back to that.

:hi:

[enuffs_enuffs]

28. Pardon... but we are already up shit creek...

It seems to me that the boards really want to preserve what they already have. "Why go backwards" is really an attempt to force you to provide justification for them insted of the other way around, which in my mind is where they really are... Numerous examples have surfaced and a scant few have been answered. The onus is not on us to prove they are fallible given recent history. Perhaps tossing the entire boards would set the correct tone for debate. Perhaps investigating "gifts" to board members might be another avenue.

There aren't any good and simple answers, I know. But to trudge along the same paths over and over dooms us to repeat the same mistakes. A clean break seems to me to be the best option.

Why not scrap HR550 and craft new legislation. SOMETHING needs to left on the scrap heap...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

40. right, lets wait until 2012 or 2016

Florida, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland and others -
they don't need voter verified paper ballots.

We need to take a reallly long time and get this down pat until
everyone at Democratic Underground or other group think places can
agree.

That will happen within the next century, and we don't really
need audits or VVPB in the mean time, do we?

Heck no.

We need to listen to the Diebold optical scan states, they
know whats best for us.

[Wilms]

32. Well I'm not sure how a math formula is put into law.

If there are better methods to use in mail-in only states, I don't see why the law couldn't stipulate their use as appropriate.

Hey. Kucinich has 19 co-sponsors. I'm not expecting it would pass, but I'm glad he's put it out there.

There's too little discussion of HCPB outside of a small circle. Perhaps it's not framed well. Points that get lost include the fact that HCPB is still being done, and could probably be expanded to additional jurisdictions at a savings. I think it's ok to keep that message out there, especially as jurisdictions start getting the bills to maintain an e-voting infrastructure.

No. I'm not "rabidly anti-HR550" so perhaps I should have stayed out. But if Paul used the term "traitorous" I suspect he did relative to concerns about the EAC's authority granted under the bill. Not specifically that it doesn't ban e-voting.

I share expressed concerns about the bill's potential passage suggest everything is ok. Hardly.

I'm confident e-voting is unverifiable without substantial auditing not (yet) called for in that bill. Heck, they could drop all of the security measures and add a real audit and we'd be better off.

It's not the bill's fault. I really like it's spunk. But it's not up to the task yet.

And to frame the opposition's point as a 100% paper ballot advocacy misses many of the important points.

[Bill Bored]

31. Actually, HCPB would be better for LOCAL races!

This is because local races are the toughest ones to audit.

They have fewer ballots, precincts, machines, scanners, voters, votes and more undervotes!

They are the easiest ones to rig.

Their campaigns are not as well financed (to pay for recounts or legal challenges), etc.

At least with Federal elections, the smallest thing you have to worry about is a Congressional District. While that isn't too easy to audit (HR 550 would fail to do so miserably) it's perfectly feasible to audit with high statistical significance if it's done right. Not so with local races!

So if I were going to advocate for HCPB, I'd do it where it actually makes the most sense and would do the most good -- for LOCAL races. (That doesn't include the Mayor of NYC, BTW, where there are about a dozen Congressional Districts who vote for Mayor, and of course where there's NO ELECTRONIC VOTE COUNTING either, thank you very much!)

But the HCPB crowd should be pushing for this in local races first and foremost. If they can't make a case for that, they ain't gonna make one for Federal elections!

[Wilms]

33. Interesting point.

But your last statement I'm not sure I buy. While you make a great scientific case, this is a political one. I think Kucinich's bill would be an easier sell than one for local races.

[Bill Bored]

34. Sell to whom? I'd expect to see local bills for local races -- not Congressional bills

And Kucinich is probably unConstitutional anyway. We have no right to vote for President so how can the feds say what the ballot should be? That's clearly left up to the states.

If the HCPBers are really serious, they should first try to convince local officials that their races are the ones at greatest risk of being hacked without detection -- because they are! Town councils, sheriffs, dog catchers, state assembly or senate members (who could make laws for an entire state if they thought their elections were vulnerable).

But instead, they want to start at the top. Diebold and ES&S didn't start that way did they? It took years for them to invent HAVA!

Why do HCPBers think they can just walk in and change all that in a place like Congress? This could be a real grass roots movement! A 50-state strategy but instead it would be 50 towns or 50 counties or something.

They could start with Snohomish (Land Shark's county) which is half way there already because they're dumping their DREs. So why don't they have HCPB in Snohomish? (I'm serious!)

And if they don't think local races are important, look at what happened in Texas! Imagine if they had HCPB there. We might never have had DeLay and Enron!

Now the other thing is, once you get all those dog catcher races OFF the machines, it makes the federal and statewide races much easier to program, test and audit ON the machines! Less chance for screw-ups, simpler ballot definition files, all that stuff. Who said there has to be just one election system in a jurisdiction? Why not separate the auditable races from the ones that really need to be hand counted to confirm their outcomes?

The heck with this group-think crap! It's very hard to confirm local races with <100 precincts with just an audit! So THAT'S WHERE the hand counting should be done.

</rant>

[Bill Bored]

42. Kick, and just to clarify something about Texas...

...the redistricting of the state, which made it harder for the Dems to take back the US House, happened as a result of the state legislature changing hands several years ago -- and those were local races.

[Wilms]

43. So. At the state level, get HCPB legislation.

Right?

[Bill Bored]

44. State, county, municipal. Whatever works.

I'm just sayin' if we want to eliminate the potential for electronic vote counting fraud, there is much more of that potential in races that are more difficult to audit with partial recounts. Anything smaller than a Congressional District is ripe for stealing (i.e., lowest probability of miscount detection). It's just not sexy and doesn't make the headlines and neither do those trying to make an issue out of it.

Let's say federal elections are audited in such a way that fraud becomes highly unlikely. (An improved HR 550 could bring this about.) But at the local level, fraud still goes unchecked. So the Pukes, or whoever the enemies of democracy are, will steal those local elections and eventually redistrict or otherwise undermine the other party in other ways.

I've got to say that Howard Dean was a genius for realizing this on some level with his 50-state strategy. But when it comes to vote counting fraud, anyone who seriously looks at the problem will tell you that local races are the ones that are must hackable.

Of course, any race without any audit is totally hackable too, but we are assuming in this discussion that there are some HR-550-like provisions in place for federal elections.

[Wilms]

45. You just got me wonderin'.

Does 550 call for auditing ALL races, or just the big three?

[Bill Bored]

46. Just federal elections. nt

[Wilms]

47. I wonder, then, why Holt is hesitant to raise the audit %.

If I understand correctly, 2% would have offered a high probability of catching misdeeds in 3/4 of recent fed elections.

You're good at math. What % would it have taken to assure ALL fed races...leaving aside the fact that the method Stanislevic proposes calls for variable % that could dip below 2 % in some cases.

[Bill Bored]

48. Beats me. Is he that hesitant?

The only thing I ever heard from Holt's office was that 2% was the best they could do in the 109th Congress. But those critters are about to be history!

It would probably take a pretty large fixed percentage to confirm ALL federal races. For one thing there could always be a few with razor thin margins that would require full recounts. And it wouldn't make sense to sample all the Senate races at say, 25%, if that's not necessary. And if you sampled all the House races at 25%, you might as well sample everything at 25% in the states where there are Senate races.

So the bottom line is that fixed percentages just don't make any sense at all, unless you want to argue for a fixed percentage of 100%, which gets us back to HCPB again.

On the other hand, if you said that the confidence level should be a fixed percentage of say, 99%, that makes a lot more sense.

[Wilms]

49. Yes. Yes.

That's fine. Like races being audited to provide 99 and 44/100th% confidence level.

In some races, that could require <2%.

So in those 1/4 of recent fed elections that would not have enjoyed a, say, 99 and 44/100th% confidence with a 2% audit, what is the range of % that, roughly, would have done it. 3-15? 20? 25?

[Bill Bored]

50. I believe that was calculated in that paper you cited, wasn't it? nt

[Wilms]

53. Yes, it is...sort of. And I found it.

"Using the above methodology (which does not even take precinct size into account), in the 2004 general election for the US House of Representatives there were 57 races with margins of less than 17.4% requiring more than a 2% audit, 14 races (with margins of < 8.1%) requiring more than a 5% audit and 7 races (with margins of < 4.2%) requiring more than a 10% audit."

http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/VTTF/EVEPAuditing.pdf

[Bill Bored]

55. Yeah, that's it. Only 7 races needed >10% audit. Maybe a couple of full recounts?

But overall, it's not an insurmountable problem.

Seems like any House race with a margin of < 17% or so would need more than a 2% HR 550 audit according to this study.

Someone should check this out for the 2006 election if it's ever over with! Still some close undecided races, aren't there? I wonder how many with < 17.4% margins?

[Febble]

51. I agree

It would give me a thrill to see a confidence level enshrined in law.

[Febble]

15. I think the UK and Canadian models

are tempting. As a Brit, it is hard for me to see the problem. But I do see the problem, nonetheless. Our elections are not only simply much less complicated, but they are much less complicated because of important differences between our constitutions. Power is so much more devolved in your country than ours, which is why you vote not only for every damned dog catcher, but actual policy items (I'd like to think that was a good thing, but I'm not sure).

But even with a simple ballot, one reasons it works in the UK is because we vote for members of parliament, and the unit of representation is also the unit of the count. So every candidate has an interest in the correct counting.

And it is also fast. It's all very well to say that there is no hurry, but the speed is one of our safeguards. The longer paper ballots remain uncounted, the more opportunity there is for them to be added to, or "lost". Many eyes are on our ballot boxes at all times, and on the ballots from the moment the boxes are emptied to the moment the count is complete. And the size of the counting unit (about 40,000 voters) means it is large enough to attract public interest (TV cameras at every count, lots of members of the public), but small enough to be doable.

Anyway, if the HCPB people want to emulate the UK and Canada, I'm all for it. But the graft won't take easily, and you might find you have to jettison important aspects of your constitution on the way.

[IndyOp]

20. Is Maggie Thatcher still alive? Could we reinstall her as PM?

Your reaction to that question might just match the reaction I get from real, live members of Boards of Election I challenge to even accept optical scan systems.

Paper? Why do you want us to go BACKWARDS? Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!

:scared: :grr: :cry: :nuke:

[Febble]

21. Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!

Allegedly still alive, but too addled to be a serious threat, I think (furtively checks garlic supply....)

My prediction is that we will have optical scanners before long. The good news is that there seems no reason why the rest of the system, with its transparency, shouldn't remain in place. We just replace the bank tellers with scanners. Keep the TV cameras, the public, the general circus.

It's the transparency that's important, not the actual counting method, I think.

I'm with you, anyway.

[IndyOp]

22. If optical scanners - audit, audit, audit!

The audits must be automatic (no matter what the vote spread); comprehensive (count all races/issues); immediate (election night or the next morning); and adequate for the municipality (smaller counties need larger audits and I want to see that the precincts sampled are selected randomly from different ballot styles).

We can *never* ever assume that the machines were programmed correctly or that there was not some random bug in the software --- no matter how honest-as-the-day-is-long everyone is, mistakes happen and we cannot debate whether or when to audit. Always audit. Also - must have clear guidelines for when a discrepancy in the audit should become a full hand count.

Audits are a necessary part of the transparency, I am trying to say, in a very wordy way.

:hi:

[Febble]

23. I absolutely agree n/t

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

39. maybe the hope is that President Nader will require HCPB

If we are going to base our hopes on litigation, then
it doesn't look good.

We had a handful of purists oppose our legislation in NC,
but we passed it.

It isn't perfect, but it has increased the publics awareness
of the need for audits, transparency, that our votes should and
could count.

I am seeing more and more interest in the issue, and smart questions being
asked.

But I don't see anything smart about allowing Diebold lobbyists
to be fed at the public trough by selling machines and tech services
to any state.

HR 550 would put Diebold out of business, and anyone wanting to stay
in would have to obey to play.

Thats a huge change in the right direction.

There are people who would rather have no law for 23 states than
any law.

We know that many states cannot get VVPB legislation passed.

We know that our entire electoral process would have to be completely
changed if we hoped to have HCPB.

We may even have to go to the parliamentary process, and have less direct
representation.

I don't see any of those changes happening, but I don't see DREs spreading,
and if HR 550 passes, I see them going away, because its
hard as hell to recount that paper, and people know it.

If HR 550 did not pass, I can expect to have to continue to fight fight
fight for the grounds that we have gained in NC.

Because if the Voting machine companies see that the activist community
has weakened, or is asking for something like HCPB that won't pass,
this gives them the open door to peddle worse goods,
like independent verification systems.

I recommend we get HR 550 passed so that Vendors cannot gain more ground,
but will lose ground.

But then I didn't vote for Nader either.

[In Truth We Trust]

52. Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW! ...or Fascism Forever.

[BeFree]

54. What is the plan?

To take matters into the people's hands..... out of the corporate hands and into the people's hands.

Any support for the continued ownership of our vote counts by anyone other than the people, is support for a continuation of the current practices.

When you find a drowning man you don't throw him half of a lifevest. You toss the whole thing. Our democracy is drowning and half a lifevest like 550 is not gonna save it.

Now, if you can produce an opscan like you and others have been talking about, I'd like to see it. Since I haven't seen such an opscan all I can think is that your idea is pie-in-the-sky dreaming and we can ill afford those types of schemes.

HR6200 is a full bodied lifevest for democracy.