Election Reform? Not Coming From Congress, No Way.

[BeFree]

The present election laws clearly call for voting systems with an *audit capacity*. See:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00015481----000-.html

(2) Audit capacity
(A) In general
The voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for such system.
(B) Manual audit capacity
(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system.
(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to change the ballot or correct any error before the permanent paper record is produced.
(iii) The paper record produced under subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official record for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.

Who thinks that a paper record with merely totals printed out can be audited?

To make this clear, allow me to discern the two types of DRE paper systems now being used:

The DREs without a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) produce only the total counts as interpreted by the machine. Totals only.

The DREs with a VVPAT records each vote that takes place and clearly is intended as an audit trail, heck it even includes the word *audit* in its name!.

Any system that does not have a VVPAT does not produce a paper record that can be audited. Those systems are in violation of the law.

**********************

So, we have a law that clearly calls for voting systems to have an *audit capacity*.

But, the totals only paper record that comes from DREs without VVPAT are not auditable. That should be clear to everyone. The system used in the Fla. Cong. District 13, Jennings race, was not a system that the law calls for since it did not have an *audit capacity*. So, the law was violated.

But the law that was violated by the Fla. voting system that has no audit capacity, was the same law that appropriated the funds to purchase and place the voting system in Sarasota where the Jennings race was voted on. Are you beginning to see the problem?

****************


Our problem is this:

Congress knows that the law has been violated time and time again, but they are all such weenies that they can't bring themselves to admit that the law congress passed has been violated, and many of those same lawmakers have been elected by voting systems that violated the law.

Too, the fact is that nearly $4 billion dollars were spent to purchase the voting systems that violated the same law! They'd all look like fools to admit congress screwed up royally!

That's why every new election bill in congress goes around the fact of the matter and tries to correct these serious violations without actually saying that the law was violated or confronting the violations.

What a damn bunch of weenie butt-wipes we have in congress. Oh well, it has ever been thus, eh?

Now is not the time for any of us to let them off the hook for their mistakes. If we continue to go easy on them they will pass even more election laws that will be violated, and we will end up with another bushco member in the White House. Its time we take a stand.

[kster]

1. If a Judge prevents You or Me from seeing how

a MACHINE counted OUR votes, we don't need a law, all we NEED is a little COMMON SENSE to see what is going on. We can debate HR550,or HR550 V2 OR 3 or what ever the hell else they are calling it these days, to see that the whole vote counting program is full of SHIT.

K&R.........

[BeFree]

7. Thanks, kster

Yep. It is a totally corrupted idea to use these machines in elections.

This OP I would hope, would get no debate. I think I have made the case that the law, flimsy as it is, has been violated and no consequence for the violators has yet been enforced.

I guess you could call it a legal case?

[Peace Patriot]

2. Is the US code citation from the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" ("02)?

I agree with kster. Vote "counting" USA is full of shit.

Non-transparent elections are not elections. They are tyranny.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Note: In Venezuela they handcount FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the vote, cuz

they don't trust the machines. That's why they have a good president and we don't. Why didn't we go that from the beginning?

-----

(election day in a Caracas barrio; contains the 55% stat)
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1901

[kster]

4. I would have tried to word it better

but whats going on with these CROOKS and their Secret Vote Counting Machines, in the Great US of A, is just, well Full of Shit. There is really no other way to word it.

[Bill Bored]

5. Dude, the DREs can print out all the votes that were cast.

They just aren't voter-verified because they're printed from MEMORY.

[BeFree]

6. Dude, that's not true

The non-VVPAT DREs do not print out all the votes that were cast, accept as a total. I know, it can be confusing, but there is no paper record of each individual vote as cast. And therefore, the machine count is not auditable in any way. That is violation of the law.

And neither is any *print from memory* auditable.

The present law does not contain any requirement for a voter verified paper record, but it does require it has an *audit capacity*. Surely you don't think the print from memory fulfills the *audit capacity* requirement, do you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. "I know, it can be confusing"

Unfortunately, the law does not explicitly require a "paper record of each individual vote as cast." You're welcome to interpret the "manual audit capacity" requirement as logically entailing a paper record of each individual vote, but that doesn't mean you would win in court.

As I'm sure you're aware, this is not a fresh topic that you discovered in the last few days. This page might help. Note what John Ensign said about his amendment at the time (upper left), which seems to agree with your interpretation. (I haven't double-checked each of the citations on this page.) Now notice what he says here. Note also what Rush Holt says here.

[galloglas]

12. OTOH, you might consider this

You Said:

You're welcome to interpret the "manual audit capacity" requirement as logically entailing a paper record of each individual vote, but that doesn't mean you would win in court.


Nor does it would mean you would lose. Perhaps it would depend upon law, and the testimony of expert witnesses. And who would those "expert witnesses" be ?

I am sure that all of the gear-heads, and the grant-funded "academics" receiving stipulated grants, through foundations funded by the makers of "Cheat-O-Matic®", and its competitors, would be called by the those vested interests.

Hopefully, on the opposing side, would be "American voters", as the best experts on the process.


So, since we haven't the (non-lurking) access to the grant-funded academics (nor any experts from CIBER), perhaps you could give us an expert's idea of how to best explain, in court, how either the

A) "totals" printed from a non-VVPAT DRE, or

B) the *print from memory* piece of paper comply with

the section of law cited in the OP.

(2) Audit capacity
(A) In general
The voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for such system.
(B) Manual audit capacity
(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system.
(ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to change the ballot or correct any error before the permanent paper record is produced.
(iii) The paper record produced under subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official record for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.


I'm not an attorney, but I played one in a High School play. So, if I had you on the stand, I might ask these questions:


a) What is an "audit" ?

b) How do you audit "totals" printed from a non-VVPAT DRE ?

c) How do you audit the *print from memory* piece of paper ?

d) Tell us how to "manually audit" either "totals printed from a non-VVPAT DRE or from *print from memory* slips

e) Please explain to the jury how, under section B(i), cited above, either of these systems allow for a "manual audit" when the data cited has been reduced to digital form?

f) Please explain to the jury how, under section B(iii), cited above, either the *print from memory* or from a *totals* slip of paper is used in a recount, given that the cited section states "The paper record produced under subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official record for any recount".

g) Please define the word "count", both in respect to common usage, and in respect to "recount using previously *totaled* electronic results, in the event they differ.

h) Please define "manual".

i) Finally, Mr. OTOH, would you, once again, please tell the jury the definitions of the word "audit" and "recount", and reconcile that with your answers to questions (b) through (h).



BTW, in your cite from Holt, this is what he says,


"HAVA requires voting machines to produce a "permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity," but this provision fails to mandate anything beyond a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically.

Which means that regardless of what is, or is not, mandated, the non-VVPAT DREs are not compliant with the law, because they cannot create a "permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity".

[Wilms]

14. Don't be mad at anyone not buying the circular argument.

If this argument were a slam dunk don't you think activists would be swarming so as to get the 20+ VVPAT-less states to put VVPAT on DREs or quit using them?

Have you taken this idea for a ride outside this forum, or are you just gonna beat on anyone here who doesn't buy into your logic?

WillYourVoteBeCounted probably speaks for many here. And you, to my experience, aren't usually one of those running circular-time wasting arguments.

Go find someone who'll agree with you. They'd be wrong, of course, but that doesn't seem to matter.

[Bill Bored]

25. Go find someone who agrees, or bettet yet, use the new DU features...

...whatever the fuck they are!

[Wilms]

26. I think it's called blinders.

[BeFree]

16. Thank you, galloglas

I am so happy to see someone who is willing to stand up and shove their crap back in their faces! {"Their" being the congress, of course.}

The interrogation you laid out is almost perfect. I couldn't have said it better myself. Good stuff.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. you seem pretty confused, too

I'm not an attorney, but I played one in a High School play.

Under different circumstances, I would give you full marks for self-deprecating humor.

In the real world, it doesn't matter how I think "manual audit" ought to be defined. I don't know whether you actually fantasize that I am a grant-funded academic in the service of the e-voting companies, or you just don't pay much attention to what you type, but it's moot.

BTW, in your cite from Holt, this is what he says,


"HAVA requires voting machines to produce a "permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity," but this provision fails to mandate anything beyond a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically.

Which means that regardless of what is, or is not, mandated, the non-VVPAT DREs are not compliant with the law, because they cannot create a "permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity".

Are you saying that the machines aren't capable of producing "a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically"? That is, after all, what Holt states is the only thing mandated by this provision.

[galloglas]

22. One last try.

In the real world, it doesn't matter how I think "manual audit" ought to be defined.

Doesnt't matter. I didn't ask what you thought it ought to be, I asked you what it was. Specifically, "a) What is an "audit" ?".

So define it, please.


And I don't care whether, or not, you are a grantfunded academic. I have asked the questions of you as a citizen. Both the one above and the one below.

{b]Are you saying that the machines aren't capable of producing "a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically"? That is, after all, what Holt states is the only thing mandated by this provision.

No. I am stating the bloody obvious. That "a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically" is not the same thing as "a "permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity". And a permanent paper is what is required by the law. Specifically, "(A) In general
The voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for such system. and (iii) The paper record produced under subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official record for any recount....

Which means that regardless of what is, or is not, mandated, the non-VVPAT DREs are not compliant with the law, because they cannot create a "permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity".

[Bill Bored]

30. See post 27. nt

[galloglas]

37. see reply # 34

It's downstream also. But, I think you have referred twice, so I'll answer twice.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. again...

In English, words have more than one meaning. Asking me "as a citizen" how I define "audit" is a waste of time. I could opine on what "audit" means in the context of the HAVA language, although at least two other posters are also addressing that issue.

It should be obvious to you that the view you here claim to be "bloody obvious" actually isn't. Why is "a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically" not a "permanent paper record"? All I can think is that you are assuming that the print-out is printed on demand, then thrown away. Some jurisdictions may actually do that, for all I know, but it isn't an inherent design feature.

[BeFree]

40. All I can say is

That you must not have a problem with the machines and the lack of audit capacity.

You must be satisfied that the machines totally control how your vote is counted and that you don't care what happens to your vote, because that is what an audit means: that what happens to your vote can be uncovered, traced, proved.

Of course, you are just a citizen and you don't matter, and that the government should not waste its time on how you feel about how your vote is handled, right?

[Wilms]

41. I don't think that's quite what OTOH is saying.

It's clear enough that you disagree.

[BeFree]

42. You don't think?

If he didn't, then why isn't he complaining? Why aren't you complaining?

Are you two willing to just let it slide? If so, then yes, we damn sure do disagree, you got that right.

[Wilms]

43. He and I are among those who don't agree with your interpretation of that law.

And among those who took the time to explain why.

That's all.

It's not as if we agree with your interpretaion and then say the heck with democracy. :shrug:

If I read the law as you do I'd be, no doubt, enthusiastic. But I don't. And so I'm not. Please don't hate me.

You've got an idea. Build a coalition of those who agree regardless of the rebuttal, and do what you can to fight fraud in the way you see fit. Get in touch with the reform lawyers...Fritrakis, LandShark, Finley, et. al. and make your case.

But it's no reason for us to come to blows.

Be free.

[BeFree]

44. Come to blows?

WTF?

Either you are happy being screwed, or your not.

Either you see in the law that there is supposed to be an *audit capacity* in the voting systems or you don't. If you do then why are you arguing? I can only take it from here that you think the audit capacity requirement is not important to you.

Of course, if you feel that way then you are part of my problem, eh?

[Wilms]

45. I don't agree with your interpretation of that law.

And I took the time to explain that.

That's all.

It's not as if I agree with your interpretation and then say I'm "happy being screwed". That's you putting words in my mouth, no more.

If I read the law as you do I'd be, no doubt, enthusiastic, (even if I didn't bring my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464950&mesg_id=465320 "> wrath upon them). But I don't. And so I'm not. Please don't berate me.

To you, it should be obvious that we lack the ability to appreciate the law as you do. Get in touch with the reform lawyers...Fritrakis, LandShark, Finley, et. al., and then make your case.

[BeFree]

46. So

You are happy with the *audit capacity* of the paperless DREs. Fine.

[Wilms]

47. I took the time to explain that. I really did.

Get in touch with the reform lawyers...Fritrakis, LandShark, Finley, et. al., and then make your case.

[BeFree]

48. .......

don't need lawyers to tell me what to think, say or feel.

[Wilms]

49. You'll need them to press your case in court.

Is that not your aim? To get this law enforced?

[BeFree]

51. Do you think it should be enforced? Yes, or no.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

53. it appears that the aim is to waste time

is to waste people's time:

-circular arguments
-platitudes are mainstay of "conversation"
-has no own plan of action
-adheres to incorrect information even when new info surfaces
-accuses others who correct mis-information of ulterior motives
-asks questions but does not feel compelled to answer


bottom line -
distracts from serious work

reminds me of naughty child disrupting class.

haven't we learned this long ago, that its futile to answer
circular questions?

now the strategy is slightly different,but the results are the same.

a friggin waste of time for all.

and thats the goal.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

50. some questions for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x464950#465333

(hint - they are easy to answer)

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. you can say it, but it is untrue

If I didn't have a problem with the machines and the lack of audit capacity, I wouldn't support the former HR 550. Actually, I think DREs shouldn't even be considered unless they produce a full-size voter-verified paper ballot on real paper. (Not that I would trust them then, but then, I don't believe in "trusting" election technologies or procedures at all.) I don't think there is any DRE on the market that I would consider acceptable.

If you really don't see any difference between "what does HAVA say" and "what does OTOH support" -- well, how is that possible? If you said that HAVA permits DREs, and I said that you must not have a problem with DREs, what would you think of me?

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. oh, I forgot to mention the flying goalposts

In #12, you quoted Holt: "HAVA requires voting machines to produce a 'permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity,' but this provision fails to mandate anything beyond a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically." You added, "Which means that regardless of what is, or is not, mandated, the non-VVPAT DREs are not compliant with the law, because they cannot create a 'permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity.'"

I challenged this claim.

Now you say it's "bloody obvious" that "a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically" is not a "permanent paper record." In other words, apparently, it's bloody obvious to you that Holt was wrong. One has to wonder not only how you know that Holt is wrong, but why you chose that quotation in the first place and presented it as if it supported your argument.

[BeFree]

52. Now you see why?

OTOH claims this:

Now you say it's "bloody obvious" that "a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically" is not a "permanent paper record."

To twist these words of Galloglas

"a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically" is not the same thing as "a "permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity".

And some people might wonder why I had OTOH on ignore. I mean, c'mon, OTOH has flat out twisted Galloglas' statement. This kind of stuff is absolutely wrong.

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. why?

Perhaps I confused you by omitting the "manual audit capacity" part, since it appeared every time anyway. Let's try an abbreviation: PPRMAC.

galloglas in #12 quotes Holt: "HAVA requires voting machines to produce a 'PPRMAC', but this provision fails to mandate anything beyond a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically.

galloglas in #12 says: "...the non-VVPAT DREs are not compliant with the law, because they cannot create a 'PPRMAC.'"

I in #21 ask whether galloglas is claiming that the machines can't produce a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically, since Holt says that is all that is mandated by the provision under discussion.

galloglas in #22 retorts: "I am stating the bloody obvious. That 'a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically' is not the same thing as 'a PPRMAC.'... Which means that regardless of what is, or is not, mandated, the non-VVPAT DREs are not compliant with the law, because they cannot create a 'PPRMAC.'"

To review: Holt says that a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically satisfies the PPRMAC requirement. galloglas says that a print-out is "not the same thing as" a PPRMAC, and that the machines cannot create a PPRMAC.

How am I twisting galloglas's words? Does he think that a print-out of whatever the machine records electronically is a PPRMAC? If so, then why does he say not only that it "is not the same thing as" a PPRMAC, but that the machines can't create a PPRMAC? All this may be obvious to you, but the rest of us seem to be lost.

[BeFree]

9. Oops, I see an ignore here

Would someone else kindly tell me what is being ignored here by me and my DU?

[Wilms]

10. Allow me, BF.

The reply to you reads as follows:

"I know, it can be confusing"

Unfortunately, the law does not explicitly require a "paper record of each individual vote as cast." You're welcome to interpret the "manual audit capacity" requirement as logically entailing a paper record of each individual vote, but that doesn't mean you would win in court.

As I'm sure you're aware, this is not a fresh topic that you discovered in the last few days. This page http://www.votingmachinesprocon.org/questions/havavvpat.htm might help. Note what John Ensign said about his amendment at the time (upper left), which seems to agree with your interpretation. (I haven't double-checked each of the citations on this page.) Now notice what he says here. http://ensign.senate.gov/issleg/issues/record.cfm?id=256683& Note also what Rush Holt says here. http://www.house.gov/sites/members/nj12_holt/HR550FAQ.shtml

Awful nice of that poster to take the time o research these helpful notes.

And the poster didn't even complain that the argument you are making is the same one that e-vote loving lever machine hating people are making about NY States refusal to buy those fraud-prone devices.

[BeFree]

15. Thanks Wilms

Everyone knows we need a VVPB.

And Holt agrees with me about the systems having no audit capacity, from his site...he claims;

"...and neither voters nor election officials would be left to rely exclusively on an unauditable electronic tally."

and

"...and no auditability benefit -- that incorrect data would simply be repeated in all of the "ballot images," in the protective counter, and elsewhere in the system.."

Like I said in the OP, we won't get reform from congress when even the congressman so many are pinning their hopes on can't come right out and say the law has already been violated. The law calls for an audit capacity and Holt clearly says that the DRE systems used are unauditable but is umwilling to make the case openly and firmly.

We've been screwed and we are still bent over. Stand up, people. Stand up and shove it back in their faces!

[Wilms]

17. I'm not sure he agrees with you. per se.

But he's arguing that VVPAT-less voting is not a good idea.

If he felt the law provided for some form of audiability machines currently lack I think he might argue that. Instead, he seems to feel there is something inadequate with HAVA and seeks to ammend it through additional legislation.

Lever-favoring NYers are nervous because 550's passage would (unless v2 has a change of language) put an end to lever machines.

I know a lever-lover who's willing to part company with the behemouth IF 550 v2 calls for an adequate audit. The 2% called for in v1 would not be adequate except in races that aren't very close.

So, you may be a 550 supporter afterall. :) Please push for a robust audit, however.

[BeFree]

18. Doesn't agree?

But I quoted his own words where he said the systems were not auditable. What else does anyone need?

So the law says systems must be auditable and the hero says the systems are not auditable..... I find that he and I agree.

He just doesn't have the wherewithal to make the claim that HAVA was violated, but he would, if he could, but he can't, so he won't. That's the way it goes, eh?

No way congress is gonna reform election systems, I just don't see it happening. Not until they can admit the violations.

[Wilms]

20. What can I say?

Call his office and ask why he's pushing legislation instead of prosecutions.

It seems to me the law provides for auditing the machine, not the votes people cast. Is that screwed? Of course. But it seems what it says.

I remember this going around two years ago. Any lawsuits?

People seem satisfied that HAVA is screwed until it's adequately amended. Try not to be too upset with them.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. the cost of lawsuits

forgetting the difficulty of winning court cases,
(I won some, lost some)

it costs out the ying yang to file even a small suit.

One of our NC counties sued their local Board of Elections
(because they shut the public out of the meetings about the
voting machines).

This group of county activists ran up $40,000 in legal fees for
a very very small case. I think they had 2 court appearances.
It was fast tracked.

The local activists won the verdict, but they were NOT awarded
the full legal fees.

They got a couple thousand.

They are still holding fund raisers.

This is a case of David taking on Goliath, and paying out
the wazoo. Plus, it was hard on the plaintiffs, getting all
of this publicity.

I believe Lowell Finley said that the cases he does run up at least
$100K - at least!

There just isn't the funding, and then the judges rule
against you anyway, because politics are at play there too.

And there is Florida, they have lawsuits, but they need more money
to fund these suits.

[Bill Bored]

29. See post 27. nt

[Bill Bored]

11. It doesn't matter what I think. Ask the DoJ and the courts!

They want to ban mechanical lever machines in NY because they don't produce a printout of every vote. There is no mention of ANY printers in HAVA. See Sect. 301's definition of "Voting System." No printers required anywhere in there.

But the answer to your question is Yes. The authors of this law believed that a contemporaneously voter-verified paper record was not necessary and that printing an electronic record from a computer's memory somehow constitutes an audit or even a recount. Same for the summary results you mention, because in the absence of a voter-verified paper record, that's about as good as a printout of individual votes from memory anyway. Because this capability exists and no one has been able to challenge it successfully in the courts so far (see Rep. Robert Wexler's case in FL that says there's supposed to be a "right" to a "recount" -- and he keeps losing!), the machines cannot be verified independently of their own hardware and software. I.e., we must TRUST the voting system.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

23. why I hate the word "contemporaneously"

WHen NC's law was being "adjusted" for the 18th of 31 times,
some A-hole (might as well say it) re-wrote
Voter Verified Paper Ballot
to read
contemporaneously printed paper record

Since it isn't public information as to which devils
and satan spawn are allowed to make changes to legislation
behind closed doors, we had to launch our attack

(Our previous nice behavior had emboldened our opposition
into thinking they could screw us over)

We put the name of the Committee's Chairman on
the home page of my website, his phone numbers,
emails and faxes, and urged people to call him
and demand the language be corrected.

That got the language corrected quickly,
and it didnt happen again in any of the other of 31 changes to the
bill (while in committee).

There was so much legal mumbo jumbo in the bill, they
thought we wouldn't catch the fine print

[galloglas]

13. Ooops! Forgot the well-deserved K'n'R

Well done, BF. Clean, efficient, cogent, compelling. Nicely dissected.

That said, I've a son who is taking biology this semester. He wants to know whether you also dissect frogs or trout?

[BeFree]

19. Nah

Just freepers and other CON-servatives.

[Bill Bored]

27. Nothing new here BeFree. This LAWSUIT has been in progress for years!

<http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/gen/ap/FL_Scotus_Voting_Lawsuit.html>

The appeals court had found that "Florida's manual recount procedures do not deprive voters of due process" because the state has a technique for reviewing votes cast on the touch-screen machines even without a lengthy paper trail.

Touch-screen machines have electronic ballot summaries that can be printed out, but Wexler and other critics of paperless voting say those summaries don't provide enough detailed information to determine whether the voter made a mistake or the machine malfunctioned.

[Wilms]

28. Why do you hate freedom? n/t

[galloglas]

34. I see the point you make, however,

Just because it is beaten once, does not mean that it is not law, or should not be law, ultimately becoming juri deciscis.

Consider Brown vs. School Board of Topeka, in 1954. Prior to that the juri deciscis was (off the top of my head) the Plessy vs.Ferguson case of 1894.

So, it may have taken 60 years for the SCOTUS to recognize that "separate but equal" was an oxymoron, but it is now unquestioned (except by the Midwest Militia and the KKK).

So, though rebuffed from hearing the first time the issue is floated, I am not convinced it will stay that way.

[Bill Bored]

38. How about this then? Wexler still on ballot

Wexler still on ballot

Palm Beach Post Editorial
<http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2007/01/17/m14a_wexler_edit_0117.html>

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

The quest by U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, for a uniform voting system ended, not surprisingly, with the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case. But the problem hasn't gone away.

Florida has two main systems for casting votes: fill-in-the-bubble paper ballots and electronic touch-screen machines. Only one, the paper ballot, lends itself to a recount to settle close contests. Rep. Wexler argued that the Supreme Court's 2000 decision in Bush vs. Gore mandated a uniform approach. The only way to do that, he contended, also was to require a paper trail for touch-screen voting.

If there's any ruling that today's Supreme Court would prefer never to hear about, Bush vs. Gore is it. Justices twisted long-held beliefs to stop the vote-recounting in Florida on equal protection grounds and hand the presidency to George W. Bush. Now, the court wants nothing to do with the equal protection arguments raised by Rep. Wexler. But as the Sarasota County congressional election controversy has shown, nothing new can be learned from recounts of touch-screen votes without a paper trail. Voter intent is lost.

-snip-

The state must decide whether the printers will be accurate enough to override the electronic count. If they're not, the question raised by Rep. Wexler's suit again becomes paramount: How do voters who use one system get the same protection that their ballot will count as voters who use the other system? The Supreme Court didn't even want to ask.

[galloglas]

39. Interesting!

As I pointed out today, in some other post (I think), it took 60 years for Brown vs. School Board of Topeka to overturn the Plessy vs Ferguson case.

The Supreme Court, in 1954, ruled that "separate, but equal" was not possible.

When the plaintiff is (actually) right, sometimes the nail has to be hammered, time and time again, by a succession of plaintiffs.

Obviously the SCOTUS didn't want to go back to Bush v. Gore (I don't blame them).

But here's a question. What happens when this winds up with a decision that supports Wexler (or some other aggrieved plaintiff)? Will the SCOTUS hear it at all? Let it stand, in order to dodge the issue? Or will they have to hear it, invoking Bush v. Gore, just to keep the Democrats from sweeping into the ascendancy?

[kster]

31. If I was elected to office, and all these people had so many doubts

that I was truly elected, the first thing I would do, as an elected official, is come to sites like this and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I was truly elected, and not S-selected.

But as you see, there is no mad dash of Politicians willing to do that.

I wonder why?

[galloglas]

35. Excellent point!

I, too, wonder why.

[bearfan454]

36. It has to be a legally countable paper "ballot" that gets produced

Anything else is just a printout of the machine totals. Each person can have a paper printout of how they voted. Paper printouts are not ballots and can never be counted for election results. A legal paper ballot that gets printed out for each voter is countable.