National: MoveOn Destroys Own Credibility As Activists, Supporting HR 811 Holt bill today

[kster]

Posted by Landshark...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x470178#470189

MoveOn strikes a devastating blow against its own credibility as an activist organization with this strong support for Holt's HR 811 "paper trail and audit" "solution". They specifically reference the last minute strong opposition which was activists burning up the fax lines of Congress, with a little help from some elected officials opposing unfunded mandates. Word on the street was that this committee of Congress had never seen such a response to oppose legislation, yet here MoveOn attempts to commit the activists who aren't keeping close tabs on this into fighting with the other activists!

We can have legitimate disagreements and oppose each other, but for MoveOn not to even identify the issues correctly is truly abysmal. To refuse to honor any other activist effforts by even so much as raising and dismissing the concerns is a dishonor to the needs of democracy for a vigorous debate.

For starters, how does Moveon Justify continued use of touch screen DREs and continued secret vote counting on the first counts with both optical scans and touch screens? These issues are far more fundamental and important than the band-aid talking points Moveon cites below.

We can differ on any number of political issues, but if they can not find the democratic will to count the vote openly and honestly, together with the intellectual honesty to realize that DREs and secret counting opscans DO NOT MEET even the most minimal standards, they've not done their homework sufficiently to deserve the leadership position that they enjoy. (they don't even have a rationale for their lack of concern, they just rally "the troops." -- it is inexcusable for not even engaging the public debate or what Jefferson called "the bar of public reason").

[IndyOp]

1. I support H.R. 811 - it does not demand an immediate ban on DRE's,

but it will provide much needed $$$$ and a HUGE push to voter-verified optical scan paper ballot voting.

H.R. 811 is the ONLY chance my state - Indiana - has for making progress toward a verified election in 2008.

[Fredda Weinberg]

5. Federal gov can't really ban anything

All they can do is offer incentives and threaten federal elections. But constitutionally, this is a state issue.

[Land Shark]

10. Other states like CA already have paper trail/audit regimes

you won't find any activists in San Diego for example, where they've litigated these issues, thinking that paper trails and audits bring us any closer to verified elections at all. For starters, they do the audits wrong apparently on purpose, so even a perfect audit statute won't help. No legislation focuses on giving citizens powerful remedies/hammers to enforce the law

[IndyOp]

17. It is not true that "audits don't work" -- audits that are not

performed according to law should be "outed" and where people are not following the law, the law should be enforced so that those people serve jail time - like the folks in Ohio who are going to jail for cheating in the 2004 Presidential recount.

Audits work when they are conducted correctly - see for example Minnesota.

Finally, I do not find your message of "citizen empowerment" at all empowering. You just keep saying the same thing - that citizens aren't capable of making sure that thorough audits are conducted - and that's bull.

I agree that paper trails - ballots printed by machine - are far, far less reliable than optical scan ballots that are marked by the voter. H.R. 811 requires that paper ballots be available at all precincts "if voters would otherwise be delayed in casting their vote" and/or if the machine doesn't print the paper ballot for the voter to verify. This means that any County Clerk that holds onto their precious DREs that print "paper trails" now has to PAY $$$ for paper in the printer and for "emergency paper ballots" - H.R. 811 WILL push Clerk's into adopting optical scan systems and provide the money needed to purchase them before 2008.

...unless, of course, you, Bev Harris and Brad Friedman manage to destroy H.R. 811 - my state's ONLY HOPE for getting paper ballots & audits.

[Land Shark]

20. the audits are done wrong in CA (with paper trails) and the officials don't follow up

so what do YOU do? The press was forwarded the information and doesn't cover it. So now what? I'm not a CA attorney, but the ones I know of haven't come up with any good options. "Should be outed" doesn't have a specific meaning that compels a result or even makes a result likely.

Do you mean if that you believe an audit worked in one state or even in 10 states, but there were other states where they don't work at all, that this is an acceptable state of affairs??? Minnesota, generally speaking is a relatively uncorrupt state. The only places that really count in terms of assessing these post-election remedies are the corrupt or lazy jurisdictions. Elections are supposed to work basically 100% of the time. How do you make sure that the audits will work in these jurisdictions?

This is particularly important since the post-election audit is the sole tradeoff or compensation for allowing a secret first count to announce the winners, control the headlines, and define who has to pay to initiate a recount or election contest at the very moment when campaigns are usually exhausted and penniless

[eridani]

29. If audits don't work, why bother?

If they ignore laws about audits, why wouldn't they ignore laws banning touchscreens, or anti-secrecy laws?

[madfloridian]

2. Let's attack MoveOn and never compromise on anything.

Let's do that.

Never give in, never compromise.

:sarcasm:

[Land Shark]

9. FUNNY YOU SHOULD MENTION THAT, MADFLORIDIAN

Because, when we move into the area of RIGHTS, a so-called "compromise" of a right is the VIOLATION of that same right. Yet you are dripping with sarcasm in your emoticon at the idea of "no compromise." In legal lingo this compromise is called "burdening" the right, and its illegal and/or unconstitutional.

have you considered whether rights, fundamental rights, or fundamental principles of democracy are involved in election reform? If so, an exception applies because rights are a different animal, one that can not be compromised in any significant way.

With rights, you get the whole enchilada, even if others don't like it. In fact, if others not liking or other things weighing against it result in denial of the right, it was never a right in the first place.

Rights are things that TRUMP other considerations. No need to give in, Mad floridian, No need to compromise with rights, because the proper view is that rights destroy their opposition.

Rights are things that invalidate legislation offending them, in court. (Never give in, never give up!)

I think there is a PROCESS that we all, as Americans, are obligated more or less to go through when examining legislation, especially involving important things like elections. STEP ONE is to consider the Constitution and what rights and fundamental values are involved. Some of us are still stuck on step one. If we fail to fully consider step one, we end up inevitably eroding or violating those rights, in small or large part, because we are not properly considering them.

That's why many state constitutions state in similar ways that a "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is necessary to the preservation of liberty and representative government".

Yet these fundamental rights and values have powered every successful movement in america right up to Martin Luther King's I have a Dream speech, which also evokes the language of the declaration of independence ("we hold these truths to be self-evident....")

The only way HAVA could get passed is by not recurring to fundamental principles.

The only way Holt is considered the only "realistic" game in town is by not recurring to fundamental principles

INTERESTING AND POWERFUL PROPERTIES OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES

RIghts have some REALLY interesting properties that are highly relevant to legislation and debating legislation.

1. They can invalidate that legislation, IN COURT.

2. They are not subject to significant compromise - a compromised right is a VIOLATED right. In legal lingo, it is called "Burdening" the right, which is illegal or unconstitutional as the case may be.

3. Rights would not be rights if they did not prevail or TRUMP when in conflict with other considerations or interests. One does not have a right AT ALL if the opposition of even 70% of the american public would result in the non-occurrence or non-enforcement of the RIGHT. A right means a court will compel the granting of the right no matter what the state or the public thinks.

4. If the rights are constitutional or foundational fundamental rights, they COMMAND our support as Americans since we are all politically obliged to uphold the constitution (or change it) and elections officials especially have sworn an oath to uphold it. In other words, it's not necessarily OPTIONAL for anyone or everyone. The democracy tent can hold 100 different political parties and points of view. As a private citizen you are free to deny fundamental rights and principles or ignore them deliberately, but then others are free to call you unamerican, because these are core, inclusive american values.

5. Fundamental rights like voting rights are powerfully moving and inspirational to most Americans.

Do any of these four qualities grab anyone's interest in terms of their relevance to VOTING legislation pending in state or federal government???

In summary, fundamental rights and principles are binding on all, they command our attention, they prevail or trump competing interests, they can not be compromised, and they inspire us all. In the event this does not create a powerful enough argument, then the same fundamental rights can be used in court to invalidate offending legislation.

So, when we take the "rights approach" we may well come up with a different result in our analysis of things like the HOlt bill.

We may find that the consideration of the administrative difficulty of finding enough pollworkers to openly and publicly count votes is trifling and immaterial and rejected as a reason to deny a voting-related right, rather than something to be "balanced" with the right or some direction that we can't go in because it risks offending powerful election officials or activist organizations. If we shy away from a right on account of the influence or power --- it's not a right, or rather we are acting as if it is not a right.

I submit that it is akin to "activist malpractice" not to use fundamental rights. Actually it is malpractice as a citizen not to frequently recur to them, if we are serious about the preservation of liberty or representative government.

Turns out, that when you discover and apply these rights, you gain power, they command everyone's attention, they transform the debate, they are not supposed to be compromised, and they can later invalidate legislation in court.

Also, if somebody voluntarily and clearly allies themselves AGAINST this fundamental rights position I have against secret vote counting and in favor of public oversight, THEY PLACE THEMSELVES outside the democracy tent, which itself is broad enough to hold 100 political parties and points of view.

But there's some things you JUST CAN NOT DO in a representative democracy. It's not subject to compromise, it's a right, it's foundational.

if these foundational rights are implicated, it's not "just one person's opinion" -- these things make CLAIMS upon all Americans that can not be ignored as "just opinion."

All the talk of great "compromise" on voting rights is irrefutable evidence that people are not frequently recurring to fundamental principles. (unless these principles are simply NOT implicated, in which case all of the normal principles of political compromise fully apply...) Moreover it is also proof that they are not even putting the fundamental rights and principles INTO PLAY in the political arena, even though they often motivate the internal activist subjectively and internally. How can rights be vindicated if they are not articulated and vindicated?

E-voting and Holt both preserve and sustain secret vote counting on the all-important FIRST COUNTS, relegating "integrity" to expensive, unwieldy, poorly performed, resisted, and hazardous "sore loser" remedies that take place many days or weeks after the election result is set. Who likes FLorida 13's chances?? Is this our dream? Do we have an army of lawyers paid or volunteering and ready to go?

Because Holt and e-voting sustain secret vote counting on the all-important first counts they simply can't survive anything except us continuing to fail to recur to fundamental principles. But hey, lawyers stand to make a lot of money litigating these post-election "remedies" that are so expensive and rarely successful, and that assumes they don't swear in the "winner" weeks before you can legally file for a recount or election contest, as happend in CA50 on June 13, 2007 when Brian Bilbray was sworn in 7 days after the election, the Congressional record stating 68,500 votes not counted (to the best of Congress's knowledge)

EAC power can not possibly be consolidated to control our elections for on high except for a failure to recur to fundamental principles of federalism. Rights, the compromise of which is a violation of the right....

Time to defend democracy. With rights, compromise is surrender. If there are details that are not within the scope of these rights and principles, then it's fine to compromise. But it is impossible to compromise on public oversight or secret vote counting and call ourselves true defenders of democracy.

So the first question we ask ourselves is whether fundamental rights are involved in the area of voting. If they are, we sure as hell don't compromise on those.

So, Mad Floridian, I think your sarcasm emoticon right next to "never give in, never compromise" was ill-advised indeed.

If the right is liberty for example, I believe the relevant standard was set by Patrick Henry: give me Liberty or Give me Death. Uncompromising, never give in, never give up.... Americans LOVE that!! -- at least in the RIGHTS place.

I am the author of the quoted portions of the OP, and I stand behind that message. This does involve our election rights and the most fundamental right in democracy, the right to an open and honest and publicly verifiable count of the vote. Not secret opscan counts or secret touch screen counts followed by convoluted flawed, expensive BS post-election remedies that work infrequently at best.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. great, HAVA is unconstitutional, problem solved

so you can stop haranguing us about your vision, go win the case, and we're done.

I don't get it. If you really believe this stuff, why do you even care about HR 811?

[truedelphi]

33. Gosh you are long-winded

I support every single word of what you are saying.

Thank you for your efforts.

(Just occurred to me - it's yr right to be so!)

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Cause touch screen make good printer

Duz mult-language, addresses the need of the physically challenged ... my mother's friends loved it. All we needed was a solution to the verification issue: when you walk out of optical scanning you should have precinct based counters (with the switch turned on) and if it's DREs, then all they did was print a scannable ballot - get in line to make sure it's counted.

Leave the secretaries of state alone on election night to do their job. We'll have audit capability and can test to our legal heart's content.

I don't even like MoveOn but this is an easy one to defend.

[Eric J in MN]

4. His name is "Land Shark." NT

NT

[kster]

6. Fixed, thanks......nt

[Donnachaidh]

7. oh puhlease...

:eyes:

[Land Shark]

11. Do you mean to say you can't be bothered by this "no compromise" talk?

Then you should really see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=470208&mesg_id=470219

Compromises of rights are nothing less than the violation of those rights.

Are important or fundamental rights involved here in elections? Hmmmmm.

[Donnachaidh]

19. no dear, I'm tired of watching people with axes to grind post from one group

post messages of *doom* about another group that doesn't do exactly as their group does.

[Land Shark]

24. I don't know what your experience has been with "messages of doom"

or what you are talking about. People are in a stronger position if they argue FOR american constitutional, voting, and democratic values than if they argue against them or ignore them. But no one faces Doom, where did you get this idea from? If there's any pessimistic sentence in their isn't it balanced out and then some by the specter that by arguing rights the overall position of the movement might be increased at least a little?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. 3 million Moveon members even heard of this DU member?

There are 3 million Moveon members even know has about 3 million members, many of whom don't even know much at all about the voting machine issue. They have probably never heard of Land Shark either.

I don't know how many of Moveon's members are also either:

-members of The Election Center,
-members of the National Association of County Commissioners
-members of the ADA/Jim Dickson's group
-followers of LandShark

The people crying out against HR 811 the most are -

-the vendor lobby because HR 811 bans the toilet paper ballot and nothing they have meets
the standards,
-the Election Center, who accepts donations from voting machine companies,
-the National Association of County Commissioners ( I fought the State association in NC)
-anti paper election officials
-Bev Harris and Nancy Tobi

Its the opponents of HR 811 who will be tied to the paperless machines and failed elections if
somehow they manage to stymie this legislation.

If we are still voting on paperless in 08, people will know where to point the finger.

[Land Shark]

12. People that have "paper" aren't happy, hasn't helped any

When it comes to fundamental rights, the compromise of those rights is the violation of those rights. Voting Rights are certainly fundamental rights.

Why do people think that the sacred voting rights of our fellow citizens are their things to politically play with, or to give up on based on personal considerations of the perceived difficulty of the fight, when many have been asked to and in fact have DIED for those same rights?? This is yet another reason why compromise is not appropriate.

But certainly, even if it were allowable (compromising voting rights) then we would most certainly want these fundamental principles to be persuasively, loudly and prominently argued, to make sure they are "in play" in pure form.

I've not heard the principles being argued AS RIGHTS. Because when that happens it transforms the debate because rights TRUMP other things in their way. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=470208&mesg_id=470219

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. go ahead, keep digging

Quite a few people in New Hampshire were happy about the op-scan paper that they could -- and did -- recount in 2004 to confirm the presidential count. Ironically, even the infamously awful DRE audit in the Cuyahoga County primary generally confirmed the original count, although it also demonstrated that that implementation of DRE paper trails was inadequate (something we already knew!). Results have been confirmed on paper, results have been overturned on paper -- paper is good. (Edgy stuff, I know.) HR 811 provides more paper, better paper, mandatory audits of the paper.

Where access to the paper has been denied, most of us would consider that that demonstrates the limits of litigation and the need for new legislation.

"Why do people think that the sacred voting rights of our fellow citizens are their things to politically play with, or to give up based on personal considerations...."

I do not acknowledge your moral authority. In fact, in my eyes, comments like these substantially undermine it.

[Land Shark]

15. Some people will pretend to be unmoved by voting rights or election rights

The rights were not created by me or by my authority, they can only be reported. Their scope can be argued sometimes.

But these rights are implicated somewhere in our election reform efforts. At those points, it is not appropriate for us to compromise them, we should instead defend them. Right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. please say what you mean

Sooner or later, you will have to state clearly what fundamental rights you are accusing us of scorning, or else we will just tune you out.

"The rights were not created by me or by my authority, they can only be reported."

Yes, please, by all means, report them. Lay off the hand-waving innuendo about "some people" and say what you mean.

[Land Shark]

21. I've already referred to a future piece, but ask you to just name whatever you can think of

right now. You've thought about this now, obviously, so what is your opinion? You just put out a 3 part study over a significiant number of days, and we had to wait for that. But what, if any, Constitutional or fundamental rights and fundamental principles do you think apply in the area of elections?

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. but you trashed MoveOn NOW

It's your responsibility to explain and support your attack -- not my responsibility to enumerate a constitutional theory of voting rights. Not that I can blame you, under the circumstances, for wanting to change the subject.

[Land Shark]

25. I'd love it to hear you or MoveOn or anybody else claim that there were no rights

implicated at all in vote counting. MoveOn has emails from me and others that cite many arguments, including rights. Do you represent Moveon or something?

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. exactly: we all believe in voting rights

That's a fundamental point that you far too often scant. Frankly, you waste a lot of time trying to make other people look bad. I don't think it's a good leadership model.

[Febble]

31. Indeed we do

which is why I support any legislation that will increase the probability that the person elected is the person the voters freely selected. We can argue about what the best legislation is, or, indeed, what the best system is, but it doesn't alter my belief in that fundamental right.

And it may well turn out that New York paperless levers secure that right better than Ukrainian HCPBs, for instance. I don't "believe" in paper per se, although I'd dearly like to see voter-verified paper records with random audits mandated in the US. I'm not convinced by any argument against.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

32. do you represent "won't Moveon"?

because I don't see you providing a way to bring election integrity/transparency to any state.

I do see lots of words, lots and lots.

OH, AND LOTS OF LARGE CAP LETTERS TOO.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

27. last time I listened to that kind of advice

Yes, lets see, it was a few years ago, we were told to put our trust in lawyers:

CNN.com - Kerry: 'We will fight for every vote' - Feb. 11, 2004 John Kerry spoke to supporters Tuesday night on the campus of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, following the Democratic presidential primaries ...
www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/elec04.prez.transcript.kerry/index.html

Once an election is stolen on paperless voting machines, a thousand lawyers will be as much help as teats on a boar hog.

~ No paper, No Proof ..... No Proof, No Truth ~

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

26. the bovine excrement meter just went up

The paper has come in darn handy in my state.

We have had manual recounts, we have had two post election audits.

We can improve, but we have something to work with.

Good thing most states activists don't think like you and
are working fast and furiously to get paper.

[lonestarnot]

16. Move on can SAFOMA. I am sick of their idea of watered down

tenacity. Good thing I never gave them any money. I would really be pissed.

[truedelphi]

34. I think I agree with you

I know I would agree with you if I knew what your acronym means %-(

[Cookie wookie]

23. Some of the positives about HR811 as written

1) Language that identifies the voter-verified paper record as a "voter-verified paper ballot" and makes it the ballot of record for audits and recounts.
2) Durability and readability requirements: language that works to undermine the use of the current TSX printing technology.
3) Instructions to voters to verify the paper ballot
4) Disclosure of software on request to any person!!
5) Prohibition of the use of wireless communications in voting systems
6) Prohibition of connections or transmission of system information over the internet from voting stations.
7) Vendor security standards
8) Prohibitions against turning individuals away from the polls because of equipment problems & shortages of supplies, etc.
9) Use of emergency paper ballots that can not be counted as
provisionals
10) Prohibitions of certain conflicts of interest
11) Compensation regulations for ITAs and manufacturers; Setting up Escrow Accounts
12) Testing results availability, information on testing
13) Lab selection requirements
14) Funds for payments for meeting costs
15) Requiring manual audits by hand counts in some circumstances

[BeFree]

37. Yes, very good

But what we are left with is still a Boar Hog --- with teats!

[WHAT]

28. I agree...

that's all. except My accessment was similar when moveon didn't address election fraud issues early on. It just seems like a ketchup group. I quit them maybe 3 or 4 years ago.

on edit, to clarify...I think of ketchup groups as "movements" that squirt ketchup at issues to give the appearance of blood while no real damage has been done...think of kids, ketchup wounds was a family saying.

[truedelphi]

35. Here's a question for everyone here: Does HR811

Undo all those states (like New Mexico) that have moved into the world of paper ballots only?

[demodonkey]

36. Good Heavens, NO!

:-)

[hedda_foil]

38. HR 811 encourages many more states to move into the world of paper ballots only.

Exactly like New Mexico.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[MarjorieG]

39. Unprepared Move-On hypes what it doesn't know.

They even use a quote about a former version of the bill. That's the problem. Everyone is following People for the American Way, who haven't been the good guys on this, advocating for accessibility, without concern for security. They participated with HAVA in 2002.

We've learned a lot in a couple years. More proof the DREs have never worked, and neither have the paper trails. They will never fix what is inherently wrong with secret first votes, and audits that never happen.

With unfunded mandates and for innovation, loopholes that cause machine tallies to trump the trail (which has never been audited) and the paper ballot, makes the DREs more permanent. The trail is never counted, because it is not the legal ballot, voters don't check it, and for mere difficulty, a recent 300 votes took 3 days to compare.

Please go to http://www.votersunite.org for a variety of papers on why the Holt bill does more harm than good. It's not just election officials against this bill, but activists who took a look and didn't like what we saw.

Move-On is trying to deliver this for the Dem Party wanting a win on this, giving them cover, as part of their effort to work inside and out, appealing to grassroots. Not a bad idea, but voting is a tough, technical issue, too difficult to simplistically claim all will be well with this bill. Not.

[Cookie wookie]

42. It makes more sense to get to work as an activist

on educating PFAW members than to try to kill the only bill we have that has a chance of giving us voter verified paper ballots which some of us have been working for (for no pay I might add) for 4 years or more.

Also characterizing Votersunite's position as saying that Holt does more harm than good, may not be accurate. Aren't they saying they support it with amendments? If so, that isn't the same thing as "does more harm than good."

[Cookie wookie]

43. I don't disagree that this bill doesn't fix all the ills of electronic voting, but it's a beginning.

"The trail is never counted, because it is not the legal ballot,"

Actually in HR811 the voter verified paper ballot, which you're calling the "trail" is designated as the official ballot for recounts and audits.

"voters don't check it,"

The bill calls for signage that warns the voter to check the paper because it will be the official ballot for recounts and audits.

"too difficult to simplistically claim all will be well with this bill."

What would lead to such a conclusion? It flys in the face of what happens with law, which is, in a sense, a living thing which continues to evolve over time. Isn't it simplistic to propose that the Democrats would declare all is well if the bill passed and that would be the end of everyone working to improve voting legislation to ensure security, accuracy, transparency, and verifiability?

[TEDIUM]

41. Republicans

Will they ever learn?