A Flawed US Election Reform Bill

H.R.811 sounds great: It's stated purpose is "to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot." Unfortunately, it sounds like the details have some devils, as usual. From the Bev Harris article Is a flawed bill better than no bill?: "[T]he Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records affixed to DRE voting machines) in 2008, requires more durable ballots in 2010, and requires a complex set of audits. It also cements and further empowers a concentration of power over elections under the White House, gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting, mandates an expensive 'text conversion' device that does not yet exist which is not fully funded, and removes 'safe harbor' for states in a way that opens them up to unlimited, expensive, and destabilizing litigation." Update: 07/11 16:23 GMT by KD : Derek Slater writes "EFF's e-voting expert Matt Zimmerman recently published this article separating the myths about HR 811 from the facts, and countering many of the misleading and outright false claims being made about it."

But...

[Black Parrot (19622)]

Other than that, it's ok.

Pwned by muscle memory

[tttonyyy (726776)]

Type "Wii" to much and you start producing words like "Biill".

I knew I was a PHP ubergeek when I found myself typing "mysql" automatically whenever I meant to type "myself" in e-mails (and I did it typing this sentence and had to correct it, I kid you not!).

Re:

[tttonyyy (726776)]

Type "Wii" to much

Just to pre-empt the pedants, yes, I did mean "too" and not "to".

I feel your pain kdawson. The force is strong between us.

Re:

[Red Flayer (890720)]

by tttonyyy (726776) Alter Relationship on Thursday July 12, @08:50AM (#19836643)

Sure, but that doesn't explain your muscle-memory producing "tttonyyy" for your nick.

My opinion

[CastrTroy (595695)]

My opinion is that the US election system has become too cumbersome/complicated for the average person. I'm Canadian, and I find voting very simple. Federal elections require me to check 1 box. That's it. There is about 7? boxes to choose from depending on which riding you are located in. Each box shows the name of the representative of a specific party. Provincial elections are the same, although there's usually less boxes. Municipal elections are actually the most complicated, in which I have to vote for Mayor, Councillor, and school board trustee. There's too many options on the US ballot, and having different ballots for every state or county when people are electing the president just makes things overly complicated. There would be no need for voting machines if people weren't voting on 75 different issues for every election. A simple pencil and paper ballot works a lot better.

Re:My opinion

[Dachannien (617929)]

In other words, the US election system sucks because we don't just vote for a supreme overlord and be done with it?

Although, if there were a box on my ballot labeled, "I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords," I'd probably check it.

Diebold

[rustalot42684 (1055008)]

So that's a vote registered to Diebold, right?

Re:My opinion

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

n other words, the US election system sucks because we don't just vote for a supreme overlord and be done with it?

I don't know about you, but my last ballot said:

Supreme Overload (check only ONE):
[ ] The Dark One
[ ] One Ring to Rule Them All...
[ ] The Lord of Mordor
[ ] Sauron, The Dark Lord

And I was really confused. So I just filled one in at random.

It's perhaps worth nothing that I live in Florida.

Re:

[josquint (193951)]

Supreme Overload (check only ONE):

Is that like getting slashdotted?

Re:My opinion

[CastrTroy (595695)]

Actually, no, we only vote for the people who will represent us in our tiny little area. So we don't vote for the Prime Minister, or the provincial premier, (at least no most of us). We vote for somebody from our area who is (supposedly) looking out for the people in that small area. The leader of the party with the most people voted in become Prime Minister. In the US, people do vote for the supreme overload (the president) but the problem is that they also have to vote for millions of other little things. What's the point of electing people if you can't delegate to them some of the decision making.

Reps do most of it, population overrides sometimes

[Ungrounded Lightning (62228)]

What's the point of electing people if you can't delegate to them some of the decision making.

1) On some issues elected officials, just by being elected officials, have (or perceive) a conflict-of-interest with the voters and thus have a strong incentive to vote in non-representative ways. (Example: Raising taxes.)

2) There are a large number of issues. It's often impossible to find (or elect) a candidate that has the same opinions on all the important issues as the people he represents. In that case the

Re:

[rustalot42684 (1055008)]

Or do it the way it is in Toronto municipal elections: there is an arrow with a gap thru it like so:
= =>
next to each name. you use the advanced technology of the 'pencil' to complete the arrow of your desired candidate (for mayor and for councillor, they're separate categories), and then it goes into a scanner that detects which arrow you selected. Then it goes into a stack so there is a paper trail. This way you get the advantages of machine voting with the advantages of paper voting.

Re:

[Elemenope (905108)]

Many US jurisdictions do it this way. I live in Rhode Island, and we use the 'complete the arrow, scan ballot sheet' system; it works alright.

I disagree

[benhocking (724439)]

Part of the beauty of the US is that each state can experiment with different ideas. Ideally, in turn, each state can learn from the successes and mistakes of others. If all states were doing the same thing, then you would potentially miss out on way to do it even better. In general, the less that the federal government imposes on the states, the better. Similarly, in general, the less that the state government imposes on the local governments, the better. Sure, there are places where it's appropriate, but

Re:My opinion

[CastrTroy (595695)]

I cannot have confidence in a voting system unless I completely understand how it works. I am a software developer, and I don't trust any voting system which uses software specifically because most people, including myself, wouldn't be able to understand the system, or wouldn't take the time to understand the system, even if they could. With paper ballots that are counted by hand, I completely understand every aspect of the voting and counting system. People from all parties can actually watch the actual count and verify that they are counted correctly. Security measure can be put in place to ensure that there is no ballot stuffing, by checking the box before hand, and comparing the number of votes counted to the number of people who actually voted. I'm not saying paper is infallible, but that I trust it because I can look at it and understand it. Why should I believe the claims that your "VoteHere" system is any more reliable or trustworthy than a system made by Diebold? Like you said, "Trust no one". Why should I trust any organization if I can't verify the voting process by myself.

Also, the other problem with using machines is that they sometimes break, or there aren't enough of them to go around, and people end up waiting hours in line to vote. I've never had to wait more than 5 minutes to cast my ballot, and that's the way it should be. Making people wait so long to vote discourages them, and brings down the number of people who vote, and this invalidates the whole problem.

It shouldn't be that hard....

[rustalot42684 (1055008)]

How about a machine running Tivo-style Linux (so you can't mess with the software) that lets the user pick one out of several choices, then prints a receipt and says "Does the receipt match the screen?". It's /not/ /that/ /hard/.

Re:

[advocate_one (662832)]

How about a machine running Tivo-style Linux (so you can't mess with the software) that lets the user pick one out of several choices, then prints a receipt and says "Does the receipt match the screen?". It's /not/ /that/ /hard/.

even then, there's no guarantee that the vote actually got registered correctly... if they fudge the vote just enough to avoid flagging it up, then they can easily steal the entire election with just a few votes here, a few votes there in the constituencies that matter... they're n

Is this a surprise to anyone?

[conspirator57 (1123519)]

On top of the usual politicking and industry appeasement, there is the fact that there is only one engineer in congress now, and he's a civil.

If as our fearless leaders say "the future of America is the knowledge worker and innovator" then we must start electing a few (or more) people with technical backgrounds.

For this to happen, some of us introverted technical folks are going to have to swallow that and run for office.

Re:Is this a surprise to anyone?

[internic (453511)]

Rush Holt, the author of H.R. 811, has a Ph.D. in Physics. Also note that a bill does not always represent what the law maker thinks is best, but rather it's the best thing they think can actually pass.

HR811 is a Step Forward

[internic (453511)]

Yeah, but we shouldn't be passing a bill just to pass one. This bill will actually make things worse by explicitly or implicitly allowing many of the problems to remain, while simultaneously removing the ability of the states to make the systems better on their own, and increasing costs all around just for good measure. If they can't do it right, then they should stay the hell away from the issue and at least let the states have a shot at it on their own.

By adding a voter-verifiable paper trail, it addresses by far the most serious problem with DRE voting machines. Using the rationale that we shouldn't pass it because it leaves some problems unsolved is making the perfect the enemy of the good. This is the way many activist communities shoot themselves in the foot. As for limiting the states, as I understand it this doesn't. From the EFF [eff.org]:

The higher standards required by HR 811 would provide the beginning, not the end, of serious election reform. States wishing to, say, ban all electronic voting machines, impose stricter audit requirements, or force vendors to publicly disclose all of their source code will remain free to do so, as they are today. If HR 811 becomes law, however, states would not be permitted to lag behind in many important areas as so many do today.

Re:

[Danse (1026)]

As for limiting the states, as I understand it this doesn't.

I just read the EFF link and read through some of the actual bill, and while I think it should do more (like requiring that the source code be publicly available), I do think that it will be a major improvement to the current situation, and hopefully a good starting point for further reform of our election system. I think the BBV article is at least somewhat misleading in its claims, at least if the EFF is correct in theirs (which I'm more inclined to believe). Even if some of what the BBV article says i

Re:

[internic (453511)]

Like you, I'm not legal expert. Additionally, I personally haven't had the time to devote to studying this issue as much as I'd like. But I tend to trust the interpretation of the bill by the EFF, and I take into consideration the support of the bill by other people to whom I give credence, like Ed Felten. I'm not saying that BBV may not make some valid points, but right now it seems to me that, on balance, it would be better for the bill to pass.

As for ulterior motives, I agree that there are plent

All the wrong things...

[Notquitecajun (1073646)]

The bill looks like it creates far more problems than it repairs...and doesn't repair the problems it is supposed to in the first place.

I'm a right-winger who doesn't think there is much to the election fraud arguments, and even I think that there needs to be a paper trail for voting. We don't need new laws to fix the problem, new bureaucracies...if there is ONE thing that needs to be transparent in government, it is the election process. BOTH sides of the aisle look bad on election matters right now, and no real practical solution has arisen out of Washington yet.

Re:All the wrong things...

[lawpoop (604919)]

BOTH sides of the aisle look bad on election matters right now, and no real practical solution has arisen out of Washington yet.

Well, jeez, what is their incentive to fix things? Apparently election fraud is how they get into office!

Re:

[internic (453511)]

Currently, if you use a DRE your vote goes into what is essentially a black box and you have no idea whether it actually recorded the vote the way you cast it. Moreover, no one can meaningfully audit it after the fact. I find it hard to fathom how this bill can create problems worse than that.

Tolerance Stackup

[starglider29a (719559)]

While in principal I agree that every vote counts, and every vote is sacred... [deep breath] An election is a system. It is a machine. It has to have SOME fault-tolerance.

But when one vote can swing one state can swing one electoral bloc can swing one election can swing one world climate/political landscape/economy... THAT is a BSOD waiting to happen. With the ability to count 99.994% of the votes instantly, the need for the Electoral College is obviated. Instead of using a fault-ridden system (Imagine if

damn html formatting default

[conspirator57 (1123519)]

>>if there is ONE thing that needs to be transparent in government, it is the election process.

Actually, if as much as possible regarding the critical issues of the day aren't publicly available, then having an open election process does not matter. How does one differentiate the candidates in an information vacuum?

--"It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there."

I'll gladly repay you Tuesday...

[Foolicious (895952)]

...for a better "nutshell" summary than the one in TFA. I read the whole thing, the actual whole thing, including all the comments with the bad avatar-like photos, and I'm still confused about why this Holt Bill is so bad. I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying I don't know. Most of all, I don't particularly trust the summary of someone who then goes on to argue against a bill, mainly by just repeating the same comments over and over again with no deeper explanation.

Re:

[lilomar (1072448)]

Exactly what I'm wondering. I RTFA hoping to understand what the summary was going on about, and came away still confused. (Did anyone see anything in the summary about minorities being discriminated against?)

Can anyone explain what the big deal is? I'm not saying that it isn't a big deal. Just that I can't understand a word of it past "toilet paper".

The only solution

[Jaaay (1124197)]

is the dead tree solution without any computers in site. Anything else is bad for everyone except Diebold.

Power corrupts

[MECC (8478)]

The more power the white house gets, the more corrupt it will become - regardless of which party is there.

Voting rights

[conureman (748753)]

I guess if they're going to quit pretending to count my vote, maybe I can quit pretending it matters, and I can stay home and wait for the results on teevee like every one else. What a time-saver!

The question is...

[vsavkin (136167)]

> a voter-verified permanent paper ballot

yeah, but will it blend?

Is a flawed bill better than no bill?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I reckon we should ask Hillary.

Toilet paper?

[AlHunt (982887)]

>[T]he Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records

How fitting. I think all federal documents should be thus produced.

Trade secrets?

[Wiseazz (267052)]

"trade secrets in vote counting"

Hell, fellas - it's not that complicated.

Re:

[db32 (862117)]

1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1. The trade secret part is simple...if there is any "trade secret" involved in candidate.vote+=1 then it means at some point they are doing something like candidate.vote=candidate.payoff_index*candidate.v o te. They don't want the candidates to know how much money it takes to affect their candidate.payoff_index value or the candidates will only pay the minimum bribes to get the desired multiplier. If its a black box system the candidates will have to bribe more worr

Voting possibilities

[Geek of Tech (678002)]

I was sleeping last night and this came to me in a vision. How about we have all of the major television networks choose a candidate. They will all appear on TV during the same block of time. Then we just check with Nielsen. The candidate with the highest rating wins...

mark paper ballot, scan with reader, push OK

[rcg40 (832633)]

If we marked a paper ballot and then inserted it into a scanner, the scanner would show "This is your vote. Press Yes if you agree."

If Yes then the ballot is moved into a box and the tally is tallied.

At the closing of the voting day, several precincts are selected at random and their paper ballots are counted by hand. If the hand count agrees with the machine count, then the other precincts are counted via their machine counts and the vote count is published.

NB, no ballot counts are published until t

Let's Drop the Straw Man

[internic (453511)]

Some of the objections given at the beginning of the article seem to be worth considering. The straw man debate that follows is just idiotic, however. It might be useful to look at what some actual supporters have to say, supporters like the EFF [eff.org], Prof. Ed Felten [freedom-to-tinker.com], Ars Technica [arstechnica.com], the Brennan Center for Justice [federalele...reform.com], People of the American Way, TrueVoteMD [truevotemd.org], and Prof. Avi Rubin [blogspot.com] to name a few.

Re:

[rpillala (583965)]

Democrat and Republican are useless categories. When an issue can be influenced by money, both of those parties are susceptible. Monied interests would like to push elections towards people they've already paid, but if it goes the other way they can handle that too. It's just more expensive.

Re:Amazing

[hey! (33014)]

I can't agree. The Democrats aren't what they ought to be, of course, but can you honestly say that straight up Republican rule produced the same results as straight up Democratic rule, which we've had many times in the last fifty years?

The problem with the Republican party is that they are no longer conservatives. When I was kid, the Republican party was a place for people of a temperate, Burkean conservative temperament. This viewpoint was skeptical, and very wary of the dangers posed by misuse of government power, but in the end pragmatic. Now, I'm a Democrat, but that's the kind of Republican government I could live with.

The problem was this hadn't produced a big, generational victory for the Republicans like the Democrats had after the Great Depression.

So, certain elements in the party decided to gain power by inflaming populist fears and anger. To do this, they needed media power and that takes money. This mix of populism and secret privilege lead to electoral success for the party, but not political success. The Republican party shifted to a new ideological style that is nearly the opposite of what the old Republican party stood for. The rank and file Republicans I know aren't for a larger and more expensive government with unprecedented powers to intrude into the affairs of its citizens.

Some Democrats I know toyed with the Greens until the 2000 election fiasco. They didn't think the Democrats stood up for Democratic principles. Where is the party that stands up for traditional Republican values?

Re:

[hey! (33014)]

And that leaves you at the mercy of the greater scoundrel.

Re:

[Lemmeoutada Collecti (588075)]

Right here, but I really don't want the job.

Re:Amazing

[internic (453511)]

Remember, the point of this bill is to add auditing requirements and voter verifiability. For whatever flaws it might have, those are laudible goals that are designed to fight corruption.

Offhand, I am guessing that this has MS written ALL over it.

Offhand, I'd say you're wrong. Originally, this bill required the voting machine software to be open source. I think that was weakened in a compromise to actually get the thing passed, but it still requires some outside review of the source, as I understand it. AFAIK, MS has been against this bill from the start because it required such openness.

Re:Amazing

[GreyPoopon (411036)]

The dems are fighting against this admin, accuse it of being corrupt (which it obviously is), is possibly about to lose the ability to monitor the WH (if they lose the up-coming battle in SCOTUS), and YET, they want to put voting admin under the WH.

The truth of the matter is that as long as we use an electoral system for the presidential election, the STATES should be in control of each of their voting standards and not the federal government. And as long as each state will have a certain number of elected representatives, each state should have its own control over how that process works, too. If a certain state wants to use flawed voting machines to determine the outcome of the election, so be it. If a state wants to let its governor appoint senators, representatives and choose who will receive the electoral votes, so be it. That is the way the system is supposed to work in this country, and I personally want the feds to stay out of it. At best, the federal government should be allowed to publish information about perceived problems in the voting systems of certain states so that the residents of that states have an opportunity to change. If desired change doesn't happen, the residents can move to another state, and the number of representatives and electoral votes can be adjusted accordingly during the next census. If any combination of the three branches of our federal government are going to be allowed to control election standards and methods for the individual states, we might as well take all control away from the states and make the next step towards dictatorship.

Re:

[trianglman (1024223)]

The dems are fighting against this admin, accuse it of being corrupt (which it obviously is), is possibly about to lose the ability to monitor the WH (if they lose the up-coming battle in SCOTUS), and YET, they want to put voting admin under the WH.

You do realize that, according to the Constitution, the executive branch is the arm of the government that enforces the laws that the legislative enacts, right? This isn't a matter of trusting the White House to follow through. This is the way our government wor

Re:

[WindBourne (631190)]

You do realize that constitution states that any rights or privileges NOT given to the feds will be accorded to the states. Right? This is the way the government work. You did learn that in school, yes? That means that by leaving the majority to the states, they set the standards. The ONLY standard that should be in this From the feds, is that there be a paper trail that is considered generally undefeatable. It should say how to implement it. Why? Because security is a constant changing item. Keep in mind,

Re:Voting machines aren't the most important issue

[KiltedKnight (171132)]

And the news agencies calling Florida before the polls closed in the Pensacola (Central Time Zone) area wasn't a problem? How many people turned around when they heard, "We're calling Florida for Al Gore," while they still had an hour to go and vote? It doesn't matter what candidate they would've voted for... they were hurt by Dan Rather, et al, having to call things way too soon.

Sorry, but in our thirst for immediate results, we have completely hurt the process. Nobody should be allowed to announce elec

No early exit polling results ether!

[HornWumpus (783565)]

They are used to tell the parties how many times their operatives still need to vote late on election day.

That's the reason some districts suddenly have long lines appear an hour before the polls close (St. Louis is the most blatant example in recent elections, some districts have routine 105% voter turnouts, strangely no investigations).