"Secure Elections Act" Coming Up For Vote

Irvu writes "The US House of Representatives is considering HR. 5036, the 'Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008,' as introduced by Representative Rush Holt. The bill is scheduled for a floor vote later today. It would provide for emergency paper ballots, money for the addition of voter verifiable paper ballots to existing systems, and post-election audits. Crucially, the change to paper is opt-in, making it possible for local jurisdictions to govern their own choices. Here are two summaries of the bill. It was reported out of committee with strong bipartisan support. As of this morning the White house has opposed the bill but not threatened a veto, and some previously supportive Republicans have now changed their tune. Calls may be made to your house rep (click on 'Find your representative'). Here's a sample support letter."

What a waste of money

[Skyshadow (508)]

In all seriousness now, wouldn't it just be easier to call up Diebold on November 4 and ask them who won? Think of all the time and money we'd save.

Already done

[Mark_in_Brazil (537925)]

It seems the cat's already out of the bag...

Oops [theonion.com]

Crucially Broken

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Crucially, the change to paper is opt-in, making it possible for local jurisdictions to govern their own choices

Yes, that is crucial. Because in the jurisdictions that are running rigged elections, that don't want to leave evidence of their rigging, or are just getting bribed by crappy non-verifiable voting machine vendors to buy the crap, despite how it fails any reasonable quality test, those jurisdictions don't have to change anything.

A good bill would require opt-out, and only subject to some accountability, like a judge's decision that there are extenuating circumstances, or a (paper trail) vote by the people in the jurisdiction.

I mean, who else but a crooked politicial or a salesperson for a crooked or broken machine could possibly have a reason to opt out, when it's all paid for by the Feds (you and me)? What kind of priorities put anything above the integrity and respectability of our most essential link to democracy, the counting of our votes?

Re:

[omega_dk (1090143)]

View it like this: if there is a significant discrepancy between voting trends in paper-ballot w/ audit counties, and those that decided not to opt-in, those counties may have an angry electorate on their hands that would demand an explanation.

If they can't offer a suitable explanation due to a lack of a paper trail because they decided not to accept free money from the feds... well, I am not going to say they *would* be in trouble because the American Electorate is notorious for not caring, but there wo

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Like in Florida? Funny how that never happens. People just get discouraged, bitter and cynical. That's what the crooks count on. And so far, they're winning.

Re:

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Their claims, if true, sound reasonable:

H.R. 811 runs contrary to the fundamental cornerstone of (HAVA) which is state flexibility in implementation of federal election reform mandates. H.R. 811 sets very specific standards for paper trail and audit procedures that currently don't exist in any state. It requires "durable" paper for paper trail receipts and calls for random audits of federal elections and creates a private right of action against a state for perceived violations. H.R. 811 also requires st

No surprise

[stonecypher (118140)]

The president whose election tallies were never counted, in the closest election we've had in more than a century, doesn't want verifiable voting. I wonder why.

Tin foil hats won't cover this one. :(

The bill failed to pass

[mepperpint (790350)]

This showed up a little bit late. The bill failed to pass [govtrack.us] 239-178 with 14 not voting. While this is a 55% vote in favor, it required a 2/3 supermajority to pass due to a motion to suspend the rules.

So why did Dr. No say NO?

[Ungrounded Lightning (62228)]

Wow, just look at those results! It was essentially a party roll call.

Notice that "Dr. No" also voted against it. Ron Paul is NOT going to base his vote on trying to improve or preserve election cheating.

That says to me that there's an issue with the Federal Government exceeding its constitutional authority by meddling in the states' election procedures (which ARE the (states' business), there's some "devil in the details" that makes it do the opposite of what it claims, or it's a feel-good-do-nothing bill

Paper's no pancea, hope it gets done right

[InternetVoting (809563)]

In general it's not a bad bill. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that throwing paper at the problems will fix everything and the fact that it allows jurisdictions to opt-in is a very big step, I just hope people do paper ballots right not just paper for paper's sake.

It's a little scary seeing the pretty wide authority given to a single federal agency with not a lot of regulation. Eligibility isn't particularly clearly defined. I think in general retrofitting DRE's with VVPAT, particularly in time for November, has a huge potential for causing more harm than good. It's nice to see we've stopped the fairly phony "verified vs. verifiable" debate. My reading says anyone who by state law has to count emergency paper ballots as provisional is ineligible for that portion. For all the requirements there are for the audit section, I'd like to see some in there for handling paper ballots. How about teaching people about ballot design, chain of custody...?

I think it's great that we're expressing the need for research. I'm interested on NIST's input on how feasible this is and more interested on what the actual dollar figures end up at.

/, as a lobbying vehicle?

[MSTCrow5429 (642744)]

Is this really an appropriate fashion to present such content, via full endorsement and support by ./?

Re:/, as a lobbying vehicle?

[MBCook (132727)]

I've been here for quite a few years. I think maybe 9.

Since when has /. not lobbied for certain things?

Democrats, liberals, net neutrality, voter verified paper trails, and tons more. This has only increased (unsurprisingly) since the Politics section was created (which helped reduce the S/N on the other bits). Slashdot has been quite vocal in various things (like almost anything anti-Bush) for years and years.

All that said, this is a private website. They can lobby for whatever they want. That story went through the firehose (or at least other copied did) and was quite popular. Readers seem to want to discuss it as well.

Re:

[Nethead (1563)]

Actually they are telling you to get off your ass and be a citizen. They have been doing that since I've been visiting the site.

Re:

[MSTCrow5429 (642744)]

I think judging a bill based solely on what is "best for you and your community" is a wrongful approach. First, one must ask themselves, "is this bill Constitutional under the strictly enumerated powers given to the Federal government?" If not, then obviously the bill is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed out of hand. If it is Constitutional, the second question to ask is "does this bill limit individual rights and liberties?" If yes, then it should be dismissed as an instrument of tyranny. Then

Re:Nonsence...

[Metasquares (555685)]

Holt is one of the few congressmen who have actually earned my respect - and he's one of the few I'd actually expect to sponsor such a bill without any traps.

Re:Nonsence...

[mweather (1089505)]

A fair election? You mean this ends automatic ballot access for Democrats and Republicans, as well as matching funds?

Re:Nonsence...

[Chris Burke (6130)]

Not that fair...

Re:

[Misch (158807)]

Pssst: Ed Felten [princeton.edu] is a constituent of Rush Holt.

How depressing

[jweller13 (1148823)]

How depressing that my country is experiencing 3rd world style voting problems 200 year after establishing democracy. Citizens having trust in elections is the fundamental backbone to a democracy. I'm further amazed that voters aren't outraged and up in arms over this. This should be THE most important platform issue in our current presidential elections.

Check out this article and you'll get really get upset about some electronic voting machines in use.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4066 [bradblog.com]

Re:

[zippthorne (748122)]

Well.. it's a good thing we've got a Republic, then...

I'm sure that they said the same thing (with a smaller number, of course) in 1861. After all, how many republics or democracies had even existed before then? (I know it's at least one of each, but the number is small until the modern era, in which the US was one of the first.)

Re:

[BlueStrat (756137)]

"One thing I don't see mentioned here is the issue of some kind of proof you are who you say you are before you vote. In my opinion thats as much an issue as counting correctly, but it seems to be ignored. Why?"

Because the Democrats have largely been successful in pettifogging and demagoguing the issue so that in the publics' mind, asking for ID==discrimination. No politician can afford, especially when their party is in a major election cycle, to be accused, however falsely, of discrimination. The Democrat

Re:

[Murrquan (1161441)]

Maybe the Slashdotters are against voting machines because they actually understand the machines' limitations, and potential for misuse without traces of tampering.

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[et764 (837202)]

One reason I'm a fan of paper ballots is that you don't need a degree in Computer Science to understand how they work. Just about any second grader could devise a paper ballot system, which means almost everyone not denied the right to vote can easily reason about whether the system works the way it's supposed to. They don't have to trust experts to be able to trust the voting system.

Just because we're the Slashdot community doesn't mean we should be in favor at gratuitously throwing more technology at everything. Some things are better done the old-fashioned way.

Re:

[RobBebop (947356)]

Some things are better done the old-fashioned way.

That's right. Voting and sex. For everything else, a computer a guaranteed to provide an improvement in speed, quality, or reproducibility.

Re:

[stephanruby (542433)]

We are supposed to be the people supporting technology.

You've got it backwards. Technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

How easy is it to throw ballots in a river or forge them? A six-year old can do it for God's sake! In contrast, how many people can really hack an election?

With paper, you would need many six-year olds to rig an election. With technology, you may only need one six year old adept at Visual Basic to hack the elections (Yes, Diebold uses Visual Basic for Applications). With pa