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."

My opinion

[CastrTroy]

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.

Amazing

[WindBourne]

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.

In addition, they are removing from the states, saying that closed systems are fine, as well as dictating exactly how a complicated paper trail will be handled.

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

It shouldn't be that hard....

[rustalot42684]

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/.

All the wrong things...

[Notquitecajun]

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.

I'll gladly repay you Tuesday...

[Foolicious]

...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.

The only solution

[Jaaay]

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

damn html formatting default

[conspirator57]

>>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."

Re:My opinion

[CastrTroy]

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.

Re:Amazing

[rpillala]

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

[internic]

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.

mark paper ballot, scan with reader, push OK

[rcg40]

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 the hand count is verified.

This preserves the sanctity of the voter's vote. It has nothing to do with making "Bozo and Bozette at 6 and 10" happy.

Re:My opinion

[CastrTroy]

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.

Re:Amazing

[hey!]

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:My opinion

[tist]

I spent some time doing IV&V (Independent Verification and Validation) for Ohio. We tested both Diebold and ES&S touch screen machines. The process was spelled out in detail to cast votes and then verify that both the paper tape and the accumulated digital version on PCMCIA card matched the votes that were input. We selected the votes to cast, so no one at the voting company could know what we were casting. With all that behind me and my experience with the business, the single weakest point of the system was the "toilet paper" roll. This was a constant point of failure with jams, tears, etc. To this day it makes no sense to me to cast an electronic (touch screen) ballot and then produce paper with this sophisticated and failure prone system when the systems already exist to mark a paper ballot, scan the ballot with mark sense technology that works very well and have a simple (low cost) system for voting that has a built in paper trail.
 
  JW

HR811 is a Step Forward

[internic]

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.

Tolerance Stackup

[starglider29a]

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 the voting system was as buggy as WinME :-)) to administer a fault-critical system... Let's fix the fault-critical system.

LOSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!

Then, if one precinct gets utterly lost or corrupted, then it dings the POPULAR vote tallies. The same person wins the election AND gets inaugurated. The only people who REALLY are affected by a tolerable tolerance of fault will be the Bookies in Vegas who handle the point spreads.

The Electoral College was a necessity in it's day when bandwidth was REALLY REALLY low. We may need it again, when votes within the United States of the Virgo Cluster are counted... but till then, abolish the Electoral College, even though it takes a Constitutional Amendment. We need to do this while we still have a Constitution to amend.

Re:Amazing

[hey!]

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

Re:Amazing

[trianglman]

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 works.

As far as open or closed systems, this bill doesn't deal directly with what sort of software these systems need to run. The main focus of the bill is a paper trail being required for these systems, something that IMO is long overdue, and making sure the voting systems allow people with disabilities to vote. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, Linux, Open or Closed systems. Just because it doesn't deal with all of your hopes and wishes doesn't mean this is a bad bill. An all in one bill is less likely to succeed as too many people will have things to gain and lose from supporting the bill, leading to a poor, watered down bill. I would rather have a (slightly) more focused bill like this one be passed, dealing with a few, focused issues of voter confidence and accessibility, rather than them taking 5+ years making an overarching bill.

As for the article about the bill, it is a bunch of FUD, and I don't see how the author could have actually read much of the bill to have come to the conclusions that she did. The main quote I take issue with is "gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting." All source code, compiled code, and sample machines must be given to the NIST to be fully tested to make sure nothing can be done to the votes. It sets a required minimum number of ballots that need to be manually audited, using the paper trail, during the actual voting. There are no "trade secrets" anywhere in this counting and auditing process. As for the other complaints, the NIST has already been thoroughly involved in the auditing process of all voting machines for a long time. The "text conversion device" is required for accessibility, and already exists in other software applications. It is necessary if those with disabilities are to be involved in the voting process in a real way. As far as removing "safe harbor" for states that don't comply, I don't see why states should be immune from liability when it comes to protecting my vote.

Re:Amazing

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

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

Re:It shouldn't be that hard....

[DoohickeyJones]

No, no, and no.

There is a VERY good reason you don't walk away with proof of anything more than THAT you voted.

If you had a way of proving how you (you, specifically, not you as in 'your voting area') voted, it would be far too easy to arrange the buying and selling of votes, voter intimidation, etc.

As a far fetched example (far fetched today. Not so far fetched all that long ago):

You walk out of the voting station and a guy with a Big Heavy Stick (or a cell phone to call another guy with a Big Heavy Stick who is standing over your wife and kids) takes your reciept from you and verifies you voted 'correctly'. Didn't vote for the 'right' candidate? Say goodbye to one of your kids.

Or hey...let's say that your party lost. The party that won wants to "crack down on Terrorists here at home!"
First thing they need to do, of course, is find out who might be holding a grudge from the last election. Here is this list of who voted, and how they voted. Okay, it only assigns the vote to a phone number, but we can pull phone records to see who called each of these numbers...

Are you SURE you want concrete proof of how you specifically voted?

Me, I want concrete proof of how everyone voted as a whole (paper ballots, etc), but I do NOT want any way to tie the vote back to an individual. The closest you should be able to tie the vote back is to the specific voting location and maybe the specific voting station.

Re:Amazing

[WindBourne]

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, that the states can then decide if they want companies to have control or if they want all citizens to KNOW that the election could not have been rigged.

As to this article being FUD, it is the opposite. They have the issues right on. the NIST test was given to a group that is headquartered her in Colorado( but the tests were ran out of atlanta), and were poorly done. That is why the company lost the contract in a BIG and public way.

As to the immunity, that was immunity for the companies. And the politicians have always granted companies immunity from prosecution for any number of issues. If a drilling company leaks oil, they can not longer be sued unless you can prove that it was deliberate (which is tough). That was granted by W in the last 2 years. The nuke industry has HEAVY immunity from prosecution. The workers from Rocky flats who produce the triggers for bombs are suing for health benefits that were promised them and reagan pulled. When it comes to the feds(not the states) protecting my vote or protecting companies, I do not feel comfortable.

I disagree

[benhocking]

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 unless there's a strong overriding reason to get involved, larger governments should allow smaller governments to make their own decisions.

Re:Voting machines aren't the most important issue

[KiltedKnight]

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 election results for national elections until the last poll has closed in Hawaii.