"Secure Elections Act" Coming Up For Vote 83
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."
Re:Nonsence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Crucially Broken (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Nonsence... (Score:5, Insightful)
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Tin foil hats won't cover this one.
Re:Nonsence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's get one thing straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do we want paper ballots? Are they really more secure? Absolutely not!! 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? How hard is it? (well, minus Diebold and Sequoia machines).
The problem is that we need to secure the technology. We need transparent processes to verify that our democratic process works. We should not be supporting any law that restricts technology. We should be the ones embracing it, making it work correctly.
Re:The bill failed to pass (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Let's get one thing straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Also the law on the books was about using both technology *and* paper, therefore increasing transparency and audibility. Framing this debate as Technology vs. Non-Technology is a distortion of what this proposal is trying to achieve. This law is only trying to add transparency to the technology. It is not trying to replace the technology.
And finally, take a look at any gerrymandered congressional district maps (I don't know if you have them where you live). But the congressional maps we have now are the perfect examples of what can go wrong -- when incumbents (both republicans or democrats) are free to make decisions about small technical matters that will affect their own reelection chances. If we can't trust them to draw their own maps (with the help of the right technical consultants), we certainly can't trust them to design the right software processes for their own elections (we just know that the majority of people will be left out of that design process, as opposed to the design process for paper ballots and a paper trail).
Re:Crucially Broken (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's get one thing straight (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right. Voting and sex. For everything else, a computer a guaranteed to provide an improvement in speed, quality, or reproducibility.
Re:/, as a lobbying vehicle? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:/, as a lobbying vehicle? (Score:3, Insightful)