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]

Other than that, it's ok.

Pwned by muscle memory

[tttonyyy]

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]

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]

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.

Re:

[Bob-taro]

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!).

That doesn't make you a geek, you probably just need to get some sleep(8*3600).

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.

Re:My opinion

[Dachannien]

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]

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

Re:My opinion

[morgan_greywolf]

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]

Supreme Overload (check only ONE):

Is that like getting slashdotted?

Re:

[ultrasound]

You missed out the most popular option

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

Re:

[fritsd]

So where was the "Profit" option?

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:

[ScottCooperDotNet]

In the US, ... 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.

Huh? We in America delegate some but not all decision making authority to our elected folks. Major issues should be voted on directly, that's the whole point of democracy. Or are you suggesting Americans are so foolish they cannot handle making decisions beyond looking for the (D) or (R) next to candidates' names?

I

Re:

[plague3106]

Huh? We in America delegate some but not all decision making authority to our elected folks. Major issues should be voted on directly, that's the whole point of democracy. Or are you suggesting Americans are so foolish they cannot handle making decisions beyond looking for the (D) or (R) next to candidates' names?

Apparently you are a foolish American that shouldn't bother going to vote. We're not a democracy, we are a republic, because a democracy is simply mob rule, whereas our system is supposed to prote

Reps do most of it, population overrides sometimes

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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

States' rights and all that

[benhocking]

I'm glad that in America we get the chance to petition for a vote on controversial issues.

Depending, of course, on which state you live in. In some states, the only items that get on to the ballot are decided on by the very people you don't trust to make those decisions. I suspect that some states don't even have initiatives on the ballot at all. Really, I do think that's one of our strengths - 50+ experiments, running in parallel...

Re:

[rustalot42684]

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]

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]

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:

[doom]

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.

I'm inclined to agree with you in principle, but in practice the way this "states rights" business works out is the bastards (my informal name for "the vast right-wing conspiracy", which somewhat ironically should probably in

Re:

[Obfuscant]

Having a national system for voting in which all ballots are the same and conducted in the manner is essential for elections to work properly.

That's an opinion masquerading as a fact. In fact, it is not necessary for every ballot to be the same and conducted in the same manner for elections to work properly. In fact, the only time this is an issue is in the presidential election, and in fact, the Constitution gives each state the right to select the electors in whatever manner they choose. The last time I

Re:

[Dragonslicer]

Maine also does ballots this way, except that you use a black marker instead of a pencil.

Re:

[TheGreek]

Maine also does ballots this way, except that you use a black marker instead of a pencil.

Not in all precincts. I still check boxes.

Re:

[Dragonslicer]

I stand corrected then. I've only ever voted in Portland and Orono.

Re:

[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

Re:

[doom]

A simple pencil and paper ballot works a lot better.

I'm inclined to agree, unfortunately that would (a) require an admission of failure (b) put some well-connected voting machine businesses out of business.

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:

[A coward on a mouse]

Agreed on your points about confidence in the voting system, the need for transparency, etc.

Regarding waiting a long time vs. voting quickly, though, it sounds as though you vote in precincts that are favored by the local election commissions. It is a time-honored tradition in election fixing to make voting time-consuming and difficult for people whom you'd like to disenfranchise. Electronic vs. paper voting should be considered mostly unrelated to the constriction of access to voting, except in that electr

yes and then some

[lenski]

In our neighborhood, which is a "progressive, 2-miles-from-campus" neighborhood, queue waiting times in 2004 were 1.5 hours.

In neighborhoods closer to campus, liberal areas and in-town areas, queue waiting times averaged 3 hours, extending in rare cases up to 9 hours.

In outlying, ex-urban, well-off neighborhoods, queue waiting times rarely exceeded 25 minutes.

A local advocate told me this weekend that when he set up a gathering after the 2004 election to allow people to describe their experiences, he hoped

Re:

[Lockejaw]

VoteHere has created an amazing piece of software that uses a multi-step encryption to make the election both publicly auditable and securely secretive.

VoteHere's web site says they provide "secure Internet voting services." Can someone describe how this works? If you update a database to include the new vote, at some point, the decrypted ballot data will pass through a computer capable of logging the vote with the name. It's the old DRM problem -- you can't give them (name,vote) data packets without them

Re:

[plague3106]

No, a paper ballot is not okay because the stakes are so high that we have numerous groups trying to steal the election and make a game of the system. We need something secure if we want to elect someone rather than just handing over the reins to a cheat. And that means a voting system that doesn't REQUIRE us to TRUST countless officials who are given the privilege of counting our votes and reporting the totals.

Well, we could also lower the stakes by returning to th original intent of a federal government..

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/.

Re:

[advocate_one]

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

Re:

[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

Is this a surprise to anyone?

[conspirator57]

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]

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.

Re:

[Danse]

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.

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.

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.

Re:

[Danse]

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]

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

Re:

[CrimsonAvenger]

Rush Holt, the author of H.R. 811, has a Ph.D. in Physics.

Which means exactly zero when it comes to election reform.

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.

I am aware that getting SOMETHING done is often seen as necessary. However, I have a prejudice in favour of getting something done RIGHT. If more of our lawmakers worked on the assumption that a bad bill is worse than no bill, we'd all be better off

Re:

[internic]

The GP complained about the lack of engineers and technical know-how in relation to the bill. I simply pointed out that the bill's author, Holt, has a Ph.D. in Physics, so he does have technical knowledge. It is semi-relevant in this discussion, since we're talking about reforms related to electronic voting machines. The bill doesn't tell anyone to use electronic voting machines (it leaves that issue aside entirely), but it says that if you are going to use them you have to meet certain minimum requirem

Re:

[DirePickle]

The Ph.D. would typically doom him, but luckily he's religious (Quaker) and has a dad-who-was-senator.

Re:

[internic]

Well, his district in NJ also includes Princeton. I'd bet that helps.

Re:

[bagsc]

The Bill [house.gov] firstly has to be something that can get out of committee. The Bill was referred to the Cmte on House Administration [house.gov], which consists of 6 Democrats, and 3 Republicans. Committee is where all the magic happens, with the main edits, and people check on whether its popular enough to get passed. If you think you've got good ideas for the Bill, read the Hearings [house.gov] and a href="contact the Committee members. If your ideas are good enough, you can change the minds of one of these 9 people, and have the l

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.

Re:All the wrong things...

[lawpoop]

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!

Reply:All the wrong things, Vegas Potential ....

[OldHawk777]

Would it be legal to bet on which politician annually is identified as the worse politician in the United States?
Would it be legal to bet on which politician will wipe their ass with The USA Constitution and Citizens next?

If Vegas could come up with odds and fair-games that could tally
nationally and internationally the worse/best "in office"
politician ... I would damn sure start voting again with a few
bets in Vegas.

I mean, I think, we can't legally sell our vote or bet on elections; However, our votes (most

Re:

[Minwee]

Yeah, it's funny how the "Vote Those Bastards Out Of Office" act somehow fails to pass every time it comes up.

Re:

[internic]

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]

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

Re:

[nelsonal]

The electoral college was created for a reason and that reason wasn't low bandwith communication. It was created specifically to prevent the populous North from imposing its will on the rural South. It was couched in "regionalism" but most of our nations structure was designed to keep NY, Philly, and Boston from ruling over Richmond and Atlanta.

Re:

[Notquitecajun]

The problem with your argument is that the electoral college is the great "equalizer" of urban populations, and gives us more suburban/rural types a say in who is President. It would boil down to major population centers having even GREATER weight in determining who is President, rather than a whole of the American people.

The U.S. is so big, that there may not be a good way to elect a President under any system...which is why we need to be glad we have Congress and a Judiciary, inept at times though the

Re:

[Abcd1234]

The problem with your argument is that the electoral college is the great "equalizer" of urban populations, and gives us more suburban/rural types a say in who is President.

Or, put another way, the electoral college means some people's votes are worth more than others.

Why it is some people think that's right, moral, or fair, I have no idea.

Re:

[starglider29a]

The problem with YOUR problem with MY argument is that many states, including my own, have a large population center AND a large rural area. There are many such. CA, TX, FL, MI. Now, it's not that Richmond and Atlanta are ruled by NY, Philly and Boston, but that The Lower Peninsula of Michigan is ruled by Detroit. My complaint is not that however Detroit votes rules Michigan, or SFO/LAX rule CA. It's not even that how NY votes rules The South, because that has all changed. You might recall that we've added

Re:

[Lockejaw]

The problem with your argument is that the electoral college is the great "equalizer" of urban populations, and gives us more suburban/rural types a say in who is President.

How about you go down to Carbondale and try convincing people of that.

Re:

[sacrilicious]

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.

Can you elaborate? I read the EFF's position and find myself agreeing with their position.

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."

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.

Re:

[lilomar]

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]

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

Power corrupts

[MECC]

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

Voting rights

[conureman]

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]

> a voter-verified permanent paper ballot

yeah, but will it blend?

Is a flawed bill better than no bill?

[Anonymous Coward]

I reckon we should ask Hillary.

Toilet paper?

[AlHunt]

>[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]

"trade secrets in vote counting"

Hell, fellas - it's not that complicated.

Re:

[db32]

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]

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]

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

Re:

[OldeTimeGeek]

The advantage of having the voter put their ballot in the scanner (in the last election, my county had only one per precinct, not one per voting booth) is that the they know that their ballot that has been scanned and counted (on Sequoia scanner, a visible counter increments and a beep sounds when a ballot has been scanned correctly) hasn't been modified by anybody. If the election workers do it, the voters can never be completely certain that their vote hasn't been altered before it was counted and, as mos

Let's Drop the Straw Man

[internic]

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:

[Danse]

You can also send support email [eff.org] to your congressperson from the EFF site if you decide that this bill is worthy of support.

Does Anyone Else

[asphaltjesus]

wonder if there's a block of voters out there thinking that using computers to vote is a good idea? Seriously. I'm asking because I don't know.

Regardless of /. opinion on the matter I'm led to believe that a small group of people somewhere is ramming electronic voting through local/state/federal government. If there was ever an example of how corrupt the workings of American Government are, I'd say this is it.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

But litigation is the new form of elections?

[kinglink]

Don't like the election results, sue to change them.

How bloody hard can it be

[BlueParrot]

Well this is how it is done over in Sweden at least...

You get an envelope. You stick a bit of paper in it which holds the relevant information. It is counted, by hand, within 24 hours.
Now ok, the US has a larger population, but that also means you have a larger number of people to do the counting.

I really don't see why you need an advanced computer system to do this once every couple of years. Keep it simple, keep it open, and keep it manual. It works.

Americans vote for squillions of different things

[Goonie]

In the USA, people get to vote on all manner of different positions which, in other countries, are appointed by the government. They not only vote for politicians, at the state and local level they vote for judges, police chiefs, chief prosecutors, chiefs of fire departments, the members of the school administration board (this is how the crazy creationists occasionally try to impose creationist textbooks on school)...and on and on it goes. In some states, there will also be a number of citizen-initiated

Incumbent Parties

[Archangel Michael]

As long as the incumbent parties are involved, the process will remain suspect. Ballot stuffing occurs on BOTH sides of the isle, as well as trying to restrict (enable) who can vote. Both (D) and (R) do it. And if it wasn't (D) or (R) it would be someone else afraid of losing power.

The point being, all the laws in the world are not going to prevent vote tampering. The process will NEVER be perfect, the best we can do is LIMIT the fraud so that the elections aren't thrown because of fraud. In the case of EXT

So the news is...

[Rai]

Politicians continue to destroy the country, the world, and life in general. Doing their job as usual I see.

Tell me again why anyone even votes at all.

Re:

[KiltedKnight]

Tell me again why anyone even votes at all.

It's your license to bitch, and a way I like to shut people up who complain about the current situation. It's real simple:

"Did you vote in the last non-primary election?"
"No."
"Then you're part of the problem."

or

"Yes."
"OK, so did you consider every position your candidate stood for or did you vote for him or her because of party affiliation, or because he or she wasn't the 'other' guy?"

It won't matter if they pass it or not

[KiltedKnight]

Well, up to a point it will. Anyone and everyone should be able to receive, from these electronic voting machines, a paper copy/receipt showing for whom they voted. In my district, we use the Scantron type of sheets, so our ballots are always "on paper."

Overall, though, what difference is all this going to make if they do not require some kind of voter ID card that has a photo attached to it? Sure, everyone calls up the scenario of the Chicago Mayoral Elections and Mayor Daly (father of the current mayo

Voting machines aren't the most important issue

[Tired and Emotional]

The most important thing that needs to be fixed is vote suppression by failing to process voter registrations and by using under under-resourcing and identity challenges to clog up polling stations in minority districts. These tactics quite possibly changed the 2004 result in Ohio, so we know it is a real problem now. I see no mention of these issues being addressed by these bills.

Its certainly true that current voting machines have terrible security. But if you put even secure machines under the control

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 elec

No early exit polling results ether!

[HornWumpus]

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).

Brought to you by . . .

[Dausha]

Just remember, the House is controlled by one party right now. That party created HR811. So, those who voted them in, you gets what you paid for.

Re:

[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

[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:

[nutrock69]

Where is the party that stands up for traditional Republican values?

Screw Republican. Screw Democrat. Screw all of the parties, in fact.

What I want to know is: Where can we find someone, almost anyone, that stands up for traditional citizen values above their own self-interest?

Re:

[hey!]

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

Re:

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

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

Re:

[doom]

hey! wrote:

The problem with the Republican party is that they are no longer conservatives.

And the trouble with the Democratic party is that they are.

If they don't get off their ass and do something, if they really run Hillary (a pro-war Democrat) for Pres, I predict 2008 is going to be a third-party candidate mess again.

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.

Re:Amazing

[GreyPoopon]

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]

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]

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:

[WindBourne]

I am well aware of it. But there is NO reason why the feds should take it back. Since the feds have never said how elections are to be done, there is no reason to start.

As to rhetorical questions, I was ABOSLUTELY correct. And It was in response to the rhetorical question from the parent to me.

Re:

[CrimsonAvenger]

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 Dems don't expect this bill to be effective till there is a Democrat President in the White House. That way the Dems can ensure that there will never be another Republican President.

Of course, the Republicans would like the bill to be law with a Republican

Re:

[Black Box Voting]

Thank you, but there is no need to translate my own words. The core of the controversy is exactly as stated in the original post:

1. The Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records affixed to DRE voting machines) in 2008
2. The Holt Bill requires more durable ballots in 2010
3. The Holt Bill requires a complex set of audits.

BUT

1. The Holt Bill also cements and further empowers a concentration of power over elections under the White House
2. The Holt Bill gives explicit federal

Re:

[1u3hr]

Heading is now "A Flawed US Election Reform Biill".

Probably in a few hours this stupid typo will be fixed, and my post will be modded troll. But just for the record.... Why the fuck can't the editors spellcheck?

And also, I predict they won't fix or notice the mistake in the first line: "It's stated purpose is..."

"It's" == "It is". Possessive is "Its".

{Reposted as the original has disappeared as a "troll".)
I note all came to pass: headline typo fixed, text typo ignord, post modded troll.