A Flawed US Election Reform Bill 188
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... (Score:2)
Pwned by muscle memory (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
I feel your pain kdawson. The force is strong between us.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My opinion (Score:5, Funny)
Although, if there were a box on my ballot labeled, "I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords," I'd probably check it.
Diebold (Score:4, Funny)
Re:My opinion (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Is that like getting slashdotted?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re:My opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
= =>
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
benhocking
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Well, we could also lower the stakes by returning to th original intent of a federal government..
It shouldn't be that hard.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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]:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Which means exactly zero when it comes to election reform.
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, his district in NJ also includes Princeton. I'd bet that helps.
Re: (Score:2)
All the wrong things... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Reply:All the wrong things, Vegas Potential .... (Score:2)
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
bets in Vegas.
I mean, I think, we can't legally sell our vote or bet on elections; However, our votes (most
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you elaborate? I read the EFF's position and find myself agreeing with their position.
damn html formatting default (Score:2, Insightful)
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... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Power corrupts (Score:2)
Voting rights (Score:4, Funny)
The question is... (Score:3, Funny)
yeah, but will it blend?
Is a flawed bill better than no bill? (Score:3, Funny)
Toilet paper? (Score:3, Funny)
How fitting. I think all federal documents should be thus produced.
Trade secrets? (Score:2)
Hell, fellas - it's not that complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Voting possibilities (Score:2)
mark paper ballot, scan with reader, push OK (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Let's Drop the Straw Man (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Does Anyone Else (Score:2)
Regardless of
Discuss amongst yourselves.
But litigation is the new form of elections? (Score:2)
How bloody hard can it be (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Incumbent Parties (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
Tell me again why anyone even votes at all.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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! (Score:3, Interesting)
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 . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
hey! wrote:
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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'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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As to rhetorical questions, I was ABOSLUTELY correct. And It was in response to the rhetorical question from the parent to me.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.