A BLast from the past Andy & others on Holts bill... one year ago...

[FogerRox]

Andy:

It is weak on Audits. I keep being told that politically
any bill that has the "voter verified paper ballot" language...will die. Apparently it turns DRE's into ballot marking devices. OK I'd go for that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=359634&mesg_id=359642

Land Shark:

I haven't read it all but i don't see that much there, and what i do see is the Feel Gold bill of 2005.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=359634&mesg_id=359839

Amaryllis:

So sue them on the grounds Land Shark has; that their contracts are void from the beginning because they are illegal, because secret vote counting is illegal, etc. etc. all the other reasons in Land Shark's lawsuit why their contracts are illegal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=359634&mesg_id=360113


garybeck:

The real point is, that we shouldn't be relying on recounts, or audits, or randomness to ensure the sanctity of our democracy. Any legislation that aims to fix the loopholes and problems with our election system should focus on getting the first count right. I shudder at the thought of leaving up to 98% of the votes completely unverified, particularly in light of what we've seen in the last election. Why can't they just count the actual votes, the ones that have been verified by the voters? It's not that hard and the technology is readily available

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=359634&mesg_id=359901

TO read the full "What's wrong with VVPAT? Is Holt good enough?", thread posted by Wilms on Tue Apr-19-05 07:41 PM, go here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x359634

[Steve A Play]

1. Kicked & Recommended!

Thanks for those links. :hi:

[Land Shark]

2. Thanks for Andy's words, and FYI for some reason i can't see all

the posts in other threads

[kster]

3. See ya ! Off to the greatest..................

A :toast: to FogerRox, ok one more :toast:

[nicknameless]

4. K&R

[FogerRox]

5. After reading flame war on the BOTS and such, I thought

about Wilms old HR 550 thread

[nicknameless]

6. I had avoided reading the flaming thread until just now.

It’s hard to really know if 550 is much of an improvement.
Will it impede the real reform we’re needing, or must we take whatever we can get.

The Holt bill still makes me grimace, but we must start somewhere.
I don’t know what other choice we have.

I wish HAVA could be overturned.

:shrug:

[Kelvin Mace]

44. It is not the solution

it is the start of the solution. As I explain elsehwere in this thread, it is the first weapon in our arsenal.

[kster]

7. kick..nt

[demodonkey]

8. Andy DID SUPPORT HR 550 in the end...

He originally was a strong backer of the Ensign bill, but in the end Andy came to really support the Holt bill HR 550. One of his main reasons was because HR 550 DOES have at least some audit provision. Did Andy think HR 550 is perfect bill? No. But he knew that the perfect bill may never come.

Andy was just devastated that after his operation he was too sick to join everyone in D.C. for the original "I Count" Lobby Days for HR 550 last June -- ANDY TOLD ME SO.

So if my friend Andy Stephenson were alive and well enough I am sure he would have been right there with us in Washington the past four days, working his tail off for HR 550.

I know he was there with us in spirit.

[claudiajean]

9. No, Andy did not support the Holt Bill

I'm sorry, I haven't posted in nearly a year, and I rarely post when I do, but I was told that Andy's position on the Holt Bill was being misrepresented on DU this morning (not by just one person, please don't take this as a personal attack), and I felt I needed to pop in and clear up the confusion.

Andy felt that HR 550 was sadly lacking, and in this case, a weak bill was worse than no bill at all. HAVA was another piece of legislation that was supposed to help, but ended up being worse that the original problem.

Andy was sad last June, and expressed so frequently to many people, that he was too ill to join everyone in DC for the first lobby days last year. His emotion was not coming from a dedication to HR 550, however. It was coming from a stark assessment by his physicians that he truly had but weeks, possibly days, to live. He was devastated at not being able to see many of the good friends he had made in the reform movement one last time.

I can understand how, in a flurry of phone calls, the meaning behind his words could be mixed up.

But Andy WAS NOT a supporter of HR 550, the Holt Bill.

Period.

Best,
CJ

[flyarm]

23. hi claudiajean ...........

:hi: :hug: :applause:

fly

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Again, his views on the matter varied

And I do not see this as wrong. All I can tell you is that in conversations with me, he vassilated between the two views, depending on his mood.

The part that is upsetting to some folks, is that the discussion is a reminder to many that he isn't here discussing it.

[Land Shark]

11. Great to see you in WA DC demodonkey

But I would respectfully disagree with you on Andy, because I'll assume you've got everything 100% correct but if Andy were here I'd talk to him and explain that the HR 550 audit is not really an audit unless additional major conditions are met that aren't spelled out in the bill.

I don't know if as a community we'll have a productive discussion fo this, but I hope we will soon. Such a discussion has to deal with the argument of the anti-550 forces that there is either zero value in the audit provision or else there is substantial to great negative value (big step backwards).

The public will likely be very reassured by a "paper trail" except that it won't ever matter, or will be very unlikely to ever matter. And that makes the fraud complete because now it's not obvious on its face anymore.

I salute all the work people do for 550 and the reasons they do it. I'm just saying the bill won't deliver those things we agree on, not even a small step toward it...

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. hey, this is familiar - exploiting Andy!

Hey, once again, someone exploits Andy Stephenson.

Andy, if you are able to see what is going on, I apologize to you
for what some folks are doing.

Disgraceful to exploit a dead man who was exploited to death.

Rest in Peace Andy, rest in peace.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. Brings back Bev Harris' blame Andy message

CONSUMER PROTECTION FOR ELECTIONS
Update: TUESDAY, DEC. 14, 2004: NOTICE
The six-member Board of Directors of Black Box Voting has unanimously voted to terminate the employment of Associate Director Andy Stephenson, for:
- Repeatedly lying to various members of the board of directors
- Misrepresenting results of investigations
- Mishandling telephone communications and withholding information
- Temper tantrums and hanging up on members of the organization
- Outburst at the Florida Supervisor of Elections meeting, offending public officials
- Failing to assist, show up, or even call while Kathleen Wynne and Bev Harris repeatedly reached him to request assistance when they were accosted by Volusia County police

http://www.thoughtcrimes.org/blame_andy.htm

[autorank]

42. Stop please n/t

[kster]

13. kick.nt

[Kelvin Mace]

14. In phone calls to me, Andy expressed

dissatisfaction with the bill, but at the same time he felt it was a major step forward. In the last months of his life he was, understandably, prone to bouts of depression and his views of the bill waxed and waned accordingly.

At this point, I don't think it is fair for either side to claim "Andy's support" on this one.

[Land Shark]

15. If it's in writing and publicly available, it's fair to quote it,

If this were not the case, we'd not be able to quote martin luther king jr and discuss whether he would or did favor one thing or another. Obviously MLK is better known than Andy but within the DU community Andy is a famous person and he can be fairly quoted and discussed.

That being said, I don't think the OP does anything but give various quotes in writing from DU archives.

In other words, having a swearing fest based on verbal conversations recalled today is inadmissible in court for various reasons, but written comments have all of their evidence "on the surface" so they are admissible. Parallel parameters should govern fair debate here.

written quotes: clearly ok
arguments on positions today based on writings: stretching but fair debate
arguments on positions today based on verbal: over the line unless consistent with writings and not an important part of the argument.

but this is a line based on general legal concepts and everyone's opinions here are within the realm of reasonable, I think.

[Kelvin Mace]

16. I don't question

that he can legally be quoted. He can. I am simply passing along my view on the matter and my opinion that his support for the bill was fluid depending on his mood. As such I don't think it is fair to claim his support for EITHER side.

I am well aware that fairness and the law are seldom in accord. I am aware that my opinion of his conversation is hearsay. I am not discussing what is legal, or admissible in court, I am discussing what is The Right Thing to do.

[Land Shark]

17. That's fair I think. In lawsuits what's "fair" is measured relevant to

what a court would do. But as you say, this is not in court. Morality of some sort can also be the judge, and properly so in many circumstances for there are still a few areas of life not regulated by law. But morality can be more difficult to ascertain since it isn't even "codified" anywhere.

I think you are probably correct that neither side can claim support. But i think there's one proposition that your view above supports that is consistent with one of my goals: the proper position on HR 550 is reasonably debatable, as evidenced by the fact that well versed activists have been and are conflicted on the right way to go. There seems to be a view out there by a few that those against HR 550 should not be heard, at least not now.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. 550 is not as strong as I would like it, but sinking it out of hand

is much, much worse. S223 which is the law in North Carolina is not as strong as I would have liked it, but it was the best bill we could put together (and it sent Diebold screaming into the night). I do not believe you are going to get a better bill than 550. It establishes a minimum enforcement floor, not a ceiling, and most importantly requires code disclosure and a voter verified paper record. It also states unequivocally that paper trumps electronic counts. If the two counts differ, paper is what is counted.

If you think you are going to get a better bill, you are dreaming. The fact that we have gotten this far is nothing short of miraculous.

There is nothing in the bill which forbids states from requiring more stringent oversight.

People can carp all they want about the 2% mandatory random audit, but it is a MINIMUM, not a MAXIMUM. It is tons better than no audit at all. Claims that the requirement will make it easy "to cheat" are irresponsible and without merit.

Clueless Bev with her "inside game versus outside game" nonsense is making our job harder and proves once again that she is more interested in what keeps her name in the limelight, not what is good for voters.

Bev goes on lecture us that this is not about a paper trail it is about banning secrecy.

(8) PROHIBITION OF USE OF UNDISCLOSED SOFTWARE IN VOTING SYSTEMS.—No voting system shall at any time contain or use any undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code, object code, and executable representation of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, and executable representation available for inspection upon request to any person.

Where's the secrecy? They have to disclose the code to the PUBLIC.

Bev later claims "This bill can act to put a LID on our ability to count 100 percent of the ballots.". Now how does it do that?

(d) ADDITIONAL AUDITS IF CAUSE SHOWN.—If the Commission finds that any of the hand counts conducted under this section show cause for concern about the accuracy of the results of an election in a State or in a jurisdiction within the State, the Commission may conduct hand counts under this section at such additional precincts (or equivalent locations) within the State or jurisdiction as the Commission considers appropriate to resolve any concerns and ensure the accuracy of the results.

Again, the commission openly says it has the authority to count as many ballots as it pleases, but it does not preclude the county or state from conducting its own audit.

I will write up a point by point rebuttal of Bev's spurious objections later, but Dr. Mercuri summed it up best in her note to Bev:

Your opposition statement to Rush Holt' bill is completely deluded. I'm fairly convinced that you've never read his bill, based on the numerous erroneous remarks that you made. You really need to spend some time with it.

[Land Shark]

21. Dr. Mercuri, Cong. Holt, staff, or anybody else can CALL me

I doubt I'm important enough to merit a call but I'd be honored. My cell phone number is 425-422-1387 (harassment callers, if any, be advised to know what you're doing). I'd be very interested to know what parts Dr. Mercuri was responding to, for example.

Let me just address your second to last sentence Kelvin Mace. The problem I have is not that you disagree, but that define me as outside the realm of reasonable debate, which in a country that is supposed to be free is quite a statement. (I'd also prefer that you take apart my statement on Holt point by point. PM me and I'll send you a full copy as I think there are a few points deleted from my thread here for brevity's sake.)

Anyway, back to your second to last sentence: "Again, the commission openly says it has the authority to count as many ballots as it pleases, but it does not preclude the county or state from conducting its own audit."

Counterpoints:

1. There are no paper "ballots" created by Holt, only paper "records". The "records" prevail over the ballot count only in the event of "inconsistency or irregularity", and EAC's statutory authority to do additional audits (it has 22 personnel and openly admits it is stretched to do its duties already) exists only if there is cause to do so. A strong argument exists that an audit that is invalid or that is within the margin of error is not "cause" to audit further and EAC would likely have no authority to do so. So, the availability of anything to impeach or override the machine totals as well as to investigate further rides on the validity of the audit, and what it in fact detects.

2. There is language in Holt that purports to give local jurisdictions an option to audit state races. I'd have to check, but since these are (under Holt) designed for "federal races" a question exists, which I'm not trying to answer right now, whether the feds can force the states to create a voter verified record of any kind for state races, even when they occur in the same election as federal races (for convenience purposes). State and federal elections are legally distinct even though they occur together. Presuming that the records exist for state races as well, and the local jurisdictions choose to audit, it's again questionable whether they can audit federal races while they're at it. A private citizen could, but the governmental units are bound by federalism and respect for "sister sovereign" governments. I'm not suggesting a final answer on this second point, but legal uncertainty always creates openings for litigation.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. I'm not defining anyone

Let me just address your second to last sentence Kelvin Mace. The problem I have is not that you disagree, but that define me as outside the realm of reasonable debate, which in a country that is supposed to be free is quite a statement.

I have not defined you "outside the realm of debate". I am not god and do not possess the power to define anyone, nor deprive them of their right to express their views. I have simply stated my views on the argument, with special attention to Bev Harris' (aka Dudley) remarks which are highly irresponsible and quite self-serving. I will tell you right off the bat that association with Bev and her organization cuts your credibility considerably around here and among *real* experts on this topic, as well as reporters and most publicly elected officials. Bev's vicious, vindictive and delusional behavior is WELL documented and if you wish to have your arguments taken seriously, your might want to review any association or affiliation with her and her organization (which has YET to file its tax forms with the IRS for 2004-2005).

(I find it interesting that Bev is still obssessed with DU. She continues to follow the discussion here and send her proxies in, despite the fact that management and the general population have made it plain she and her views are not welcome. I was particularly amused by this remark by Bev:

At BBV we prohibit ascribing motivations to people and require that the discussion stay on the issue.

This from a woman for vicious personal attack is a standard tactic).

If you wish to PM me your points, I will go over them, and offer my rebuttal.

1. There are no paper "ballots" created by Holt, only paper "records". The "records" prevail over the ballot count only in the event of "inconsistency or irregularity",

We had the same arguments in NC. We wanted the language to specifically say paper ballots. The problem was one of those arcane bits of legalistic wording that lawyers do love. There can only be ONE ballot. The ballot is the instrument by which your vote is recorded. If in the course of counting the paper record it is determined that that digital record is in error, the paper record becomes the ballot. Yes, this means that the random audits are important, and that is why we specified a MINIMUM 2% random audit. If deviation is found in the hand count, then a broader audit will ensue unless the deviation is explainable.

(Theoretically speaking, DRE and hand counts *should* match 100%, OpScan counts v. hand counts can have deviation because of recognition failures. OpScan recognition failures should have no pattern, whereas a single vote deviation with DRE means one of three things: 1) I miscounted the paper ballots. 2) The DRE failed for some reason. 3) Some one tampered with the DRE.)

The digital RECORD must match the PAPER record (or have an explainable deviation). If the DIGITAL record is found to be correct, then the DIGITAL record becomes the ballot. If the DIGITAL record is wrong, then the PAPER record becomes the official ballot.

Am I 100% happy with this idea? No, but it was the best we could do given the problems inherent in the incredibly legalistic trappings of our electoral system (The 2005 edition of NC Election law weighs in at 3+ pounds and runs 1200 pages. S223 added another 20 pages to it).

Do I think it is better than the previous system. Hell yeah! Much better.

Should the EAC have more than 22 people to do audits? Yeah, I'd love it. I just don't think it is going to happen until Americans get serious about properly funding their elections. But that's another legislative fight entirely.

Again, there is nothing in 550 which precludes or prevents states from REQUIRING random audits as we do in North Carolina. If you are expecting 550 to be a magic potion that will solve all the voting machine issues then you will be sadly disappointed. 550 is not THE solution, it is the START of the solution, and a pretty decent one at that.

There is language in Holt that purports to give local jurisdictions an option to audit state races. I'd have to check, but since these are (under Holt) designed for "federal races" a question exists, which I'm not trying to answer right now, whether the feds can force the states to create a voter verified record of any kind for state races, even when they occur in the same election as federal races (for convenience purposes).

I didn't see such language in the bill, I was looking for language that would somehow prevent, preclude or supersede such efforts, but saw none.

a question exists, which I'm not trying to answer right now, whether the feds can force the states to create a voter verified record of any kind for state races, even when they occur in the same election as federal races (for convenience purposes).

I am trying to figure out why a state would use one system for federal races, and a completely different system for state races. That would just not fly with the voters. The requirement to use paper by 550 is going to force states to adopt paper.

My experience in NC was that politicians like paper, because the voters have been pretty vocal about it. The people who are fighting us have been the election bureaucrats who can't stand being told what to do and who don't want to actually do any work. Paperless voting makes their job a breeze and allows them to hide (or "correct") errors without any fuss.

In our state and places like Maryland, the DEMOCRATS have been the major obstacle to our reform. This means we are not doing a very good job educating them.

Again, HR-550 is a START, not the whole solution. The fight is not over with the passage of 550, any more than it is over in NC with the passage of S223. We will have to fight this every step of the way, and 550 gives us weapons to fight with.

As to your request that Holt or Dr. Mercuri call you, I think that it behooves you to call them.

[Land Shark]

28. There is a strong constitutional underpining to separate state/federal

elections, which many are unaware of the separation mostly because states choose, for convenience purposes, to have the federal and state elections occur at the same time, but they could occur at a different time if the states chose to do so (perhaps thinking that federal elections were taking a form they hated). But beause of the convenience factor, they often occur together and thus federal policy effectively controls state policy in technically and actually 'separate' elections.

Outside the realm of reasonable debate is "completely deluded". Though that is directed at Bev Harris, her article does not read in a deluded manner, it's simply an opinion strongly disagreed with.

You mention an "association" with Bev Harris. I've no more an association than you do. She has the right to quote something of mine that's publicly published, which is what she did. I don't see how I could stop it: Would I demand that this individual not agree with me? If I write something someone likes it might get quoted or republished. I have two questions for you, what in your mind is the "association" and what is the nature of the guilt or tarnishment by association?

There have already been communications via Rep Holt's staff on listservs, as far as Dr. Mercuri goes, I'm sure she's a nice person but nevertheless the constant repetition of "completely deluded" by you and others actually makes it sound like Mercuri is denouncing a large segment of the election reform community. Because, while there may be extraneous issues that others want to discuss regarding Bev, her general opinion on HR 550 is by no means unique to her.

That's why it sounds like an entire segment of the election reform community is now "completely deluded" because it is only the position on HR 550 that is being focused on by Dr. Mercuri.

Finally, in each case i'm aware of where DREs were actually gotten rid of (Washington state 9ncluding my home county and New Mexico) there was litigation that played a significant role. That is the legislators ore regulators try to "moot" the lawsuits by making some changes in the law. Without this pressure combined with other pressures that are also significant, it is not at all sure the changes will be positive because we haven't seen DREs go completely away except under those conditions of a multiple front attack specifically including litigation. Holt makes that litigation a lot harder because supposedly the "army" of activists now likes DREs, as long as paper records and defective privatized audits are added.

Privatized voting a problem? Why add privatized audits? More likely than not the audits will be publicly available but I don't think we can even guarantee that they will be disclosed after being done. aS far as activists groups bidding, if I were setting the contract specs I would quite reasonably require "5 or more years experience in statistical audit procedures" in order to qualify for the contract. Do you know any activist groups that have that? It's not impossible, but the sizzle that's selling these audits with respect to activist involvement is unlikely to come true.

[Kelvin Mace]

29. Yes, there are constitutional issues

...many are unaware of the separation mostly because states choose, for convenience purposes, to have the federal and state elections occur at the same time, but they could occur at a different time if the states chose to do so (perhaps thinking that federal elections were taking a form they hated). But beause of the convenience factor, they often occur together and thus federal policy effectively controls state policy in technically and actually 'separate' elections.

Which makes the issue murkier at times. But, to our advantage, we can address it at the state level, which is easier than addressing it at the Federal levels. We have forced voting machine companies to fight in 50 states, which levels the playing field a bit.

Outside the realm of reasonable debate is "completely deluded". Though that is directed at Bev Harris, her article does not read in a deluded manner, it's simply an opinion strongly disagreed with.

To keep things straight, those were Dr. Mercuri's words, not mine, though I agree with the sentiment. Dr. Mercuri, like myself, takes Bev's words in context to her actions to date. We have both had considerably more experience dealing with her than you have, so we are a bit more qualified to judge her actions in context to past behaviour.

You mention an "association" with Bev Harris. I've no more an association than you do.

Then you are either closely, or VERY new to the discussion. I am David Allen, Bev's former publisher, contributing writer (co-author by her own lips, but she now denies this) and technical adviser. I no longer have any association with her other than trying to control the damage she does to the movement and educate people that they donate money to her and/or associate with her at their peril.

Would I demand that this individual not agree with me? If I write something someone likes it might get quoted or republished. I have two questions for you, what in your mind is the "association" and what is the nature of the guilt or tarnishment by association?

By association I mean that you are a poster to her board, which is a bit more than simply being quoted by her. The danger to your reputation from associating with her can be found here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Kelvin%20Mace/2

There have already been communications via Rep Holt's staff on listservs, as far as Dr. Mercuri goes, I'm sure she's a nice person but nevertheless the constant repetition of "completely deluded" by you and others actually makes it sound like Mercuri is denouncing a large segment of the election reform community. Because, while there may be extraneous issues that others want to discuss regarding Bev, her general opinion on HR 550 is by no means unique to her.

Dr. Mercuri, like Avi Rubin, Doug Jones, and many other computer and academic professionals in this matter, has been libeled and slandered by Bev, who has accused them of conspiring to steal her work and make money off it by filing a qui tam law suit. Actually, the only person who did that was Bev herself, who got a nice chunk of change from it (yes, yes, she claims to have "donated" the money to bbv.org, but we have yet to see evidence of such, and since her salary is paid by bbv.org, it amounts to the same thing even if she does).

Bev has also used folks like Randi Rhodes to help her raise over a million dollars for actions she promised to undertake (such as auditing all 3000+ counties in 2004, which was a deluded promise from the start) but has never followed through on. When Dr. Mercuri refers to Bev as deluded, she refers to Bev's actions, en toto, to date, not just her irresponsible comments on 550. Bev fears that with the passage of 550, her gravy train and moment in the sun will end.

Finally, in each case i'm aware of where DREs were actually gotten rid of (Washington state 9ncluding my home county and New Mexico) there was litigation that played a significant role. That is the legislators ore regulators try to "moot" the lawsuits by making some changes in the law. Without this pressure combined with other pressures that are also significant, it is not at all sure the changes will be positive because we haven't seen DREs go completely away except under those conditions of a multiple front attack specifically including litigation. Holt makes that litigation a lot harder because supposedly the "army" of activists now likes DREs, as long as paper records and defective privatized audits are added.

First, where are you coming up with "privatized audits"? Second, could you point out this "army" of activists who are willing to accept DREs as long as they have a paper trail.

While we have not been able to outlaws the damnable things in our state, we are still working on it. We have driven them out of a few counties, and prevented them from gaining a foothold in others.

As I said, 550, like all the other laws that have been passed or are pending, is not the end of the matter, but the beginning. It is the first weapon in our arsenal. You seem to be under the impression that once 550 passes, everybody packs up and goes home. I don't know about the folks you hang with, but it certainly is not the view out here in the trenches.

HR-550 re-enforces what we have done in NC, and strengthens our hand. We want it on the books in the fights to come.

It's not impossible, but the sizzle that's selling these audits with respect to activist involvement is unlikely to come true.

Again, I do not know what groups you have been frequenting, but in my talks, both in, and out of NC, I have stressed that the audit provisions are not as strong as they could be, but they are about as strong as we are going to get this time around.

I have attended a number of forums and seminars in multiple states and in every instance activists have been less than thrilled with 550's audit requirements, but happy with the overall bill.

We'll do better next time, what's important is that we get 550 on the books with its disclosure requirements and paper mandate. I wish 550 had criminal provisions in it like we managed in NC (which is why Diebold left rather than comply with the provisions), but we'll try for that in "Son of 550".

[Land Shark]

33. A son of 550 might be quite good, so let's drop "gold standard"

because "gold standard" raises questions when we come back for more.

I accept that you find flaws and limits in the bill. However, since the audits are the only thing that can connect the paper records to the DRE counts in any way that acts as a check, and the audits will also either heavily influence or totally control the EAC's ability to audit more and further, which depends upon the bill's notion of "cause" to do so if the audit is flawed, the bill can not be "overall good", IMHO, the bill must also be flawed too (though perhaps not outside the range of support, even though flawed).

(BTW, the 22 EAC employees are the total number today, and none of them do auditing since we don't have auditing yet)

"Privatized audits". Audits could be by any citizen, or by a govt arm, but instead private contractors will be selected on competitive bids. Just like the method for selecting vendors (except when they are sole sourced) this is privatization of a function. thus, i call them privatized audits to emphasize some similarities to the current vendor process.

Groups I frequent include votetrustusa, e-use, wa-fairelections and other ad hoc issue specific "groups", if you want to call them that.

The word "army" with reference to activists comes from Rush Holt's message in response to Nancy Tobi of a couple or few days ago, sorry i don't have it handy. If in fact our whole "army" has agreed to paper trails or records, then we've conceded on DREs or computers in elections (arguably). We haven't, but it can be made to seem that we have.

Mr. allen, I did not know you except for your screen name until you introduced yourself here and on votetrust. I've tried to stay above the frays with regard to Bev but it sounds like in effect you are saying that the "divorces" that have occurred in the past (my phrase "divorce" previously used to keep things calm) are not the typical kind but the kind where there are factors that force one to choose sides. That a person such as myself can not, as I did today, register at bbv to make comment number one (I may have registered a long time ago but forgot what that registration was, if I ever was so registered).... I'll confess to some ignorance on the part of these politics (though not total ignorance) because nothing good can come of it, except defensive protection from harm, which It sounds like is your motivation.

Here's a metaphor for why HR 550 is not acceptable compromise. now mind you, i'm not a David Allen, but i've worked in a state senate, on congressional campaigns both paid and unpaid, served as a director of a $15 million/year nonprofit organization, been appointed by the WA supreme court to a Board, had published legal cases, voted Rising Star 2 years in a row, nominated as SuperLawyer 2005, nationally ranked by martindaleHubbell as very well qualified, have was lead author of a scientific audit study of Sequoia DREs, filed suit with myself as plaintiff, obtained pro bono services of a top WA state trial lawyer, helped get rid of DREs in my county and state along with many others' contributions, speak and write frequently on election reform, have appeared in two articles by Bob Koehler and various appearances on Thom Hartmann's show and with Thom, have had elections posts here on DU with recommends as high as 82, and am the one hit that comes up when you google "democracy on his shoulders".

I'm embarrassed to say the above, also proud to say some of it. Some of it is over the top, particularly the last one, but it's just some bloggers' too-high praise.

I regret to say that through whatever defect in personality or approach I've had, that I have felt compelled to remark on the above in order to reinforce my right to state an opinion without paying a personal price for it, as to some extent have you as well felt you needed to identify yourself, perhaps to obtain minimal respect for the educational processes you've gone through yourself David, in order to get or restore the minimal level of respect deserved.

Unfortunately, the anonymity and/or quick and unrebutted nature of email and posting leads to communications that go down tangents and don't get nipped in the bud early on, as they would be with in-person conversation. Thus, this past weekend saw a productive conference in DC with all who were present there including my self, but on listservs a couple people who couldn't make it to DC were taking some pretty serious pot shots. I'm hoping everyone can distinguish pot shots or shots at issues from personal shots or shots at "credibility". I think everyone can and ought to think for themselves so there should be no need to rely on my "credibility" or anyone else's in a very great manner. thus, one would hope that this would eliminate, in the usual case, the need to attack credibility of others (this is a general point, not directly raised between you and me)

FINALLY. The metaphor. If someone sticks their hand in your pocket, and thus in a sense down your pants a bit, and then the person starts negotiating with you to take their hand perhaps about half way out in exchange for some kind of payment or compromise, the proposal is outrageous. There would be no such compromise, no such reward, because what has been done was totally inappropriate from the get go.

This "hand in the pocket" metaphor is why, although I'm quite used to the notion of compromise in contentious litigation and in the state senate/political experiences I've had, there are a small class of cases where compromise is not really appropriate. I think democracy is one of these.

I'm sure your feelings against DREs are as strong or stronger than mine, a strategy difference occurs here. I actually think it's easier to beat DREs paperless, and we (activists) have done so. Easier, that is, than with the false security of a paper record and a flawed audit. Even if not, I'm not interested in compromising with Deibold's hand down my pocket or democracy's pocket.

Ultimately, democracy is not yours or mine to play with. so while play we must, so to speak, we've said that we would in our litigation for example never accept any compensation of any kind, to avoid exchanging our rights and some future generation's rights in exchange for money. That's in part a luxury of lawyer-representing-lawyer as in my case such that fees are not at issue, so I don't expect that standard for everyone, but we also so each do what we can, and it's different for everybody.

I don't think we have any problems other than getting more organized, and better media support, some less infighting. In the end, as i've written here before, if we're fighting for democracy in fact, on what basis of history or precedent can we conclude that Americans, fighting for democracy ON THEIR OWN SOIL, would lose?

I don't think we are, in the medium or long run, weak in any sense of the word, it just takes a few years to arouse the people. We should instead work on the clearest possible communications, best media relations, and best litigation strategies, and I guarantee you that DREs will be wiped off the face of the United States of America.

But I've been wrong before. In the prediction regarding my own county, I was off by 4 days. I said they'd be gone by the end of 2005 and the county council's action was made January 4, 2006.

Nobody that hears our case, assuming they hear it, really rejects it. Something like 90% acceptance when people listen. We need only capture the echo chamber of the media. A bickering movement may fail to do so. thus, all the good cause there is or isn't to distrust certain activists concerns me because in the end, it's all about democracy. And in the end, if there's every been a time in this country's history when people actually died for freedom and democracy, then what right to we have to greatly compromise in this regard, today?

If I'm wrong, if in fact democracy does not have an ultimately irresistible power right here in the USA, then perhaps we ought to have the predicate conversation of whether or not we believe in democracy, representative or otherwise. I say we almost universally do believe, that we can win here on our own soil, and the ones that have their hands in the pocket of democracy can take it ALL they way out, and they can kiss my ass when they're done.

I accept that other activists, some of them such as yourself very accomplished and skillful, can legitimately push for Holt using an incremental strategy that I well understand. But it's also reasonable to take a "you can pry my ballot from my cold dead fingers" approach. Every successful movement has found the fire of the Declaration of Independence. here's a small part of our fire today, from the revolutionary flag "don't tread on me"

[Kelvin Mace]

34. Misconstruing the remarks

"gold standard" raises questions when we come back for more.

550 is the "gold standard" which other legislation must equal or exceed. Anything less than 550 is not acceptable. Why is this wrong?

I accept that you find flaws and limits in the bill. However, since the audits are the only thing that can connect the paper records to the DRE counts in any way that acts as a check, and the audits will also either heavily influence or totally control the EAC's ability to audit more and further, which depends upon the bill's notion of "cause" to do so if the audit is flawed, the bill can not be "overall good", IMHO, the bill must also be flawed too (though perhaps not outside the range of support, even though flawed).

550 cannot exist in a vacuum. It is ONE part of the equation. Activists must pick up the slack left by 550 in their own states. If all you are going to rely on is 550, you will be very unhappy. There are federal statutes against murder, but it is with state statutes that most enforcement occurs.

"Privatized audits". Audits could be by any citizen, or by a govt arm, but instead private contractors will be selected on competitive bids. Just like the method for selecting vendors (except when they are sole sourced) this is privatization of a function. thus, i call them privatized audits to emphasize some similarities to the current vendor process.

Could you tell me where in the bill it specifies that audits will be conducted by private contractors? I don't see that issue addressed in the bill. Is it possible this could happen? Yes. Should it happen? It depends on who the "private contractor" is and who they are answerable to and whether the results will be made public. Given the fact that 550 requires proprietary computer code to be revealed publicly, I think we would be well within our rights to say to a judge that the results of the audit (as well as the procedures, participants, etc) be public.

Bringing in a platoon of CPAs to conduct an audit wouldn't bother me, whereas a platoon of Diebold employees would.

The word "army" with reference to activists comes from Rush Holt's message in response to Nancy Tobi of a couple or few days ago, sorry i don't have it handy. If in fact our whole "army" has agreed to paper trails or records, then we've conceded on DREs or computers in elections (arguably). We haven't, but it can be made to seem that we have.

By and large the thrust of our efforts for the last 3 years has been a paper ballot/record of the vote, reviewable at the time the vote was cast. There has been a minority view within the movement who reject computers utterly, and want hand counts only (good luck). There is another minority that argued that as long as we had the source code, we could forgo paper. I disagree with both views. The first is impossible, the second naive.

So, while there are dissenting views within the movement, most feel the bill is sound. The leaders I work with have not (and that would include folks here at DU) sold the bill as a panacea that solves all problems. Most have voiced caveats, but supported the bill.

The word "army" with reference to activists comes from Rush Holt's message in response to Nancy Tobi of a couple or few days ago, sorry i don't have it handy. If in fact our whole "army" has agreed to paper trails or records, then we've conceded on DREs or computers in elections

I have no real objection to Holt's use in this context. You stated:

Holt makes that litigation a lot harder because supposedly the "army" of activists now likes DREs, as long as paper records and defective privatized audits are added.

Did Holt actually say "I have an army of activists who now like DREs" or did you infer it from his remarks? In your above statement you are conflating acceptance of the bill with acceptance of DREs, when no such thing has been said.

Mr. allen, I did not know you except for your screen name until you introduced yourself here and on votetrust. I've tried to stay above the frays with regard to Bev but it sounds like in effect you are saying that the "divorces" that have occurred in the past (my phrase "divorce" previously used to keep things calm) are not the typical kind but the kind where there are factors that force one to choose sides. That a person such as myself can not, as I did today, register at bbv to make comment number one (I may have registered a long time ago but forgot what that registration was, if I ever was so registered).... I'll confess to some ignorance on the part of these politics (though not total ignorance) because nothing good can come of it, except defensive protection from harm, which It sounds like is your motivation.

About two minutes of research would have revealed my identity, which is no secret. My two web sites are in my signature, and I post there under my own name. A question on any thread or a PM to me would have gotten a quick answer.

You have come on to DU, a place Bev was banned from twice. She has said and done things to people on this site that may be forgiven at some future time just prior to the Sun burning out. These are not minor squabbles and differences of opinion, these are deep-seated grievances. This is not a "he said/she said" issue. Bev's sins have been very THOROUGHLY documented.

While I appreciate the difficulties with dealing with anonymous posters on line (believe me I know), a bit of what I believe is referred to as "due diligence" would have served you well. We here at DU and elsewhere have dealt repeatedly with Bev's proxies and shills, and Bev herself posting under other names. As such, people are damned suspicious of Bev defenders, supporters or advocates.

Unlike some, I don't see Bev everywhere, and I like to see a lot more evidence before I make such an accusation. Sadly, this doesn't help on-line discourse.

So, my suggestion is that your take the time to read through the posts I provided you with and weigh the evidence. There are a LOT of people who have not had good experiences with Bev, more than can be explained by mere chance or conflicts of personality. We can't ALL be wrong.

FINALLY. The metaphor. If someone sticks their hand in your pocket, and thus in a sense down your pants a bit, and then the person starts negotiating with you to take their hand perhaps about half way out in exchange for some kind of payment or compromise, the proposal is outrageous. There would be no such compromise, no such reward, because what has been done was totally inappropriate from the get go.

This "hand in the pocket" metaphor is why, although I'm quite used to the notion of compromise in contentious litigation and in the state senate/political experiences I've had, there are a small class of cases where compromise is not really appropriate. I think democracy is one of these.

Uh, I can't agree to your metaphor. With the disclosure requirements we have required vendors to strip naked prior to approaching us. We then require that every transaction that takes place in the black box be documented on paper. The argument concerning the audit is not trivial, but neither is it death dealing. Again, 550 CANNOT operate in a vacuum. State laws have to fill in the gaps.

I'm sure your feelings against DREs are as strong or stronger than mine, a strategy difference occurs here. I actually think it's easier to beat DREs paperless, and we (activists) have done so. Easier, that is, than with the false security of a paper record and a flawed audit. Even if not, I'm not interested in compromising with Deibold's hand down my pocket or democracy's pocket.

If you don't want Diebold's hand in your pocket, don't let them put it there. The law does not give them that power and it is up to the individual states to make sure they keep their hands in plain view and out of everyone's pocket, including their own.

550 does not in any way allow Diebold or any vendor to run the audit process.

Ultimately, democracy is not yours or mine to play with. so while play we must, so to speak, we've said that we would in our litigation for example never accept any compensation of any kind, to avoid exchanging our rights and some future generation's rights in exchange for money. That's in part a luxury of lawyer-representing-lawyer as in my case such that fees are not at issue, so I don't expect that standard for everyone, but we also so each do what we can, and it's different for everybody.

I don't see that we are depriving "future generations" of any rights. If future generations allow the vendors or the governments to find/manufacture loopholes in 550 and every other law being worked on, then that is THEIR fault, not ours. This is like blaming the founding fathers for not explicitly stating that the 4th Amendment may never be used for warrantless searches carried out by messianic "presidents" who use terrorists as an excuse. It is OUR responsibility to do that.

While 550 is NOT the Constitution, it is a good foundation for future reform and certainly a good foundation for individual states to build on.

I don't think we have any problems other than getting more organized, and better media support, some less infighting. In the end, as i've written here before, if we're fighting for democracy in fact, on what basis of history or precedent can we conclude that Americans, fighting for democracy ON THEIR OWN SOIL, would lose?

I don't think we are, in the medium or long run, weak in any sense of the word, it just takes a few years to arouse the people. We should instead work on the clearest possible communications, best media relations, and best litigation strategies, and I guarantee you that DREs will be wiped off the face of the United States of America.

This issue practically did not exist prior to 2003 outside of the odd article and in computer journals. It certainly did not in the media, and while Bev had some hand in this, she denigrated that contribution by her subsequent action, especially vis-a-vis the media. Bev's erratic and abusive behaviour discredited the issue with many in the media. You need to look at how she cheesed off Keith Obermann who was willing to champion Bev's claims in 2004. Unfortunately, her claims were bullshit and if she had dared subject herself to such scrutiny she would have been discredited nationally.

We HAVE been organizing people. We have been talking to the press. We could not have accomplished what we did if we hadn't.

I accept that other activists, some of them such as yourself very accomplished and skillful, can legitimately push for Holt using an incremental strategy that I well understand. But it's also reasonable to take a "you can pry my ballot from my cold dead fingers" approach. Every successful movement has found the fire of the Declaration of Independence. here's a small part of our fire today, from the revolutionary flag "don't tread on me"

There are ways to get the changes you want in this bill once it goes into committee. Lord knows that we will have a hell of a fight on our hand to keep the vendors out of it. Right now we are trying to get a bill that gives us some protection (in combat, a helmet and kevlar jock is better than no helmet and no kevlar jock).

The issues under discussion are open to just that, discussion. But at some point, we have to decide what to get behind. Once that decision has been made, then the minority must decide whether to get behind the effort, (with an eye toward addressing their issues in the future); or to abstain from the issue, or to actively oppose passage and gain the enmity of the majority by threatening the success of the entire endeavor.

[Land Shark]

35. there is a continuum here, from pro-DRE to ignorance to 550 to PBHC ...

You appear to assume that anyone who remains from your perspective less willing to make strategic compromises hurts your side and therefore "gain the enmity" of your side.

In fact, if makes you much more of a centrist than you would otherwise be, and in most ways strengthens your hand.

In saying the above I'm adopting your frame that the contrary position to HR 550 is a less realistic, more extreme position, etc., and saying that nevertheless it still strengthens you because politicians are trying to find teh most sensible or stable constellation of positions and this often involves simplistic notions of being "not with the radical right or the wacky left, but in the sensible middle". But for those who are arguing against, you are the "left" and in a more difficult position.

But in the end, while you ably state your own arguments, you've not really dealt with some of mine, which are more than merely "emotional", and even if "emotional" they reflect political emotions that are relevant to this debate and our long term success.

For example, assuming ours is a fight for democracy, what are the chances of losing this battle on American soil, given what we're all taught and told? it seems to me that their only BIG hope on the other side is to deny us the media, but even then we may still win if we stick steadfastly to the strongest arguments.

the dynamic, if you argue against the "emotional" frames above, is that you risk diminishing democracy or denying that democracy is at issue in our activism. Neither one is very attractive. On the other hand, if it really is about democracy, then perhaps we need to talk less about DRE VVPAT WXYZ ABCDEFG, and talk more about democracy, where people resonate.

I don't think that democracy can be killed, head on and directly. However, it could easily be killed accidentally or on purpose if it is renamed into something with less support and then ridiculed or lobbied away. For example, checks and balances can be called redudancy and wastefulness, transparency can be deemed a lack of security, separation of powers is wasteful lack of coordination and control.

The power of the Holt bill is when democracy peeks out from behind the acronyms and the legislation to motivate people.

Pro-550 people are saying that this is the best we can get NOW. That seems fearful, instead I think we should consciously build around democracy, and not be afraid so long as we stick with our strengths.

Democracy is power, and within not too long a time politicians will be scrambling to serve it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

36. still swift-boating?

Diebold/President Jeb Bush/Cathy Cox/Linda Lamone all thank you for
your stance on HR 550.

They wouldn't be here without the continued and prolonged resistance by
democrats to voter verified paper ballots.

And, excellent timing, to increase the rhetoric during YOUR
colleague's lobbying days. One might think you deliberately
waited until the most important time and wanted to sabotage
their efforts.

How would you like it if your colleagues suddenly participated in assisting
Sequoia or your state AGAINST you in your law suit?
How would you like , if you waited nearly 3 years to have your case heard, and the day
you went to court, your colleagues did a sort of anti Paul Lehto? In public?

*It takes more than lawsuits to get anywhere in making change.

If all it took was a lawsuit, then I can think of none more worthy
than the one filed by Lynne Landes.

Honest question - are you trying to sabotage HR 550?
Honest question - are you trying to sabotage your colleagues?
Honest question - do you think it ethical to sabotage the efforts of an organization
that had placed trust in you?

[Land Shark]

37. Joyce, why don't you post this on VoteTrust ?

You weren't there in DC, I was not "counter-lobbying" Congress, so why don't you encourage someone who was there to specifically identify what if anything they thought was not appropriate and why.

I was there participating on a legal panel, the entire conference, asking Ray Martinez of the EAC a question along with others, giving out free t-shirts to any one who wanted one regarding election reform having a message no one objects to, and nobody who was actually there gave me a hard time or a sideways look.

The only thing that's guaranteed sabotaging and divisive is your reaction via these posts. If you want to tell me something, give me a call at 425-422-1387.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

38. somehow you got to some email

you did everything you could against it via email.
while you may have been in DC, you had a computer nearby, or else someone
was signing in as you and sending emails for you.

now I see you have joined forces with Bev Harris - good for you.

maybe you will end up like some of her other victims.

[Kelvin Mace]

43. I have addressed your arguments

I see nothing in the bill which promulgates "privatized audits". I do not see that I am in any way thwarting democracy by my position.

Apparently I will not dissuade you from trying to scuttle this bill. I infer from your remarks that by supporting the bill I am some sort of unwitting tool for the opposition who wishes to destroy democracy.

Well Hell, Bev called me a willing tool and has accused me of taking money from Diebold to "THWART" her efforts and to defeat attempts to outlaw paperless voting, so I guess going from willing tool to unwitting tool is some kind of promotion.

HR-550 is the bill. I support it and will do all in my power to get it passed. I am tired of having my integrity/patriotism/liberalism/ethics/love of small furry animals/ called into question because I disagree with someone.

I am tired of being lectured about democracy. With the exception of Bev, I do not question anyone's motivations for their opinions. If you don't like the bill, then oppose it and God bless you and keep you.

Alea jacta est!

[FogerRox]

45. I'll try to tackle this one

"gold standard" raises questions when we come back for more.

550 is the "gold standard" which other legislation must equal or exceed. Anything less than 550 is not acceptable. Why is this wrong?

Both of the above are very good points. SO how do we put both statements on the same planet? To me Hr550 is a good start, maybe it is a "Foundation" a "Paper ballot foundation". If we do not call hr550 the "gold standard", then what?

HOlts bill is due some sort of name that merits the effort behind the bill.

Any ideas?

[FogerRox]

19. . . . . .that is why I went to the Archives instead of . . . .

maybe. . . . recounting a phone conversation I had with Andy.

I think I still have his cell # in my cell.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. the bandwagon of exploiters of Andy Stephenson.

Some persist in the exploitation of Andy Stephenson so as to further their
own agenda.



Hmmm... this seems to be a recurring pattern - of Andy being exploited.

Very sad, because he was a sweet man who was hounded to death by some nasty people.

[FogerRox]

22. you made your point, but it can be taken too far.

At some point, by pointing out the exploitation of Andy, some may take it,that that is exploitation too. It would be a shame if your post was taken the wrong way.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. and as if there is an excuse for

neat trick - its not exploitation if someone complains about it.
Then they are the exploiters for calling it what it is.

[FogerRox]

25. its your campaign, go for it. make your bed, and sleep in it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

26. Its your thread, your campaign

It was your choice to start this thread, and you don't even seem to feel sorry about it,
but I will not accept your blame for your choice.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. To be fair,

I don't think it was his intent to exploit Andy.

I would point out that the quote he cites does exhibit the ambivalence I was talking about. Andy comments on the weakness of the auditing, but then concludes with "OK, I'd go for that."

Lets try to keep the discussion civil. Andy is a sore spot with many people, and it is easy for folks to get really pissed over comments taken wrong.

Remember we are dealing with a written medium, and are half blind and completely deaf as a result.

[Land Shark]

32. And that is a fair point, to be sure. n/t

[autorank]

40. What's this all about?

"accept your blame"...That's entirely out of line. It has nothing to do with Foger's points.

Argue the issues please.

[autorank]

41. Stop please. n/t

[autorank]

39. A big kick for INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. They're our elections...

...we don't need to ask permission to have them conducted properly.

We need to be generous and understanding of the limitations of EVERY ONE OF OUR LEADERS who fail to take positions like Conyers, Rangel, Strickland, and the CBC...full transparency, free, fair elections.

Cut the bull shit. Let's get some truth in the equation.

The politicians do their thing, we do ours. This doesn't mean we shouldn't support HR550. Any step is better than nothing, any dialog is better than nothing...but don't substitute reality based thinking for the collective nonsense of Congress (and I'm not talking about Holt, who I admire, I said "collective nonsense").

Keep telling the truth, don't stop, that's been our only hope and our best quality from whenever each of us woke up from the "democracy trance" we've lived believing that we have fair elections in this country.

Thanks Foger.

[FogerRox]

46. I am really fed up with this crap- the ER forum has become a flame war for

the last week.

My intent with this thread was to bring some fuckin god damn perspective to a discussion, that apparently started outside of DU.

points-
- Here at the ER forum we were talking about Holts bill a year ago. I wanted the participants of the "discussion" to go back and read a bit.

I will not participate anymore. You are all acting like a bunch of children.

You are all fucked up.

[FogerRox]

47. 23 more votes for the ERd are needed

recommend the ERD NOW . . here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=nominate&forum=203&thread=422803