A challenge for HCPB supporters

[Kelvin Mace]

Everybody keeps swearing it can be done and is being done.

Show me a county or country which:

- Has at least 200,000 voters
- Has ballots styles and races as complex as the US (50 different ballots styles, 25+ races)
- Has results within 48 hours
- Has elections that are honest and accurate
- Has paper ballots that it counts by hand

I think I have covered the principle conditions to make for an honest test. Others may point out something I missed.

[MH1]

1. Good challenge, but one question -

Why is "50 different ballot styles" relevant? (Number of races is important though)

Isn't ballot style something that could be made more uniform, if it helped make a more reliable process?

[Bill Bored]

3. Each ballot style could be counted one at a time at the precinct.

Each precinct (not each POLLING PLACE!) should only have one ballot style, except in primaries. I agree that ballot styles shouldn't matter as long as there are only 1 or 2 per precinct.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Let me clarify

by ballot style, I mean that ballots are different in different precincts, due to differing issues that only people in some districts can vote for. It is one of the annoying complexities of American politics.

[Bill Bored]

13. I understand what you mean by ballot style.

And that's why I'm saying that for this to work, the votes need to be counted one precinct at a time, one ballot style at a time.

The process is being complicated unnecessarily with Early and Absentee voting, which probably doesn't increase turnout that much anyway.

When you have 1,000,000 ballots in a room somewhere with all those different styles, machine counting makes sense. But if you have <1000 with the same ballot style, hand counts become practical.

Remember, Early Voting itself is a scam to sell DREs because you have to be able to support every ballot style in the county at one Walmart or whatever. I don't think you are defending that just to oppose hand counts are you?

[Kelvin Mace]

16. I will need some practical examples

When you have 1,000,000 ballots in a room somewhere with all those different styles, machine counting makes sense. But if you have <1000 with the same ballot style, hand counts become practical.

That is still alot of ballots to sift through. If I assume it takes 12 poeople 3 hours to get through that thousand (based on the NH video), that still means a HELL of a lot of time to count 1,000,000 ballots by hand. You still have to count EACH race separately, which means 25 races results in ballots being counted 25,000 times. 12 people counting 1,000 ballots 25,000 times in three hours sounds right. But if we extrapolate those numbers to 1 million ballots, we are talking about 3,000 hours (1,000 groups of 1,000 ballots x 3 hours).

Remember, Early Voting itself is a scam to sell DREs because you have to be able to support every ballot style in the county at one Walmart or whatever. I don't think you are defending that just to oppose hand counts are you?

I have repeatedly stated that I do NOT support TS systems (technically, any electronic voting machine that records votes is a DRE, so let's be precise in out language). I support OpScan at the precinct level, with all of the protections found in HR-550 and NC s.223.

[Bill Bored]

19. Well if you are supporting a hand count of at least 2% of precincts,

are you also saying this isn't scalable to more precincts? Because I don't see why it's not.

I know the HR 550 audit may be limited to the three federal offices, but it does provide the option for the states to allow local races to be audited as well.

So if you can count every vote in 2% of precincts, why can't you do more than that?

There will always be some percentage of races where the 2% audit is inadequate to confirm the outcome. In 2004, there were about 60 in the US House alone according to some back of the envelope calculations I've done. That doesn't mean they have to be 100% hand counted, but a happy medium between the minimum and the whole enchilada could be developed. I don't think hand counting a significant percentage of 60 Congressional districts out of 435 is too much to ask with complete control of a whole House of Congress at stake -- every committee, the Speaker, subpoena power, etc. do you -- hypothetically speaking?

[Kelvin Mace]

20. 2% is the minimum, not the maximum

So if you can count every vote in 2% of precincts, why can't you do more than that?

Because counting 2% of something is simpler than counting 100% of something.

[Bill Bored]

2. Well, for one thing, you're asking for a county that does it now.

If that doesn't exist, it doesn't mean it can't be done.

I think if you do away with Early Voting, Absentee Voting (except if the voters are actually infirmed or out of town) and count all the ballots at the precincts on election night, it's doable. But because the voting process is being trivialized to make it "easier", we now need various machines at various times in various places outside the precincts.

Soon, there may be legislation to post precinct totals transparently (to mitigate the "dangerous" Bev Harris/Howard Dean MS Access/GEMS hack as seen on the TeeVee). If that happens, we will be manually checking precinct aggregation (central tabulation) and comparing it to precinct totals witnessed on election night. It's not a big stretch to imagine hand counting the ballots at those precincts too, instead of just checking and comparing the totals.

But I do think that unless nearly all votes are cast and counted at the precincts, it will be hard to hand count. Once you get too many ballots in one place, you have problems finding enough honest counters and you do have a "people management" problem. But a few hundred ballots in a precinct? I think it could be done. Not that I'm necessarily for it, but I think it's possible. (I do think Early and no-excuse Absentee voting are scams though.)

[Kelvin Mace]

4. You may also show me another country

or political sub-division of another country.

The latest study I looked at showed OpScan counting at the precinct level was decidely more accurate than hand-counting. The most accurate (0.3% residual votes) were TS with VVPT (based on Nevada's 17 counties). I still oppose TS as overly complicated, expensive and of questionable reliability, but it is an instructive study that bears more scrutiny.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. note that residual votes are just one aspect of accuracy

Excessive residual vote rates do tend to connote inaccuracy in counting votes as intended, but (obviously) a very low residual vote rate doesn't imply an accurate count. That said, some folks talk as if residual vote rates were a hoax perpetrated by the DRE manufacturers. If it weren't for residual votes, the 2000 election never would have made it to the Supreme Court.

[Bill Bored]

12. And it was the Overvotes that decided the race.

Unfortunately, hand counts do have higher overvote rates, but not necessarily undervote rates, right? And those are voter errors, not counting errors.

But residuals aside, Ted Selker once cited a study that showed hand counts were accurate to within 1 in 10,000 votes. I don't know where he got that though. That's pretty good if it was actually measured objectively. The HAVA 1 in 500,000 accuracy spec only works if the machines don't fail and if the ballot definition programming is correct, neither of which are assured (not to mention all the other security problems).

But anyway, I agree that residuals are a very limited way of looking at the problem.

[Kelvin Mace]

18. Agreed, but as the ballots are secret

we don't have a lot to work with. :)

[Cookie wookie]

26. Being from Diebold country, there is no way we can

know that the so-called residual rates are accurate because it's the GEMS code that's putting the votes into these categories. They could as easily be disappearing residuals during the election as counting them, just to make things look good for their DREs.

It is odd that Diebold puts the residuals for all races but the presidential into a category called "blank voted", so residuals don't show up in the ballot summary information. It is a practice that is deliberately misleading. Why should we trust that presidential residuals really go in the presidential residual race category? We shouldn't and can't.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. sure, the residual rates could be off, but

I don't think I actually have a warrant for disregarding them outright. (By the way, I never thanked you for chipping in with some information on another thread -- I did appreciate it, just didn't feel like kicking the thread right then.) It's certainly easy for the manufacturers to make residual votes Go Away either by casting them for candidates, or by reducing recorded turnout, but I'm far from convinced that this generally is happening.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just leaning in the opposite direction. It's well established that Diebold's "undervote" convention is bizarre, but the academic studies aren't looking at that anyway. It's active vote-tinkering that is the unknown.

Shenanigans aside, there's experimental evidence that people can easily miscast their votes on DREs (even when the DREs are nominally functioning perfectly). Not that they can't miscast votes using other methods.

[kster]

7. OK, here we go

Switzerland first count manually and then the votes are counted by a machine

Manual Counting*

Albania
Andorra
Antigua & Barbuda
Australia (might try using vote counting machines during upcoming elections but presently by hand)
Austria
Algeria
Bahamas
Belarus
Botswana
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Congo-Brazzaville
Costa Rica
Côte d'Ivoire
Cyprus
Denmark
Egypt
Estonia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Greece
Guinea-Bissau
Ireland
Italy
Kenya
Kiribati
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malawi
Malaysia
Malta
Monaco
Mongolia
Mozambique
Nauru
Philippines
Portugal (A pilot experiment with touch screens in Dec 1997 which went well. The technology was too expensive though)
Russia
Samoa
Senegal
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Tanzania
Tuvalu
Uganda
Uruguay
Vanuatu (might try using vote counting machines during upcoming elections but presently by hand)
Zimbabwe


http://www.idea.int/vt/vote_counting_methods.cfm

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Could you show me the ballots for ONE of these countries so

we can see if it meets the criteria.

Simply posting a list of countries is not what I asked for. Go back and READ the criteria.

This is a call for PROOF, not heresay.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. Also, you picked a bad country to start with

I lived in Switzerland for two years, and have relatives there (in Muralto, Canton Ticino). I speak passable Italian, and read the Swiss-Italian and Italian newspapers. My mother's family is from Ireland and I have seen Irish elections, in the North and in the Republic.

The ballots for these countries are simple and standardized. Generally only 3-5 races at a time.

[kster]

10. Switzerland is pretty smart, hand count then machine count

now thats brilliant and makes the most sense, even you have to admit that. If we can't figure out how to count ballots by hand, maybe these guys can figure it out for us, being as you think its going to take a rocket scientist, to figure it out.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. You have completely ignored the criteria

It seems you are not interested in providing real evidence to back up your claims.

I didn't say it would take a rocket scientist, I said it couldn't be done. I have outlined a way you can prove it can be, and you have not availed yourself to the opportunity.

[kster]

15. No such thing as "it couldn't be done" do you tell your kids that

I can't imagine telling my kids, Americans are to stupid to count the ballots by hand, so we have to let the corporations count them, with machines, in secret, and then go online to try and convince other Americans that it can't be done. What the f.........

It can be done AND IT MUST BE DONE, FOR OUR KIDS SAKE!

[Kelvin Mace]

17. You keep twisting the situation

and injecting non-sequitors into the discussion.

The criteria is ACCURATE, HONEST counts in a timely manner (48 hours after polls close).

I ask you to show me that it can be done, providing you with a REAL WORLD situation. I ask you to produce a single example that meets the REAL WORLD criteria. You have not done so, instead you have given me a long list of countries with no supporting evvidence that any of them meet the REAL WORLD criteria. In fact, I rebut to of them from personal experience.

You keep saying it can be done, and I keep telling you to prove it.

[Cookie wookie]

27. Wow. Great list. n/t

[Bill Bored]

14. So I ask the HCPB proponents:

Are you willing to do away with both Early Voting and No-excuse Absentee voting? Come on tell me!

(And BTW, you will have to convince a lot of Democrats who believe these are the greatest things since sliced bread!)

[Patsy Stone]

21. What is the 48 hour requirement?

Why is that there? Why can't we wait? Last I checked we had until January.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. That is the practical limit in today's society

Sorry, that's the way it is. We may put up with the occasional delay (the 2000 fiasco), but there is no way that the American public is going to wait until January to learn the results of the election. It is the 21st century, not the 18th.

[Patsy Stone]

25. I think that's setting up a false argument.

If you arbitrarily assign a 48 hour window, and it may require a bit more time, maybe 72, then your premise is doomed from the start. I've explained it a bit more in my post below.

In reality, if we had to wait a week for the results to be complete, and wholly accurate, I don't think that the people would scream all that much.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. You overestimate

American patience in this day and age.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. chain of custody / transparency

I think Kelvin is probably right that people don't want to wait more than two days for hand counts -- but conceivably they would be willing to wait (and perhaps pay more, or possibly be tapped for "count duty"), if they were convinced that they would get more reliable, secure results.

It's my impression that most HCPB advocates believe that their method confers a crucial advantage over other methods because it enables counts to be determined and posted relatively quickly at the precinct level. This is deemed more secure and transparent than, for instance, central-count optical scan. Well, if the hand count can't be reliably completed by a single shift on election night, then I don't see much gain in security or transparency. If ballot batches are repeatedly opened and resealed, the chain of custody gets increasingly murky, doesn't it?

I think it's contrary to historical experience to suppose that we will have more confidence in election outcomes if the results trickle in over several days. Of course there could be some reason why historical experience just doesn't apply -- but considering that HCPB advocates often depict hand counts as a tried-and-true method, the whole line of argument is hard for me to follow.

[Patsy Stone]

24. I see your point

and I agree that "weeks" is too long. In most cases they could be counted at the precinct level in a reasonable amount of time. I just thought 48 hours was a false requirement, making the whole scenario incorrectly impossible, leaving a false argument from the beginning.

In most cases, where there is no real discrepancy, there should be no problem with certifying the results in the amount of time required (maybe 48/72 hours?). The only time the results might be delayed is in a situation where a recount was required or requested. At that point, the recount, and any subsequent lawsuits, might take some time, and there is time until January. If the HCPB do their job, the only requests for recounts would be based on close races, not uncovering fraud, and probably could also be resolved in a timely manner.

I think it's contrary to historical experience that we are now required to have instantaneous voting results. Remember when we used to wait for letters to arrive and nothing was done by e-mail? Just because we might be able to, doesn't mean we have to. Some things are too important to be rushed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. OK, I don't want to get stuck in dueling talking points

I don't have an emotional investment in being pro-HCPB or anti-HCPB (and note that a lot of the skeptics aren't really "anti"s).

Again, it seems to me that if you think that it might take three days to complete a hand count, then you are probably giving up one of the important benefits normally attributed to hand counts -- possibly even turning it into a net minus. At some point I wandered through some Carter Center guidelines for controversial elections, and they put much emphasis on quick counts. I'm not saying that speed is a top-tier goal in itself; I think even Kelvin would agree that getting the right result is more important. But I'm saying that there isn't a straightforward tradeoff between speed and confidence in the result: doing it slow doesn't necessarily increase the chances of getting it right, nor does it necessarily promote confidence in the results.

To convince someone such as eridani that HCPB could be viable in King County, WA, surely it won't suffice to argue generally that "Some things are too important to be rushed," although of course that is true. It will take something that looks more like a detailed operational plan. I'm not putting this on you, just making a general point.

As for the political dimension -- are people willing to wait? are people willing to pay more and/or do more in order to get hand counts? -- I don't see much point in arguing about it. At this point I don't think most Americans would support waiting days for the results of hand counts, but I won't go pounding the table that it is an immutable law of nature.

[Patsy Stone]

30. Well, that makes two of us

I don't want to argue either. And I, too, have no emotional investment. But it seems that the discussions about this always include a false choice like "millions of ballots", or the ballots are "too complex", assuming that this would have to remain the case.

During the 2000 fiasco, I remember the media declaring that the public couldn't wait. I don't remember any citizen groups marching for the results to be published immediately. And don't count the Brooks Brothers riot, that could very well have been exposed as what it was at the time. I mean real people.

I see HR 550 as a positive step to improve whatever crap is there now. Is it my ideal solution? No. Do I think my ideal solution will come tomorrow? No. Do I think it's impossible? No.

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. that's an excellent point about 2000

I have no doubt that Americans are willing to wait weeks if necessary -- and all those assurances to the contrary left a bad taste in my mouth, too. I don't think that settles the HCPB issue, but it's certainly a fair point.

I think there has been some good discussion amidst the false binaries.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. There are 100 million plus ballots to count

this is a fact. Counting at the precinct level is the way to go whether HCPB or OpScan with audits.

Complex ballots are also fact, not a "false choice".

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Yes, but now we have email

microwaves and FedEx. Amerians now have expectations.

I have yet to see anyone explain to me how complex ballots will be handled in a timely fashion and where the people to do the counting will come from and how they will be vetted.

Estimates of the number of counters needed nationwide have ranged from 240,000 to over 1 million.

[Febble]

42. I think speed is important for another reason though

in the UK we count overnight, which means that secure custody of the ballots is fairly easy to ensure - they are constantly watched by members of the public until the count is complete. There is actually concern in the UK that if a proposal to postpone the count till the next day is implemented, it may present greater opportunities for tampering.

HCPB can be a good system, but it is as prone to corruption as other systems. Ours works in part because of its speed.

[organik]

32. 48 hours? Ridiculous.

There is no reason to think people won't put up with waiting longer...contested elections certainly will take a hell of a lot longer than 48hrs.

I say if we can do it two weeks, we should. Even if it took a month I'd be willing to wait.

Don't YOU think accurate elections are worth more than 48 hours?

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. the OP is not about what you say -- it is about actual practice

And, clearly, it is not about a small fraction of elections that are contested; it is about ordinary procedure.

Can you find a jurisdiction that meets all the criteria in the OP except for the time limit?

[organik]

37. Shouldn't we conduct elections the way they SHOULD BE conducted...

not the way they have been conducted in the past?

Shouldn't America show the world how real democracy should function?

I don't care if it has been done in other countries, we absolutely need to do it here, regardless of cost, or how long it takes.

I refuse to believe we are limited to following the example of others when it comes to running an election, we are the "beacon of democracy" are we not?

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. that is a strong statement, but not a very helpful one

Ronald Reagan may have been very sincere in believing that the U.S. absolutely needed a ballistic missile defense system to render nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete, regardless of cost or how long it took. (And then, of course, we would share it with the Soviets.) It really doesn't matter how sincere he was. And, in itself, it doesn't matter how sincere you are. What matters is what you do, and whether it makes things better or worse.

We're not limited to following the example of others (and in fact, we haven't been). But we damn well ought to learn whatever we can from it. When Americans refuse to learn from experience because we are busy congratulating ourselves on being the "beacon of democracy," terrible things can happen. Learn all you can.

[organik]

39. I never suggested we shouldn't learn from experience.

I've learned that after two stolen presidential elections, and stolen midterms, we absolutely can not continue down the same road. There is absolutely a possibility to have hand counted paper ballots, counted at the precint level, results made public immediately....etc.

How could one possibly argue that it can't be done, when we've failed so miserably at our current election system?

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. well, think about that some more

"How could one possibly argue that it can't be done, when we've failed so miserably at our current election system?"

That was Reagan's argument too, changing a few words.

Wouldn't it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must....

What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S. retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies?

I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may not be accomplished before the end of this century.

Yet, current technology has attained a level of sophistication where it's reasonable for us to begin this effort. It will take years, probably decades of effort on many fronts. There will be failures and setbacks, just as there will be successes and breakthroughs. And as we proceed, we must remain constant in preserving the nuclear deterrent and maintaining a solid capability for flexible response. But isn't it worth every investment necessary to free the world from the threat of nuclear war? We know it is.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/rrspch.htm

That was in 1983.

It is inherently fallacious -- and often dangerous -- to argue that someone's alternative must be feasible, and must be accepted, because the status quo is intolerable. That's not enough learning.

HCPB may or may not be viable, but your rhetorical question doesn't offer a tenable basis for concluding that it is.

(EDIT to correct formatting)

[organik]

41. Apples and Oranges my friend.

What in the hell are you talking about?

My arguing for hand counted paper ballots has what to do with missile defense again? There was quite a bit of evidence when the "star wars" program started that it was unlikely to work. The same can not be said of HCPB.

"It is inherently fallacious -- and often dangerous -- to argue that someone's alternative must be feasible, and must be accepted, because the status quo is intolerable. That's not enough learning."

Where did I argue that HCPB "must be feasible, and must be accepted"? I don't believe I stated any such thing. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions thinking it can be done, just as you are in thinking it can't. I see no legitimate reason why HCPB wouldn't work.

So at this point, I must ask - what form of electoral reform is acceptable to you?

Just because many Americans are impatient and lazy does not mean the rest of us aren't entitled to accurate elections.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. "The same can not be said of HCPB."

Well, it obviously can be, because Kelvin Mace and eridani have argued at considerable length that HCPB is unlikely to work nationwide. And WillYourVoteBCounted has expressed doubts about its political feasibility, and listed a slew of cogent questions that in her opinion need to be addressed. That's where we are (leaving some other posters out of the account for simplicity).

I'm not opposing HCPB, although Kelvin's and eridani's arguments make sense to me. You seem to be reading a lot into my posts that isn't there. But I won't back down from challenging "How could one possibly argue that it can't be done, when we've failed so miserably at our current election system?" I think it takes some chutzpah, not so much of the good sort, to wander into a thread and simply assert that no one could "possibly" challenge your assumptions while disregarding all the posts that actually have. Many of those posts appear on other recent threads, so you may want to look around.

If there is any other form of electoral reform you want to quiz me about, that's fine with me, but it really isn't the point of the thread AFAICS.

(EDIT to correct typo)

[organik]

44. I misspoke -

of course it can be argued that HCPB might not work, just like it can be argued that the earth is flat, but there isn't really any way to know until we try it.

I just don't see any good reason to not hand count the ballots. Like we used to. Like many countries still do.

The only real arguments that can be made are about cost and time, and I don't see how either of those hold up. It's worth the cost, and worth the wait.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. well, I'm not the one you have to convince

Meaning no offense, but it does not inherently matter what you -- or I -- "see."

You seem very much content to state your support for HCPB repeatedly. OK, fine. Am I missing something, or are we done?

[Febble]

46. And many countries have corrupt elections

despite hand-counting the votes. Ukraine comes to mind.

Hand-counting doesn't guarantee a clean election, and the slower the count, the more opportunity for corruption. As I've said elsewhere, we have pretty clean HCPB elections in the UK, but we count them fast, and one of the reasons they are clean is because we do it fast, and one of the reasons we do it fast is because our ballots very simple.

However you vote, you need to find ways of independently checking the count. That's the important part.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. This point cannot be made often enough

THE LONGER THE ELECTION COUNT GOES ON, THE HIGHER THE CHANCE OF CHEATING!

HCPB may take weeks, which is why I tried to explain that the outer limit is probably 48 hours.

[Kelvin Mace]

50. Almost right...

of course it can be argued that HCPB might not work, just like it can be argued that the earth is flat, but there isn't really any way to know until we try it.

Yes, and I can pretty much prove the Earth is round without having to sail around the world to do so. I can use simple things like math and a telescope and a measuring tape and prove it.

Proving that HCPB's won't work is a similar exercises. I don't have to set up the system to determine it won't work, I just have to do some math. I also have to face political realities which have nothing to do with right and wrong, no matter what anyone says.

The only real arguments that can be made are about cost and time, and I don't see how either of those hold up. It's worth the cost, and worth the wait

This is an example of not dealing with political reality. Money is a BIG issue, as is the timely resolution of the election. Voters are NOT going to wait weeks or months for results, and they are not going to fund a million new government employees to count ballots.

Don't believe me, then please do what I have asked every person who argues this point with me. Go down to your local BoE and talk to your local officials. Be polite, then explain your views to them and ask them if they will do it.

Please report your experience here.

So far no one has done this.

Joyce McCloy and I did that. We sat down with our local election director and argued the point. We then sat down with state senators, reps, lawyers and lobbyists. We drove around the state and talked to voters of both parties, reporters, radio call-in shows, wrote letters to the editor, attended hearings, sat on a committee, questioned witnesses, drafted legislation, then started all over again to get it passed.

When I explain this on this board, I get snide remarks from some folks that I am being conceited. No, I am telling you WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IF YOU WANT A LAW PASSED.

If you are NOT willing to do what we did, you WILL.NOT.SUCCEED!

So rather than lecturing us about why your idea MUST be acted upon, act upon your idea, then come tell us your experience.

I am not trying to be nasty with you, just give you some useful advice.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

47. it all boils down to whether you are willing to do the work

I agree with this statement:

"Just because many Americans are impatient and lazy does not mean the rest
of us aren't entitled to accurate elections."

If you truly want HCPB, you will have to do lots of hard work to get them.

That means addressing the opposition and their arguments against HCPB.

I posted zillions of reports, materials and references that the
serious HCPB could arm themselves with in order to begin
a long hard effort to try to lobby for HCPB.
See Diva's thread.

HCPB isn't just going to magically happen.

It will take hard work - work not talk.

It WONT happen unless the decision makers are convinced that it
is a good idea.

Doesn't matter if you are right, you have to be able to convince
the decicion makers that you are.

If you can't rebut the arguments against HCPB successfully,
and if you can't show the benefits of HCPB successfully,
than you aren't likely to get anywhere.

I am not opposed to HCPB, I just think we are a long ways from them,
and one of the steps between there is making paperless voting illegal.

So, I have offered plenty of suggestions on how to win that argument.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. A "possibility" of HCPB

at the precinct level? Certainly! A probability? Nope.

Yes, the old system failed, which is why we are pushing for HR-550, to FIX the system. It is not a perfect fix, but that's like complaining that your patchjob didn't stop all the leaks in your submarine. If it stopped 95% of the leaks, your survival odds just improved 95%. Telling me you would prefer to NOT patch the leak because it won't stop 100% of the leaks is pretty damn dumb, if you ask me.

[organik]

52. I absolutely support HR550 as well,

HCPB with audits I think is a reasonable goal, but I think at this point, it's baby steps. We have to do what we can, when we can to improve our electoral system.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. Great, first things first

I am glad you support 550, unlike some of the other HCPB advocates here.

[Kelvin Mace]

48. Great, I agree with you

Now, tell me how I will change how it is done in the US.

Radical change does not come over night short of bloodshed (and before someone mention's Lamont's win, only the Rightwing hysterics view his win as "radical").

Change occurs in stages. Step on for me was seeing s.223 passed in my home state. The next step is HR-550.