Thoughts on Holt's Verified Voting Bill

Disclaimer... (0.00 / 0)

I have no problem with the bill either way. But my one thought was, do we really believe people would extend more effort to fix an election than say rob an ATM network?
I guess what I'm saying is that the voting machines seem no more vulnerable to hacking than ATM machines, and we currently are not experiencing an epidemic of ATM hacking, why do we think the voting machine would be a more attractive target. (and again, I have no real reason to oppose his bill except maybe it's expensive (and I'm not even sure of that))

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 19:44:33 PM UTC

Easy as 123456 (0.00 / 0)

Hacking ATMs, that is

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 19:50:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stakes (0.00 / 0)

The stakes are actually much higher in an election, which is just one of the things that makes it more likely that voting machines would be targets of hacking. The other is that voting machines so far are a lot less secure than ATM's.

But you've also neglected that the incentive for an inside job is much greater. That doesn't even require hacking. All it requires is for a  voting machine vendor to recognize that if their candidate gets in, they extend their franchise. (Put another way, what voting machine company would want the election won by someone who promised to end their contract?)

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 20:00:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disingenuous (0.00 / 0)

I hardly think it's fair to call arguments by well-meaning activists "disinformation", "obvious", "conspiratorial" and "unreasonable". At the same time, you present your argument as "common-sense".

This is the same way the Bush administration attacks its critics. Not to mention that the only "straw m[a]n" I see is the one you knock down in your argument. Where are the references to the articles or sources of information you are attacking?

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 20:06:08 PM UTC

refrences (0.00 / 0)

I don't link to things I don't think deserve attention. No difference here.

The things I'm talking about are easily found with a quick google search and everyone who is reading this and knows what I'm talking about knows exactly where to find it. They're on opednews, BradBlog, Mark Crispin Miller's blog, BBV, etc, etc. Plus forwards of these posts on countless email lists.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 20:17:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You obviously thought (0.00 / 0)

that your viewpoint deserved attention. I'm sorry to see you take such an anti-grassroots approach.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 20:27:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: (4.00 / 2)

Anti-grassroots? Hardly. I'm anti-counter-productive-grassroots.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 20:48:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anti-counter-productive? (0.00 / 0)

Your position seems more pro-Holt than anything else.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 20:55:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pro-Holt? (0.00 / 0)

You say that as if it were a bad thing.  Last time I checked, Rush was one of the really good guys.

I think Juan is more anti-letting-the-perfect-be-the-enemy-of-the-good.

---

by: PocketAces @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 21:06:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You say that as if it were a bad thing (0.00 / 0)

It's bad if you are judging primarily by the man and not the actual legislation on the table. I might agree with 99.9% of Holt's ideas, opinions and legislation -- but assuming that I'll always agree with everything a politician does just sets it up so that politician can slip one by me. I also agree a lot less with Diebold, Sequoia, and Microsoft -- and since they apparently had a lot of input on HR811, I'd probably want to scrutinize that legislation carefully.

I don't think we can ever expect perfection, but I also don't think we can let corporate interests trample on our inalienable rights. For me and a lot of others, this is a case of a good Democrat proposing a bad law. Holt's office knows what minor changes make it a "good" (but not perfect) bill. Some of those were stripped out after their talks with lobbyist.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 21:29:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Such as? (0.00 / 0)

Please give specific examples of provisions that were stripped out.

---

by: Brian McGinnis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 21:31:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A specific example (0.00 / 0)

The original language called for source code to be available to any citizen upon request. On May 8th, it was changed in the House Administration Committee so that disclosure would be only to "qualified" people and only on the condition of signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). (Although I believe it's true that states individually can override the NDA requirement, effectively the rights of citizens to review the source code is overridden by intellectual property interests right there in the bill.)

Actually, that's why it's puzzling that Holt claims that "the questioner himself or herself could review voting machine software under this bill". That clearly does NOT appear to be the case. Unless he's specifically talking about a questioner in a fictitious location that has "chosen" open source software since his bill hasn't mandated proprietary -- it's just left the door way open for making the way we conduct our elections a trade secret in perpetuity.

OK, I'm waiting for my "4".

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 21:54:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is 'disinformation' in the Holt opposition (0.00 / 0)

I've read a number of articles and comments against HR-811 that contain simple, significant disinformation.

Even one well-publicized open letter to Nancy Pelosi states that Holt's older bills (2239 and 550) specified that the paper records would constitute a DRE's 'ballots', while HR-811 does not.  That is quite simply untrue. 

Holt's VVPAT was always an audit trail -- one that would prove what many fear about the inaccuracy of DREs with hard, irrefutable, public evidence, by the way -- as well as being the 'winning' tally in the event of a re-count.  Even in his older bills, the VVPAT was never a ballot.  There is other disinformation out there as well...

---

by: Mark_MyWords @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 23:46:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately... (0.00 / 0)

Recounts don't mean anything, unless there is something specific in the law that changes that. Remember that the courts have stopped recounts from being completed (Bush v. Gore & others since then). Elections have been certified before recounts. And Congress even whisked Brian Bilbray into his swearing in before the election was certified, and a court determined that once that was done the election was out of the court's jurisdiction.

That's not disinformation. It's fact. An audit trail doesn't mean anything if it's simply an afterthought. And it's always going to be an afterthought unless the law specifies that election results cannot be determined before the audits are conducted & irregularities shift the official results to the paper records.

Not to mention that disinformation happens to imply willful misrepresentation. I think at this point it may be valid to say there's a lot of disinformation about HR811, but most of it seems to be coming from the Holt camp.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 02:26:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Open Source & Fundamental Rights (0.00 / 0)

Voting is the fundamental right in a democracy. That means that citizens should have ownership of the process - not corporate interests, and not the government. Proprietary software in our voting system abrogates that right.

I agree that proprietary software is currently in use, and may be for the foreseeable future. HR811 does not put us on a path to phase out proprietary software.

My reading of the Holt bill tells me that I can't review the software unless I am an "approved expert". Also, one or two reviewers of code are a lot less effective than the literally thousands of people who would review it if it were open & available on the Internet. If I did get approved (doubtful), am I going to have to go into a special room to review the software & not take any notes -- unless I am willing to pay the price of violating a non-disclosure agreement? What if I do find problems? What's my recourse?

It's not a conspiracy theory that Holt's office made changes to the bill after intense lobbying by Microsoft, Sequoia & Diebold. That's a fact, admitted by Michelle Mulder of Holt's office. It's also a fact that Holt's office didn't treat the grassroots citizens who met with her as important enough to alert when those changes became a possibility. Are these the compromises we are supposed to be willing to accept? That corporations have greater access to our elected representatives than constituents? That we should be happy when our representatives say they're going to do one thing and then do another?

I'm not saying that Holt doesn't mean well. But I don't think corporations should be writing our legislation so they end up again and again as government handouts. The first and foremost concern in election reform ought to be for citizens' rights. If they aren't compatible with corporate interests, then it's the corporations who have to make adjustments.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 20:26:23 PM UTC

Analysis of arguments, one-by-one (0.00 / 0)

The objections range from the obvious: that a computer can be programed to record one thing and print something different (that's exactly the issue this legislation tries to address)

The question here is not whether a voter can verify what is on the piece of paper. The question is what happens when the piece of paper doesn't match? And what about when this happens on a large scale? We know what happened when butterfly ballots were used - people were confused, election workers laughed at them, etc.

Also left out: What happens when (if) audits uncover irregulaties? What is considered the "official count" -- the machine tally or the paper? Will the audits reverse an election? Or will they just be evidence that we need to fix the system "next time"? Will Congress swear in the loser of the election anyway, and then claim that the state has no jurisdiction (as happened in Busby v. Bilbray)?

Also left out: HR811 gives a lot more authority to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a division of the Executive Branch -- and takes it away from states & local governments. That's great, if you trust the Executive. Our system of government is not based on trust -- it's based on checks & balances. What good is the right to vote when we can only throw out honest elected officials, but we are stuck with the cheaters? (And by the way, I am NOT singling out Republicans -- both parties have cheated when they thought they could get away with it.)

to the conspiratorial: that this is all some nefarious plot to make a voting machine company in Holt's district rich

I'm a bit skeptical of this one myself, although there is a company that will benefit as a side effect. That argument has been made by very few, and it's probably a distraction from the core argument against the one-size-fits-all, Executive-Branch run electoral system.

I saw a demonstration of an accessible voting machine they were using in New Hampshire that consisted of little more than a fax machine & headphones. That seemed to work pretty well in NH, where a lot of counties count by hand. Why should they be forced to use a system that they can't even monitor?

to the unrelated: such as eliminating proprietary rights for all software.

Ummm... I believe the argument was that proprietary software has no place in elections, which are supposed to be public & observable. Proprietary software takes that right away from the public and moves it to the government and/or corporations, possibly the very people we are trying to get rid of!

They also suggest that because the legislation is not being vocally attacked by the "Busheviks," Holt must be in league with them to undermine our democracy.

Let's assume that Holt is not in league with the "Busheviks" (and I assume he is not). If the effect of his legislation -- and I am not making that judgment right now -- actually enhances their ability to steal elections, then what is the difference whether he is intentionally or knowingly in league with the RNC? Voting to give the president authority to go to war while assuming he will use the good judgment not to go to war has the same effect as supporting going to war. Our troops get killed, the Iraqis get killed, al Qaeda becomes stronger -- and meanwhile we all knew that Bush would go to war because of his track record.

I don't think it is a bad idea to speak up when you recognize problems. This isn't anyone "taking advantage" -- it's people practicing grassroots politics and speaking their minds. If Holt's office can allay the fears of those who are opposed -- either by explaining his bill better or by making necessary changes -- then that's all part of the process. If he doesn't think that's necessary, then he should be willing to accept that some people are not going to be satisfied. I would think that he would be thrilled to know that in 2007, people are actually interested enough to participate in the process.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 20:54:27 PM UTC

Utopia isn't on the agenda (0.00 / 0)

Once again some of our colleagues in the Democratic left are advocating that we hold out for "the best of all possible worlds."  Alas, that isn't on the agenda--we have to do the best we can with what we have.  I'm sure Congressman Holt's bill isn't perfect--but I'm also sure that if it were, it wouldn't have a prayer of being passed.  We have to be careful not to let the "best" become the enemy of the "good."  No one piece of legislation is going to solve all of the problems, no matter what the subject.  Let's by all means hold fast to our vision of the best, of what should be--but in the meantime, it makes sense to do the best we can. 

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 03:01:20 AM UTC

Democratic wing of the Democratic party (0.00 / 0)

Is there something wrong with being on the Democratic left? Listening to the left, rather than the DLC, would have kept us out of the disaster that is the Iraq Occupation. But then, the left wanted "perfection", right? Maybe the action in Iraq isn't perfect but at least we're fighting them over there & not over here -- so claims the appointed president.

A "good but not perfect" bill would solve at least some of the problems without creating a long list of new ones. The complaints about the bill have nothing to do with not going far enough. The reality is that HR811 makes it easier to steal elections wholesale across the country, while only holding out a slight possibility that we may learn of fraud after the crooks are sworn into office.

---

by: dfa_lewis @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 14:54:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The "Democratic left..." (0.00 / 0)

Please, don't twist my words.  We are all on the Democratic left, no?  "Our colleagues..." was what I said. 

There's a more current thread that has a lot of info making it clear that Holt's bill will not make it "easier to steal elections" but will make it easier to check the validity of machine reports.  Why not go down to Lawrenceville and see for yourself?  Considering that congressional district in Florida where they "lost" 18,000 votes, "good but not perfect" is surely better than what we have now!


"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 21:46:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]