Slashdot Mirror
A Flawed US Election Reform Bill
H.R.811 sounds great: It's stated purpose is "to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot." Unfortunately, it sounds like the details have some devils, as usual. From the Bev Harris article Is a flawed bill better than no bill?: "[T]he Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records affixed to DRE voting machines) in 2008, requires more durable ballots in 2010, and requires a complex set of audits. It also cements and further empowers a concentration of power over elections under the White House, gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting, mandates an expensive 'text conversion' device that does not yet exist which is not fully funded, and removes 'safe harbor' for states in a way that opens them up to unlimited, expensive, and destabilizing litigation." Update: 07/11 16:23 GMT by KD : Derek Slater writes "EFF's e-voting expert Matt Zimmerman recently published this article separating the myths about HR 811 from the facts, and countering many of the misleading and outright false claims being made about it."
Type "Wii" to much and you start producing words like "Biill".
I knew I was a PHP ubergeek when I found myself typing "mysql" automatically whenever I meant to type "myself" in e-mails (and I did it typing this sentence and had to correct it, I kid you not!).
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
My opinion is that the US election system has become too cumbersome/complicated for the average person. I'm Canadian, and I find voting very simple. Federal elections require me to check 1 box. That's it. There is about 7? boxes to choose from depending on which riding you are located in. Each box shows the name of the representative of a specific party. Provincial elections are the same, although there's usually less boxes. Municipal elections are actually the most complicated, in which I have to vote for Mayor, Councillor, and school board trustee. There's too many options on the US ballot, and having different ballots for every state or county when people are electing the president just makes things overly complicated. There would be no need for voting machines if people weren't voting on 75 different issues for every election. A simple pencil and paper ballot works a lot better.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
How about a machine running Tivo-style Linux (so you can't mess with the software) that lets the user pick one out of several choices, then prints a receipt and says "Does the receipt match the screen?". It's /not/ /that/ /hard/.
On top of the usual politicking and industry appeasement, there is the fact that there is only one engineer in congress now, and he's a civil.
If as our fearless leaders say "the future of America is the knowledge worker and innovator" then we must start electing a few (or more) people with technical backgrounds.
For this to happen, some of us introverted technical folks are going to have to swallow that and run for office.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
The bill looks like it creates far more problems than it repairs...and doesn't repair the problems it is supposed to in the first place.
I'm a right-winger who doesn't think there is much to the election fraud arguments, and even I think that there needs to be a paper trail for voting. We don't need new laws to fix the problem, new bureaucracies...if there is ONE thing that needs to be transparent in government, it is the election process. BOTH sides of the aisle look bad on election matters right now, and no real practical solution has arisen out of Washington yet.
So that's a vote registered to Diebold, right?
...for a better "nutshell" summary than the one in TFA. I read the whole thing, the actual whole thing, including all the comments with the bad avatar-like photos, and I'm still confused about why this Holt Bill is so bad. I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying I don't know. Most of all, I don't particularly trust the summary of someone who then goes on to argue against a bill, mainly by just repeating the same comments over and over again with no deeper explanation.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
is the dead tree solution without any computers in site. Anything else is bad for everyone except Diebold.
I guess if they're going to quit pretending to count my vote, maybe I can quit pretending it matters, and I can stay home and wait for the results on teevee like every one else. What a time-saver!
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
> a voter-verified permanent paper ballot
yeah, but will it blend?
I reckon we should ask Hillary.
>[T]he Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records
How fitting. I think all federal documents should be thus produced.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
>>if there is ONE thing that needs to be transparent in government, it is the election process.
Actually, if as much as possible regarding the critical issues of the day aren't publicly available, then having an open election process does not matter. How does one differentiate the candidates in an information vacuum?
--"It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there."
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Democrat and Republican are useless categories. When an issue can be influenced by money, both of those parties are susceptible. Monied interests would like to push elections towards people they've already paid, but if it goes the other way they can handle that too. It's just more expensive.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Remember, the point of this bill is to add auditing requirements and voter verifiability. For whatever flaws it might have, those are laudible goals that are designed to fight corruption.
Offhand, I'd say you're wrong. Originally, this bill required the voting machine software to be open source. I think that was weakened in a compromise to actually get the thing passed, but it still requires some outside review of the source, as I understand it. AFAIK, MS has been against this bill from the start because it required such openness.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
If Yes then the ballot is moved into a box and the tally is tallied.
At the closing of the voting day, several precincts are selected at random and their paper ballots are counted by hand. If the hand count agrees with the machine count, then the other precincts are counted via their machine counts and the vote count is published.
NB, no ballot counts are published until the hand count is verified.
This preserves the sanctity of the voter's vote. It has nothing to do with making "Bozo and Bozette at 6 and 10" happy.
Some of the objections given at the beginning of the article seem to be worth considering. The straw man debate that follows is just idiotic, however. It might be useful to look at what some actual supporters have to say, supporters like the EFF, Prof. Ed Felten, Ars Technica, the Brennan Center for Justice, People of the American Way, TrueVoteMD, and Prof. Avi Rubin to name a few.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
I can't agree. The Democrats aren't what they ought to be, of course, but can you honestly say that straight up Republican rule produced the same results as straight up Democratic rule, which we've had many times in the last fifty years?
The problem with the Republican party is that they are no longer conservatives. When I was kid, the Republican party was a place for people of a temperate, Burkean conservative temperament. This viewpoint was skeptical, and very wary of the dangers posed by misuse of government power, but in the end pragmatic. Now, I'm a Democrat, but that's the kind of Republican government I could live with.
The problem was this hadn't produced a big, generational victory for the Republicans like the Democrats had after the Great Depression.
So, certain elements in the party decided to gain power by inflaming populist fears and anger. To do this, they needed media power and that takes money. This mix of populism and secret privilege lead to electoral success for the party, but not political success. The Republican party shifted to a new ideological style that is nearly the opposite of what the old Republican party stood for. The rank and file Republicans I know aren't for a larger and more expensive government with unprecedented powers to intrude into the affairs of its citizens.
Some Democrats I know toyed with the Greens until the 2000 election fiasco. They didn't think the Democrats stood up for Democratic principles. Where is the party that stands up for traditional Republican values?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The truth of the matter is that as long as we use an electoral system for the presidential election, the STATES should be in control of each of their voting standards and not the federal government. And as long as each state will have a certain number of elected representatives, each state should have its own control over how that process works, too. If a certain state wants to use flawed voting machines to determine the outcome of the election, so be it. If a state wants to let its governor appoint senators, representatives and choose who will receive the electoral votes, so be it. That is the way the system is supposed to work in this country, and I personally want the feds to stay out of it. At best, the federal government should be allowed to publish information about perceived problems in the voting systems of certain states so that the residents of that states have an opportunity to change. If desired change doesn't happen, the residents can move to another state, and the number of representatives and electoral votes can be adjusted accordingly during the next census. If any combination of the three branches of our federal government are going to be allowed to control election standards and methods for the individual states, we might as well take all control away from the states and make the next step towards dictatorship.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
By adding a voter-verifiable paper trail, it addresses by far the most serious problem with DRE voting machines. Using the rationale that we shouldn't pass it because it leaves some problems unsolved is making the perfect the enemy of the good. This is the way many activist communities shoot themselves in the foot. As for limiting the states, as I understand it this doesn't. From the EFF:
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
While in principal I agree that every vote counts, and every vote is sacred... [deep breath] An election is a system. It is a machine. It has to have SOME fault-tolerance.
:-)) to administer a fault-critical system... Let's fix the fault-critical system.
But when one vote can swing one state can swing one electoral bloc can swing one election can swing one world climate/political landscape/economy... THAT is a BSOD waiting to happen. With the ability to count 99.994% of the votes instantly, the need for the Electoral College is obviated. Instead of using a fault-ridden system (Imagine if the voting system was as buggy as WinME
LOSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
Then, if one precinct gets utterly lost or corrupted, then it dings the POPULAR vote tallies. The same person wins the election AND gets inaugurated. The only people who REALLY are affected by a tolerable tolerance of fault will be the Bookies in Vegas who handle the point spreads.
The Electoral College was a necessity in it's day when bandwidth was REALLY REALLY low. We may need it again, when votes within the United States of the Virgo Cluster are counted... but till then, abolish the Electoral College, even though it takes a Constitutional Amendment. We need to do this while we still have a Constitution to amend.
And that leaves you at the mercy of the greater scoundrel.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You do realize that, according to the Constitution, the executive branch is the arm of the government that enforces the laws that the legislative enacts, right? This isn't a matter of trusting the White House to follow through. This is the way our government works.
As far as open or closed systems, this bill doesn't deal directly with what sort of software these systems need to run. The main focus of the bill is a paper trail being required for these systems, something that IMO is long overdue, and making sure the voting systems allow people with disabilities to vote. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, Linux, Open or Closed systems. Just because it doesn't deal with all of your hopes and wishes doesn't mean this is a bad bill. An all in one bill is less likely to succeed as too many people will have things to gain and lose from supporting the bill, leading to a poor, watered down bill. I would rather have a (slightly) more focused bill like this one be passed, dealing with a few, focused issues of voter confidence and accessibility, rather than them taking 5+ years making an overarching bill.
As for the article about the bill, it is a bunch of FUD, and I don't see how the author could have actually read much of the bill to have come to the conclusions that she did. The main quote I take issue with is "gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting." All source code, compiled code, and sample machines must be given to the NIST to be fully tested to make sure nothing can be done to the votes. It sets a required minimum number of ballots that need to be manually audited, using the paper trail, during the actual voting. There are no "trade secrets" anywhere in this counting and auditing process. As for the other complaints, the NIST has already been thoroughly involved in the auditing process of all voting machines for a long time. The "text conversion device" is required for accessibility, and already exists in other software applications. It is necessary if those with disabilities are to be involved in the voting process in a real way. As far as removing "safe harbor" for states that don't comply, I don't see why states should be immune from liability when it comes to protecting my vote.
Clones are people two.
Right here, but I really don't want the job.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
You do realize that constitution states that any rights or privileges NOT given to the feds will be accorded to the states. Right? This is the way the government work. You did learn that in school, yes? That means that by leaving the majority to the states, they set the standards. The ONLY standard that should be in this From the feds, is that there be a paper trail that is considered generally undefeatable. It should say how to implement it. Why? Because security is a constant changing item. Keep in mind, that the states can then decide if they want companies to have control or if they want all citizens to KNOW that the election could not have been rigged.
As to this article being FUD, it is the opposite. They have the issues right on. the NIST test was given to a group that is headquartered her in Colorado( but the tests were ran out of atlanta), and were poorly done. That is why the company lost the contract in a BIG and public way.
As to the immunity, that was immunity for the companies. And the politicians have always granted companies immunity from prosecution for any number of issues. If a drilling company leaks oil, they can not longer be sued unless you can prove that it was deliberate (which is tough). That was granted by W in the last 2 years. The nuke industry has HEAVY immunity from prosecution. The workers from Rocky flats who produce the triggers for bombs are suing for health benefits that were promised them and reagan pulled. When it comes to the feds(not the states) protecting my vote or protecting companies, I do not feel comfortable.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Part of the beauty of the US is that each state can experiment with different ideas. Ideally, in turn, each state can learn from the successes and mistakes of others. If all states were doing the same thing, then you would potentially miss out on way to do it even better. In general, the less that the federal government imposes on the states, the better. Similarly, in general, the less that the state government imposes on the local governments, the better. Sure, there are places where it's appropriate, but unless there's a strong overriding reason to get involved, larger governments should allow smaller governments to make their own decisions.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Sorry, but in our thirst for immediate results, we have completely hurt the process. Nobody should be allowed to announce election results for national elections until the last poll has closed in Hawaii.
OCO is Loco
1. The Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records affixed to DRE voting machines) in 2008
2. The Holt Bill requires more durable ballots in 2010
3. The Holt Bill requires a complex set of audits.
BUT
1. The Holt Bill also cements and further empowers a concentration of power over elections under the White House
2. The Holt Bill gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting
3. The Holt Bill mandates an expensive 'text conversion' device that does not yet exist which is not fully funded
4. The Holt Bill removes 'safe harbor' for states in a way that opens them up to unlimited, expensive, and destabilizing litigation.
Bev Harris
Founder - Black Box Voting
(Have abandoned old "BevHarris" account here because I forgot the password and have deactivated the e-mails associated with the account. This is me, same person as the other, minus the karma I'd built up under my original screen name).
What's the point of electing people if you can't delegate to them some of the decision making.
1) On some issues elected officials, just by being elected officials, have (or perceive) a conflict-of-interest with the voters and thus have a strong incentive to vote in non-representative ways. (Example: Raising taxes.)
2) There are a large number of issues. It's often impossible to find (or elect) a candidate that has the same opinions on all the important issues as the people he represents. In that case the candidate is elected on the basis of some common set of very important issues. Then the electorate can override the legislature on those issues where the body as a whole is non-representative.
3) Sometimes there are important and divisive issues where the politicians don't want to take the flack for their own position or where the politicians know the makeup of the legislature is not representative. They can send these directly to the voters and take no personal flack, retaining their seats if they otherwise act in their constituents' interest.
The representatives do the bulk of the day-to-day stuff but when something close and important comes up or the legislature gets out of hand a direct poll is less of a "game of telephone" than having the representatives try to interpret the "will of the people".
Meanwhile, all this stuff is at the STATE level. The federal government doesn't have these mechanisms. (The closest they have is when they delegate important issues - such as constitutional amendments and interim legislative replacement appointments - to the state legislatures or governors.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
They are used to tell the parties how many times their operatives still need to vote late on election day.
That's the reason some districts suddenly have long lines appear an hour before the polls close (St. Louis is the most blatant example in recent elections, some districts have routine 105% voter turnouts, strangely no investigations).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'