"Secure Elections Act" Coming Up For Vote

Irvu writes "The US House of Representatives is considering HR. 5036, the 'Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008,' as introduced by Representative Rush Holt. The bill is scheduled for a floor vote later today. It would provide for emergency paper ballots, money for the addition of voter verifiable paper ballots to existing systems, and post-election audits. Crucially, the change to paper is opt-in, making it possible for local jurisdictions to govern their own choices. Here are two summaries of the bill. It was reported out of committee with strong bipartisan support. As of this morning the White house has opposed the bill but not threatened a veto, and some previously supportive Republicans have now changed their tune. Calls may be made to your house rep (click on 'Find your representative'). Here's a sample support letter."

Comments

Re:Nonsence...

[Metasquares]

Holt is one of the few congressmen who have actually earned my respect - and he's one of the few I'd actually expect to sponsor such a bill without any traps.

Crucially Broken

[Doc Ruby]

Crucially, the change to paper is opt-in, making it possible for local jurisdictions to govern their own choices

Yes, that is crucial. Because in the jurisdictions that are running rigged elections, that don't want to leave evidence of their rigging, or are just getting bribed by crappy non-verifiable voting machine vendors to buy the crap, despite how it fails any reasonable quality test, those jurisdictions don't have to change anything.

A good bill would require opt-out, and only subject to some accountability, like a judge's decision that there are extenuating circumstances, or a (paper trail) vote by the people in the jurisdiction.

I mean, who else but a crooked politicial or a salesperson for a crooked or broken machine could possibly have a reason to opt out, when it's all paid for by the Feds (you and me)? What kind of priorities put anything above the integrity and respectability of our most essential link to democracy, the counting of our votes?

Re:Crucially Broken

[Doc Ruby]

Like in Florida? Funny how that never happens. People just get discouraged, bitter and cynical. That's what the crooks count on. And so far, they're winning.

Re:Nonsence...

[mweather]

A fair election? You mean this ends automatic ballot access for Democrats and Republicans, as well as matching funds?

No surprise

[stonecypher]

The president whose election tallies were never counted, in the closest election we've had in more than a century, doesn't want verifiable voting. I wonder why.

Tin foil hats won't cover this one. :(

Re:Nonsence...

[Chris Burke]

Not that fair...

Let's get one thing straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get one thing straight: Rep. Holt is anti-voting technology. If it were up to the Representative, we would have absolutely zero voting electronics. Why is a community like Slashdot supporting such a thing? We are supposed to be the people supporting technology.

Why do we want paper ballots? Are they really more secure? Absolutely not!! How easy is it to throw ballots in a river or forge them? A six-year old can do it for God's sake! In contrast, how many people can really hack an election? How hard is it? (well, minus Diebold and Sequoia machines).

The problem is that we need to secure the technology. We need transparent processes to verify that our democratic process works. We should not be supporting any law that restricts technology. We should be the ones embracing it, making it work correctly.

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[stephanruby]

We are supposed to be the people supporting technology.

You've got it backwards. Technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

How easy is it to throw ballots in a river or forge them? A six-year old can do it for God's sake! In contrast, how many people can really hack an election?

With paper, you would need many six-year olds to rig an election. With technology, you may only need one six year old adept at Visual Basic to hack the elections (Yes, Diebold uses Visual Basic for Applications). With paper, everyone can be included in the design of the election process. With technology, the majority of election officials and the majority of the people can easily be bamboozled into an half-assed solution. With paper, security comes from transparency. With technology, security comes from obscurity (even if most of us disagree with that, the fact is that many of our leaders do not think the same way we do).

Also the law on the books was about using both technology *and* paper, therefore increasing transparency and audibility. Framing this debate as Technology vs. Non-Technology is a distortion of what this proposal is trying to achieve. This law is only trying to add transparency to the technology. It is not trying to replace the technology.

And finally, take a look at any gerrymandered congressional district maps (I don't know if you have them where you live). But the congressional maps we have now are the perfect examples of what can go wrong -- when incumbents (both republicans or democrats) are free to make decisions about small technical matters that will affect their own reelection chances. If we can't trust them to draw their own maps (with the help of the right technical consultants), we certainly can't trust them to design the right software processes for their own elections (we just know that the majority of people will be left out of that design process, as opposed to the design process for paper ballots and a paper trail).

Re:Let's get one thing straight

[RobBebop]

Some things are better done the old-fashioned way.

That's right. Voting and sex. For everything else, a computer a guaranteed to provide an improvement in speed, quality, or reproducibility.

Re:The bill failed to pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, just look at those results! It was essentially a party roll call. Hopefully things will slide a little further toward the "D" side next year, and we just might see bills like this made into law.

Re:/, as a lobbying vehicle?

[Nethead]

Actually they are telling you to get off your ass and be a citizen. They have been doing that since I've been visiting the site.

Re:/, as a lobbying vehicle?

[MSTCrow5429]

I think judging a bill based solely on what is "best for you and your community" is a wrongful approach. First, one must ask themselves, "is this bill Constitutional under the strictly enumerated powers given to the Federal government?" If not, then obviously the bill is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed out of hand. If it is Constitutional, the second question to ask is "does this bill limit individual rights and liberties?" If yes, then it should be dismissed as an instrument of tyranny. Then, and only then, can one ask the self-interested question of "is this bill good for me and my self-defined community?"