Slashdot Mirror
"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."
If the public would just take the leaders their given instead of trying to choose their own, then maybe we'd get somewhere!
What, trampled under foot is a place, isn't it?
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.
In all seriousness now, wouldn't it just be easier to call up Diebold on November 4 and ask them who won? Think of all the time and money we'd save.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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?
--
make install -not war
A fair election? You mean this ends automatic ballot access for Democrats and Republicans, as well as matching funds?
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.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Not that fair...
The enemies of Democracy are
This showed up a little bit late. The bill failed to pass 239-178 with 14 not voting. While this is a 55% vote in favor, it required a 2/3 supermajority to pass due to a motion to suspend the rules.
It seems the cat's already out of the bag...
Oops
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Pssst: Ed Felten is a constituent of Rush Holt.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
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.
In general it's not a bad bill. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that throwing paper at the problems will fix everything and the fact that it allows jurisdictions to opt-in is a very big step, I just hope people do paper ballots right not just paper for paper's sake.
It's a little scary seeing the pretty wide authority given to a single federal agency with not a lot of regulation. Eligibility isn't particularly clearly defined. I think in general retrofitting DRE's with VVPAT, particularly in time for November, has a huge potential for causing more harm than good. It's nice to see we've stopped the fairly phony "verified vs. verifiable" debate. My reading says anyone who by state law has to count emergency paper ballots as provisional is ineligible for that portion. For all the requirements there are for the audit section, I'd like to see some in there for handling paper ballots. How about teaching people about ballot design, chain of custody...?
I think it's great that we're expressing the need for research. I'm interested on NIST's input on how feasible this is and more interested on what the actual dollar figures end up at.
Is this really an appropriate fashion to present such content, via full endorsement and support by ./?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
How depressing that my country is experiencing 3rd world style voting problems 200 year after establishing democracy. Citizens having trust in elections is the fundamental backbone to a democracy. I'm further amazed that voters aren't outraged and up in arms over this. This should be THE most important platform issue in our current presidential elections.
Check out this article and you'll get really get upset about some electronic voting machines in use.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4066
Wow, just look at those results! It was essentially a party roll call.
Notice that "Dr. No" also voted against it. Ron Paul is NOT going to base his vote on trying to improve or preserve election cheating.
That says to me that there's an issue with the Federal Government exceeding its constitutional authority by meddling in the states' election procedures (which ARE the (states' business), there's some "devil in the details" that makes it do the opposite of what it claims, or it's a feel-good-do-nothing bill that would raid the treasury and derail any REAL fix.
The last thing I want to see is more "election reform" that either makes the elections less accurate or gets enjoined and killed by the courts for a legitimate reason while REAL reform is headed off.
(Elections aren't about "fair". They're about heading off violence by predicting its results, well enough that the losers understand that violence won't reverse the loss. So it's very important that the election is both honest and visibly so.)
Hopefully things will slide a little further toward the "D" side next year, and we just might see bills like this made into law.
If any of my conjectures above is correct that's an outcome to be avoided.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You know, I am not the person always gung-ho about open source technology, but I do believe that open source software and hardware is the only way to have electronic voting work. It's the only way to get enough peer-review so that all sides and all parties can be assured it would be tamper-proof. Any private entity is the exact opposite, since they have no requirement, and often the exact opposite incentive to make it tamper-proof, so therefore the devices are more likely to "deliver" the votes the company wants to deliver, all in the argument that "it's more secure" because they say it is. Has anyone ever brought this up in slashdot? It really is worth it's own article. P.S. Paper can be manipulated, too.
"One thing I don't see mentioned here is the issue of some kind of proof you are who you say you are before you vote. In my opinion thats as much an issue as counting correctly, but it seems to be ignored. Why?"
Because the Democrats have largely been successful in pettifogging and demagoguing the issue so that in the publics' mind, asking for ID==discrimination. No politician can afford, especially when their party is in a major election cycle, to be accused, however falsely, of discrimination. The Democrats have been increasingly using the tactic of busing in homeless people and illegal aliens to vote, sometimes across multiple districts, over the last 20 to 30 years.
This is not anecdotal, this is observation at my polling places, watching the buses pull up and empty out, with the organizers instructing the passengers, and sometimes even blatantly in full view handing out various "payments", from gift cards to cartons of cigarettes. I've overheard the passengers complaining about how many stops and long lines they've had to stand in to the largely unsympathetic organizers.
At first I tried to get someone to take action. I've met with indifference and hostility from both parties' election workers and even the police. I've been shoved around, roughed up, and threatened with arrest and major violence. I've had cameras taken from me, smashed, and the media destroyed. Newspapers, TV, & radio stations have all ignored the situation.
I finally had to give up and just be thankful I was even allowed to vote at all. When I hear Democrats scream about electronic vote rigging, I have to wonder if it's only because they didn't think of it first, and that they're losing the money they spent on the buses and payoffs.
I think there should be a secure way to vote that minimizes shenanigans, but there needs to be just as much concern, if not more, about what other non-electronic tactics are being used to subvert the vote.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.