S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005. The Senate version has 9 cosponsors and the House version has 102. So the initial post is still 100% valid.
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005. The Senate version already has 9 cosponsors, and the House version 102.
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005.
Why not support this bills, instead of introducing another bill that splinters support, but features vitriolic, partisan rhetoric that plays into emotional conspiracy theories?
Well, S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005. The Senate version already has 9 cosponsors and the House version has 102.
So I again, and now even more relevantly, ask: why are Clinton, Boxer, and Kerry trying to splinter and divide support for bills that add a voter-verified permanent paper trail - presumably the most important feature of any such legislation?
S.330 and H.R.704 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005.
Why splinter support for this bill - the most important part of which mandates a permanent, voter-verifiable paper trail - with partisan pandering about voter intimidation (which is ALREADY illegal) and rhetoric that echoes of conspiracies about Diebold's CEO?
Would you be screaming about this if some Republican representatives and senators who didn't cosponsor the last bill put up this proposal, or are you just engaging in knee-jerk anti-"liberal" rage?
Yes, I would have. Because I've brought it up here and in other forums whenever I've had the chance. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I voted for Kerry (on the sole basis of this speech excerpt), not Bush.
Did the people you mention vote for the bills, and are they on the committees that let the bills die afterward?
By "support", I mean sponsor and promote the bills.
No, they didn't vote on them, since, as I know you know, and as you know that I know, they never came up for vote. But I'm not asking that.
I'm asking: Where were they, in support, promotion, and/or sponsorship of these important bills?
And it does not matter whether any of the sponsors were on any of the previous committees. Frankly, I haven't looked to see if they were. But it doesn't matter, because that is NOT what I am asking. I am asking: where was their support (in print or verbal) and/or sponsorship of the previous bills almost two years ago if the provisions were so important?
Because bills allowed to die in committee don't matter anymore. You don't seem to get this--or you're ignoring it to promote your anti-"liberal" agenda.
Sorry. I've been trying to get these bills attention ever since they were introduced. I've posted about them numerous times in this and other forums, and written by Representative and Senators on this issue several times since mid 2003, and immediately after the 2004 election.
The problem is that not mentioning them makes it look like this is some new, valiant effort to get voting accountability, when it's anything but.
Dumbass. That's not the point. As I've asked about 3 or 4 times now (and I'll assume you're the same MOD PARENT UP ac from the other thread claiming that my argument is "destroyed" because the bills died in committee).
The POINT is, if this is so utterly important, then where the fuck were Clinton, Kerry, Tubbs, and Boxer for the first bills, before even the 2004 election took place? If receipts and open source are such a fucking good idea - I mean, this was after the 2000 election and before Bush's second run, for fuck's sake - then where the hell were they?
The POINT is, why is there no mention of the fact that there were bills that were identical in the two major features, and indeed the primary things always mentioned, namely, receipts and open source, in any article on this "new" (old) bill?
I didn't leave out any facts. I said the bills were old as time, and I provided LINKS to them, with clear status, and asked, categorically, where is Clinton and Kerry's support for these bills? I doubt you'll provide an even remotely on-topic answer.
And remember, I support paper records and open sourcing e-voting code.
Yes. They did die in committee. Can you answer any of the following questions:
- Why didn't Clinton, Boxer, Kerry, and Tubbs more vocally support these initial bills, the two basic features of which - namely, paper receipts and open source - are identical to the two previous bills?
- Why doesn't any news outlet or commentary that I've seen so far make any reference to these previous bills, making them look like they're completely new?
No, it doesn't render anything moot. What it means is that it's no more than a stunt. Why were they themselves not cosponsors of the original bills? Every senator or representative has an opportunity to sign on. What's worse, is that not only do they address the primary complaints, which is fine, they go further to create artificial argument over something we already prohibit, i.e., voting fraud. It's designed to play to the base of people who think minority voter intimidation is widespread, or that Diebold's CEO stole the election for Bush. It's a fucking emotional play, plain and simple. The initial bills were uninteresting. They simply called for a verifiable paper trail and open source software. This one faux-valiantly says, essentially, we know that the 200{0,4} election was stolen, and now we're going to fight to prevent it!
Are you going to address anything I've said, or just continue one-sentence replies that imply anything I say must be invalid because of using the word "liberals"?
Um, my point was, why didn't they get support in the first place by the same people sponsoring the current bills? In fact, why were they themselves not sponsors if paper receipts and open source - the two primary things always talked about in this context - are so important? And, most importantly, why are these previous bills not mentioned in any reference to or articles about the current bills?
In Canada, electoral officials must be politically neutral.
Um, Diebold's employees aren't "electoral officials". The county electoral officials using Diebold's equipment - completely out of Diebold's reach[1] - are the "electoral officials". The same people to whom we've been entrusting our elections for decades. Are the people who manufactured the markers and pens and the paper mills who made the paper for previous elections "electoral officials" who must remain impartial.
The counties are executing and auditing elections with higher technology equipment. Nothing more. Yes, they could potentially have a problem with, say, a crash on one machine. And there are holes in the process that need to be closed. And so on. But that doesn't make Diebold's employees, including the CEO, electoral officials. Was what he said bad form? Absolutely. Moronic thing to say. Even to be in a position of the most remote appearance of conflict. But I'm less concerned with his comments and more concerned with people who think his comments are somehow "proof" that the election MUST have been stolen, with complete and utter disregard for the complexity of the entire process and the number of checks and audits that exist in the electronic system even as it stands now! Diebold does not have any central or direct access to the equipment once deployed. The ONLY control you could argue Diebold might have is in the form of patches, and these patches have to be certified and reviewed, including at a source code level, by the FEC and a third party. And yes, I'm aware that uncertified patches, which could include anything from errors to malicious code, have been deployed. But the problem is that you take isolated, fringe examples, and make it out to be widespread. I see the same stories, analysis, and links to liberal blogs and sources constantly, as "proof" of some position.
As for dying in committee, it sure would have been nice if Clinton, Kerry, Boxer, and tubs would have SUPPORTED them the first time around, eh?
I didn't say he didn't say it. Where did I say that? And I don't need links to a liberal blogs with liberal agendas that "prove" your point, as if I haven't seen them before. I know you think the election was stolen. I just don't know any other way to tell you it wasn't. There has been fraud, errors, and all manner of bullshit in every single election we've had. Would it make any difference to you if I pointed you to articles from professors and non-partisan voting experts who said that all of the exit polls were within margins of error and that there was no widespread fraud of any consequence in this last election? Probably not.
I'm talking about "receipts" in the form of a physical piece of paper that the voter can look at, associated with their individual vote, either through a window in a printing machine tied with their voting terminal, or spit out so that they can physically look at it and verify their votes, and then possibly placed in an envelope and dropped in a box, and not taken with them when they leave.
I'm not talking about a piece of paper that is taken away from the polling place, and I'm making the assumption that no one else is either.
(The reason why I'm saying "receipts" is because that's what everyone's calling them. But I haven't seen anyone argue for them to be receipts in a context of taking the thing with them. They're saying "receipt" in the context of what I said above, and I'm using the same terminology to avoid confusing the situation any further.)
I support paper receipts! And open source code on all e-voting equipment! Where did I say I didn't support these things?
What I'm saying is that there were ALREADY BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE DONE THIS.
Where was DailyKos and slashdot and, indeed, the sponsors of this "new" bill in the support of the two-year old bills that would already have fixed the exact problems you're complaining about??
Whether they are epidemic or not, small scale examples of election fraud did happen all over the country. (too many examples to enumerate here) Are you objecting to the principle of punishing people who commit this sort of fraud?
No, I'm objecting to introducing a bill that almost duplicates the major features of other bills introduced before even the 2004 election.
I'm objecting to the sponsors of these bills not strongly supporting the previous bills. Read them. They're very short, and to the point, and didn't have anything objectionable in them. They simple required voter verified permanent paper receipts, and open source software on all e-voting equipment, period. Why did they not support them?
I'm objecting to liberal news outlets, and indeed most of the posts here, ignoring the fact that these previous bills even existing, and not mentioning them at all.
I'm objecting to the article summary ONLY mentioning receipts and open source, the two EXACT things the previous bills would have done. Hmm, perhaps if more energy had been put into their support by the people who are doing the pandering now, or by the oh-so-cool DailyKos?
I'm objecting not to punishing people who commit election fraud - because all of these offenses are already egregious and are clearly punishable. Whether or not they're felonies is beside the point! Doesn't the slashdot crowd disagree with the creation of new laws, and think that we should simply enforce laws we already have instead of making more?
Do you know how complicated voting is, and how many people are involved in it? Do you realize that it's administered by local county officials, and there are literally tens of thousands of people involved, thousands in each state and hundreds in each county? And that these are the people we've always entrusted with our elections process? And that e-voting vendors like Diebold have no central access, or indeed any access after the machines are deployed (except in the form of software updates, which, while not open source, are audited by the FEC and third parties as required by law, the isolated deployment of uncertified patches notwithstanding)?
I mean, do you really believe that comments made by a corporate CEO in the context of fundraising for his state's Republican party actually meant that a 13,000-employee company that prides itself on reliable electronic systems was going to literally subvert democracy and assist in rigging an election for a candidate? And if so, do you believe he'd say that publicly?
That reasoning is flawed
Not necessarily.
There are extensive checks and audits built into these systems as well. They're not designed to be unreliable. And, in fact, most non-partisan voting analysts, such as the MIT-Caltech Voting Project, said that the election was surprisingly smooth considering the amount of new technology being rolled out, and they were, overall, pleased with the e-voting equipment and its performance. Yes, there were deficiencies, and yes, most people agree that fundamentally, an individual voter-verified paper trail is a good idea. But believe it or not - and forget about all of the endless vitriolic rhetoric you've read and heard about e-voting from people with clear agendas - it's possible to do something like accurate e-voting. And note, I DO think there should be a receipt for everyone - if only to quiet the critics who will think any Republican victory from now on must be an illegitimate one. But computerized voting systems can also get reliability from audit. Just because a voter is externally anonymous doesn't mean there's not a reliable way to internally track a voter. Now, if you presume there are malicious attempts to alter the election outcomes, then yes, I agree that a paper trail is the only way to be sure. But keep in mind, then, that every election that deploys such a system will no doubt have hand-recounts requested in each and every jurisdiction. And then, what exactly is the purpose of e-voting?
I also addressed both of those in my post. Apparently no one's read it beyond the first paragraph:
[1] In fairness, this bill does have a couple of minor differences: it proposes that election day be a federal holiday, and makes doing things that liberals would like to make people believe are routine and widespread, like intimidating minorities and passing out fliers with incorrect voting dates, a felony. It also prohibits executives at voting vendors from being politically active, likely to pander to the people who think Diebold's CEO stole the election for Bush, completely ignoring the impossibility of actually executing on such an allegation statewide. In short, a shameless pandering publicity stunt, which ignores the completely legitimate bills already proposed two years ago above by respected members of Congress that would have addressed the two very topics discussed by Kos and noted in the article summary (namely receipts and open source).
These bills, and frankly this new bill as well, would REQUIRE it, therefore requiring local municipalities to do what they need to do to deploy it. And if you then ask, well, why didn't they require it, as I said, it was likely simply literally overlooked during the creation of HAVA, which was designed to make voting FAIR for the disenfranchised areas that were so bitched about in 2000. The e-voting vendors thought they were deploying reliable systems. These are people who make ATMs and baking systems, for fuck's sake. Just because they're proprietary doesn't mean that every single thing that happens with them is some conspiracy to help Republicans steal elections.
Two TWO YEAR OLD BILLS that have already been introduced in the House and Senate would do JUST THIS, namely, require permanent, voter verified receipts and open source all code on e-voting machines. See my post here.
Also, Diebold already has the capability to add paper receipts, WHICH WERE NOT REQUIRED UNDER HAVA, to all of its e-voting deployments. They're just a contractor. They'll build and deploy whatever local governments will buy. But if you're one of those people who thinks that Diebold, a multi-thousand person corporation that prides itself on reliable customer interface systems, is literally conspiring to rig US elections on the basis of offhanded campaign quotes in the context of GOP fundraising by Diebold's CEO, however inappropriate they were, then I suppose none of what I just said will matter to you.
Couldn't we just have supported the bills that already would have corrected this, instead of making it a publicity stunt by a Clinton family member and the losing Democratic presidential candidate to play on the emotions of people who think that both the 2000 and 2004 elections were "stolen" by Bush? There were already companion Senate and House bills that propose to add permanent, voter-verifiable paper receipts and open source code. Naturally and not surprisingly, Kos completely ignores this, and makes it seem as if the contents of the Count Every Vote Act of 2005 is completely new[1] (this is the kind of shoddy, irresponsible reporting I was referring to the other day with regard to blogging.
Bills have already been introduced to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)[2]. H.R.2239 and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen".
Additionally, the three major electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.
[1] In fairness, this bill does have a couple of minor differences: it proposes that election day be a federal holiday, and makes doing things that liberals would like to make people believe are routine and widespread, like intimidating minorities and passing out fliers with incorrect voting dates, a felony. It also prohibits executives at voting vendors from being politically active, likely to pander to the people who think Diebold's CEO stole the election for Bush, completely ignoring the impossibility of actually executing on such an allegation statewide. In short, a shameless pandering publicity stunt, which ignores the completely legitimate bills already proposed two years ago above by respected members of Congress that would have addressed the two very topics discussed by Kos and noted in the article summary (namely receipts and open source).
[2] Before anyone decries HAVA: a frequent charge levied after the 2000 election was voter disenfranchisement and ballot spoilage due, in large part, to antiquated, malfunctioning, or broken mechanical voting equipment. Legislation was introduced guaranteeing a minimum standard for the equipment and processes associated with voting in all jurisdictions. Since we are living in the 21st century, electronic systems were specified. $3.9 billion was set aside under HAVA to replace all mechanical punch card systems with electronic systems by 1 January, 2006. The goal is to ensure a consistency and fairness in the appearance and operation of the voting systems, both for voters and local election officials.
To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and progra
Slashdot Mirror
I know. But there's nothing I can do now except try to make people aware that my initial argument was and still is valid.
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005. The Senate version has 9 cosponsors and the House version has 102. So the initial post is still 100% valid.
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005. The Senate version already has 9 cosponsors, and the House version 102.
Why not support these bills?
S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005.
Why not support this bills, instead of introducing another bill that splinters support, but features vitriolic, partisan rhetoric that plays into emotional conspiracy theories?
Well, S.330 and H.R.704/H.R.550 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005. The Senate version already has 9 cosponsors and the House version has 102.
So I again, and now even more relevantly, ask: why are Clinton, Boxer, and Kerry trying to splinter and divide support for bills that add a voter-verified permanent paper trail - presumably the most important feature of any such legislation?
S.330 and H.R.704 are new versions of the same bills I previously discussed, introduced under the same title (with a new year) on February 9, 2005.
Why splinter support for this bill - the most important part of which mandates a permanent, voter-verifiable paper trail - with partisan pandering about voter intimidation (which is ALREADY illegal) and rhetoric that echoes of conspiracies about Diebold's CEO?
Would you be screaming about this if some Republican representatives and senators who didn't cosponsor the last bill put up this proposal, or are you just engaging in knee-jerk anti-"liberal" rage?
Yes, I would have. Because I've brought it up here and in other forums whenever I've had the chance. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I voted for Kerry (on the sole basis of this speech excerpt), not Bush.
Did the people you mention vote for the bills, and are they on the committees that let the bills die afterward?
By "support", I mean sponsor and promote the bills.
No, they didn't vote on them, since, as I know you know, and as you know that I know, they never came up for vote. But I'm not asking that.
I'm asking: Where were they, in support, promotion, and/or sponsorship of these important bills?
And it does not matter whether any of the sponsors were on any of the previous committees. Frankly, I haven't looked to see if they were. But it doesn't matter, because that is NOT what I am asking. I am asking: where was their support (in print or verbal) and/or sponsorship of the previous bills almost two years ago if the provisions were so important?
Because bills allowed to die in committee don't matter anymore. You don't seem to get this--or you're ignoring it to promote your anti-"liberal" agenda.
Sorry. I've been trying to get these bills attention ever since they were introduced. I've posted about them numerous times in this and other forums, and written by Representative and Senators on this issue several times since mid 2003, and immediately after the 2004 election.
The problem is that not mentioning them makes it look like this is some new, valiant effort to get voting accountability, when it's anything but.
Dumbass. That's not the point. As I've asked about 3 or 4 times now (and I'll assume you're the same MOD PARENT UP ac from the other thread claiming that my argument is "destroyed" because the bills died in committee).
The POINT is, if this is so utterly important, then where the fuck were Clinton, Kerry, Tubbs, and Boxer for the first bills, before even the 2004 election took place? If receipts and open source are such a fucking good idea - I mean, this was after the 2000 election and before Bush's second run, for fuck's sake - then where the hell were they?
The POINT is, why is there no mention of the fact that there were bills that were identical in the two major features, and indeed the primary things always mentioned, namely, receipts and open source, in any article on this "new" (old) bill?
I didn't leave out any facts. I said the bills were old as time, and I provided LINKS to them, with clear status, and asked, categorically, where is Clinton and Kerry's support for these bills? I doubt you'll provide an even remotely on-topic answer.
And remember, I support paper records and open sourcing e-voting code.
Yes. They did die in committee. Can you answer any of the following questions:
- Why didn't Clinton, Boxer, Kerry, and Tubbs more vocally support these initial bills, the two basic features of which - namely, paper receipts and open source - are identical to the two previous bills?
- Why doesn't any news outlet or commentary that I've seen so far make any reference to these previous bills, making them look like they're completely new?
No, it doesn't render anything moot. What it means is that it's no more than a stunt. Why were they themselves not cosponsors of the original bills? Every senator or representative has an opportunity to sign on. What's worse, is that not only do they address the primary complaints, which is fine, they go further to create artificial argument over something we already prohibit, i.e., voting fraud. It's designed to play to the base of people who think minority voter intimidation is widespread, or that Diebold's CEO stole the election for Bush. It's a fucking emotional play, plain and simple. The initial bills were uninteresting. They simply called for a verifiable paper trail and open source software. This one faux-valiantly says, essentially, we know that the 200{0,4} election was stolen, and now we're going to fight to prevent it!
Are you going to address anything I've said, or just continue one-sentence replies that imply anything I say must be invalid because of using the word "liberals"?
Um, my point was, why didn't they get support in the first place by the same people sponsoring the current bills? In fact, why were they themselves not sponsors if paper receipts and open source - the two primary things always talked about in this context - are so important? And, most importantly, why are these previous bills not mentioned in any reference to or articles about the current bills?
In Canada, electoral officials must be politically neutral.
Um, Diebold's employees aren't "electoral officials". The county electoral officials using Diebold's equipment - completely out of Diebold's reach[1] - are the "electoral officials". The same people to whom we've been entrusting our elections for decades. Are the people who manufactured the markers and pens and the paper mills who made the paper for previous elections "electoral officials" who must remain impartial.
The counties are executing and auditing elections with higher technology equipment. Nothing more. Yes, they could potentially have a problem with, say, a crash on one machine. And there are holes in the process that need to be closed. And so on. But that doesn't make Diebold's employees, including the CEO, electoral officials. Was what he said bad form? Absolutely. Moronic thing to say. Even to be in a position of the most remote appearance of conflict. But I'm less concerned with his comments and more concerned with people who think his comments are somehow "proof" that the election MUST have been stolen, with complete and utter disregard for the complexity of the entire process and the number of checks and audits that exist in the electronic system even as it stands now! Diebold does not have any central or direct access to the equipment once deployed. The ONLY control you could argue Diebold might have is in the form of patches, and these patches have to be certified and reviewed, including at a source code level, by the FEC and a third party. And yes, I'm aware that uncertified patches, which could include anything from errors to malicious code, have been deployed. But the problem is that you take isolated, fringe examples, and make it out to be widespread. I see the same stories, analysis, and links to liberal blogs and sources constantly, as "proof" of some position.
As for dying in committee, it sure would have been nice if Clinton, Kerry, Boxer, and tubs would have SUPPORTED them the first time around, eh?
I didn't say he didn't say it. Where did I say that? And I don't need links to a liberal blogs with liberal agendas that "prove" your point, as if I haven't seen them before. I know you think the election was stolen. I just don't know any other way to tell you it wasn't. There has been fraud, errors, and all manner of bullshit in every single election we've had. Would it make any difference to you if I pointed you to articles from professors and non-partisan voting experts who said that all of the exit polls were within margins of error and that there was no widespread fraud of any consequence in this last election? Probably not.
I'm talking about "receipts" in the form of a physical piece of paper that the voter can look at, associated with their individual vote, either through a window in a printing machine tied with their voting terminal, or spit out so that they can physically look at it and verify their votes, and then possibly placed in an envelope and dropped in a box, and not taken with them when they leave.
I'm not talking about a piece of paper that is taken away from the polling place, and I'm making the assumption that no one else is either.
(The reason why I'm saying "receipts" is because that's what everyone's calling them. But I haven't seen anyone argue for them to be receipts in a context of taking the thing with them. They're saying "receipt" in the context of what I said above, and I'm using the same terminology to avoid confusing the situation any further.)
I think you are the one who is missing the point.
I support paper receipts! And open source code on all e-voting equipment! Where did I say I didn't support these things?
What I'm saying is that there were ALREADY BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE DONE THIS.
Where was DailyKos and slashdot and, indeed, the sponsors of this "new" bill in the support of the two-year old bills that would already have fixed the exact problems you're complaining about??
Whether they are epidemic or not, small scale examples of election fraud did happen all over the country. (too many examples to enumerate here) Are you objecting to the principle of punishing people who commit this sort of fraud?
No, I'm objecting to introducing a bill that almost duplicates the major features of other bills introduced before even the 2004 election.
I'm objecting to the sponsors of these bills not strongly supporting the previous bills. Read them. They're very short, and to the point, and didn't have anything objectionable in them. They simple required voter verified permanent paper receipts, and open source software on all e-voting equipment, period. Why did they not support them?
I'm objecting to liberal news outlets, and indeed most of the posts here, ignoring the fact that these previous bills even existing, and not mentioning them at all.
I'm objecting to the article summary ONLY mentioning receipts and open source, the two EXACT things the previous bills would have done. Hmm, perhaps if more energy had been put into their support by the people who are doing the pandering now, or by the oh-so-cool DailyKos?
I'm objecting not to punishing people who commit election fraud - because all of these offenses are already egregious and are clearly punishable. Whether or not they're felonies is beside the point! Doesn't the slashdot crowd disagree with the creation of new laws, and think that we should simply enforce laws we already have instead of making more?
Do you know how complicated voting is, and how many people are involved in it? Do you realize that it's administered by local county officials, and there are literally tens of thousands of people involved, thousands in each state and hundreds in each county? And that these are the people we've always entrusted with our elections process? And that e-voting vendors like Diebold have no central access, or indeed any access after the machines are deployed (except in the form of software updates, which, while not open source, are audited by the FEC and third parties as required by law, the isolated deployment of uncertified patches notwithstanding)?
I mean, do you really believe that comments made by a corporate CEO in the context of fundraising for his state's Republican party actually meant that a 13,000-employee company that prides itself on reliable electronic systems was going to literally subvert democracy and assist in rigging an election for a candidate? And if so, do you believe he'd say that publicly?
That reasoning is flawed Not necessarily. There are extensive checks and audits built into these systems as well. They're not designed to be unreliable. And, in fact, most non-partisan voting analysts, such as the MIT-Caltech Voting Project, said that the election was surprisingly smooth considering the amount of new technology being rolled out, and they were, overall, pleased with the e-voting equipment and its performance. Yes, there were deficiencies, and yes, most people agree that fundamentally, an individual voter-verified paper trail is a good idea. But believe it or not - and forget about all of the endless vitriolic rhetoric you've read and heard about e-voting from people with clear agendas - it's possible to do something like accurate e-voting. And note, I DO think there should be a receipt for everyone - if only to quiet the critics who will think any Republican victory from now on must be an illegitimate one. But computerized voting systems can also get reliability from audit. Just because a voter is externally anonymous doesn't mean there's not a reliable way to internally track a voter. Now, if you presume there are malicious attempts to alter the election outcomes, then yes, I agree that a paper trail is the only way to be sure. But keep in mind, then, that every election that deploys such a system will no doubt have hand-recounts requested in each and every jurisdiction. And then, what exactly is the purpose of e-voting?
There are already two two-year-old bills that would have done just this. But you're so informed you already knew that, right?
I also addressed both of those in my post. Apparently no one's read it beyond the first paragraph:
[1] In fairness, this bill does have a couple of minor differences: it proposes that election day be a federal holiday, and makes doing things that liberals would like to make people believe are routine and widespread, like intimidating minorities and passing out fliers with incorrect voting dates, a felony. It also prohibits executives at voting vendors from being politically active, likely to pander to the people who think Diebold's CEO stole the election for Bush, completely ignoring the impossibility of actually executing on such an allegation statewide. In short, a shameless pandering publicity stunt, which ignores the completely legitimate bills already proposed two years ago above by respected members of Congress that would have addressed the two very topics discussed by Kos and noted in the article summary (namely receipts and open source).
These bills, and frankly this new bill as well, would REQUIRE it, therefore requiring local municipalities to do what they need to do to deploy it. And if you then ask, well, why didn't they require it, as I said, it was likely simply literally overlooked during the creation of HAVA, which was designed to make voting FAIR for the disenfranchised areas that were so bitched about in 2000. The e-voting vendors thought they were deploying reliable systems. These are people who make ATMs and baking systems, for fuck's sake. Just because they're proprietary doesn't mean that every single thing that happens with them is some conspiracy to help Republicans steal elections.
Um, I linked them both in the first sentence of the second paragraph of my post, and you can check on that for yourself, can't you?
Two TWO YEAR OLD BILLS that have already been introduced in the House and Senate would do JUST THIS, namely, require permanent, voter verified receipts and open source all code on e-voting machines. See my post here.
Also, Diebold already has the capability to add paper receipts, WHICH WERE NOT REQUIRED UNDER HAVA, to all of its e-voting deployments. They're just a contractor. They'll build and deploy whatever local governments will buy. But if you're one of those people who thinks that Diebold, a multi-thousand person corporation that prides itself on reliable customer interface systems, is literally conspiring to rig US elections on the basis of offhanded campaign quotes in the context of GOP fundraising by Diebold's CEO, however inappropriate they were, then I suppose none of what I just said will matter to you.
Bills have already been introduced to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)[2]. H.R.2239 and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen".
Additionally, the three major electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.
[1] In fairness, this bill does have a couple of minor differences: it proposes that election day be a federal holiday, and makes doing things that liberals would like to make people believe are routine and widespread, like intimidating minorities and passing out fliers with incorrect voting dates, a felony. It also prohibits executives at voting vendors from being politically active, likely to pander to the people who think Diebold's CEO stole the election for Bush, completely ignoring the impossibility of actually executing on such an allegation statewide. In short, a shameless pandering publicity stunt, which ignores the completely legitimate bills already proposed two years ago above by respected members of Congress that would have addressed the two very topics discussed by Kos and noted in the article summary (namely receipts and open source).
[2] Before anyone decries HAVA: a frequent charge levied after the 2000 election was voter disenfranchisement and ballot spoilage due, in large part, to antiquated, malfunctioning, or broken mechanical voting equipment. Legislation was introduced guaranteeing a minimum standard for the equipment and processes associated with voting in all jurisdictions. Since we are living in the 21st century, electronic systems were specified. $3.9 billion was set aside under HAVA to replace all mechanical punch card systems with electronic systems by 1 January, 2006. The goal is to ensure a consistency and fairness in the appearance and operation of the voting systems, both for voters and local election officials.
After the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA):
To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and progra