Nancy Tobi Really Has a Problem With HR 550!

[Bill Bored]

And I think she may be uninformed.

<http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_tobi_2c_na_060806_what_s_wrong_with_th.htm>

I don't think Ms. Tobi is really fully aware of just how bad our election system is at the moment. This is why she thinks HR 550 will somehow make things worse.

The EAC has no authority to do anything and they still won't under HR 550, except to conduct a 2% audit or perhaps a larger one.

But in case Ms. Tobi doesn't know, last time I checked the EAC is ALREADY RESPONSIBLE for saying who can count our votes! It's called the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG) -- And they SUCK! Under these so-called standards, the EAC can give any vendor a pass even if their junk doesn't comply with the VVSG that the EAC wrote themselves. The EAC can also give out no-bid contracts for cronies to WRITE those standards, and in fact they do. This is why the standards SUCK and we have no independent verification, crappy reliability and huge loopholes in the standards that allow them to be waived by the same folks who wrote them -- the EAC. HR 550 would end the no-bid contracting by the EAC, so maybe a guy like Doug Jones would have a chance to write some standards.

As I said above, frankly, I don't think Ms. Tobi knows just how bad our election system is at the moment. She talks about paper ballots instead of paper trails and that's fine, but is she talking about hand counts or just optical scan? Does she think the latter doesn't employ secret software (which would have to be discloed under HR 550), because if that's why she's not supporting HR 550 -- because it doesn't mandate optical scan -- she has a lot to learn about election management systems! If she's for hand counted paper ballots, that's another story, but she hasn't quite come out and said that, has she?

HR 550 is just a modest attempt through legislation to fix some parts of the process that have gone awry. So far, regulation and standards have failed to do this and have resulted in chaos. So it's time to call in the lawmakers. We are a nation of laws right?

The biggest problem with HR 550 is that it allows the EAC to privatize the currently non-existent auditing process (implicitly but not explicitly, by the way) and that should be corrected. But the rest of the bill is absolutely essential if we are ever going have the ability to verify election results.

Finally, Ms. Tobi is from New Hampshire -- Democracy for New Hampshire no less. I wonder what they do for audits and recounts there that's so much better than HR 550? Anybody know?

[whistle]

1. Election fraud system is the more correct label...

<snip>
Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006

The Citizen's Tool Kit contains 20 modules, listed below. The concept is to begin actively managing your government by choosing JUST ONE THING -- and doing it.

Choose one action – any action. This is YOUR tool kit to help you and your group take action and monitor upcoming elections, so contribute input as desired.

You own your government, it's not the other way around.

When you own something, it's up to you to manage it. The Citizen's Tool Kit was created through combined expertise with many of our nation's most effective and experienced citizens, to help you learn the management skills that work.

When you take any action in this Citizen's Tool Kit, you will master skills to enact truly meaningful oversight over your government.

Your children and grandchildren will inherit the government you give to them.

If you don't manage your own government, who will?

Citizen's Tool Kit Modules

Take Back Your Elections

MOBILIZATION MODULES
Module 1: Have a House Party
Module 2: Organize a Town Meeting
Module 3: Give a Speech to a Group

HARD CORE EVIDENCE MODULES
Module 4: Adopt Part of an Election: Check Out the System Testing
Module 5: Adopt Part of an Election: Check On Voter Registration Lists
Module 6: Adopt Part of an Election: Become a Poll Worker or Elections Judge
Module 7: Adopt Part of an Election: Monitor the Voting
Module 8: Adopt Part of an Election: Monitor the Counting
Module 9: Adopt Part of an Election: Watch the Chain of Custody
Module 10: Adopt Part of an Election: Audit for Accuracy
Module 11: Get Public Records and Freedom of Information Documents

CREATIVE & SPECIALTY MODULES
Module 12: Be the Media
Module 13: Adopt a Public Official
Module 14: Follow the Money Trail: Who's Getting Paid?
Module 15: Accountability Check-up: Did the Election Follow Rules & Laws?
Module 16: Legal Actions

'PLAN B' MODULE
Module 17: Count the Votes Yourself

MODULES FOR CANDIDATES, CELEBRITIES, AND WEALTHY CITIZENS
Module 18: Actions for Candidates
Module 19: For Famous Voices (Action ideas for Celebrities)
Module 20: Actions for High Net Worth Individuals

Each module is being posted here for your perusal and commentary today. We'll take your ideas into consideration and update the Citizen's Tool Kit as needed. To help you customize each module for your own community or group, a page is also provided at the end of each module.

The entire Tool Kit will be available module by module and as one complete document. <more>

http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/36341.html

[Bill Bored]

2. Sorry I don't post there. They SMEAR too many of their fellow activists.nt

[flyingobject]

17. only thing better - a comic book and some crayons

BBV.org is going to save another election from the evil GOP!
(like they did with the 2004)

Just as soon as you donate your money.

And, while you donate, here's some gimmicks to keep you entertained and
let you think you are doing something.....

[Peace Patriot]

3. "HR 550 is just a modest attempt to fix some parts of the process...

...through legislation that have gone awry."

Gone awry? You think Tom Delay and Bob New didn't intend the corruption and destruction of our election system from one end of the country to the other? And what do you make of the Democratic Party leadership's MIND-BOGGLING SILENCE about Bushite corporations taking over our election system with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls? This occurred in the 2002 and 2004 period with NOT ONE WORD OF OBJECTION from them!

Congress took away our right to vote--with the HAVA boondoggle. It was quite deliberate. And they are not going to give it back. THAT is my problem with HR 550. There is no way that this is going to pass, in tact, in the Diebold Congress--which fritters away its time on flag-burning and gay marriage, and, when they think about it, yet another tax cut for the rich.

HR 550 might be useful to LOCAL election reformers in the most viable arena for restoring our right to vote--the state/local jurisdictions--for pressuring state/local officials. It may be especially useful where there is little hope of getting rid of these election theft machines, and the best that can be done, for now, is better auditing. I'm not against it. I just think it's laughable to expect a Congress that is beholden to Diebold and ES&S, and not to us, to now create TRANSPARENT elections, when the whole point was to withdraw vote tabulation behind a veil of corporate secrecy.

I support the Absentee Ballot protest. Flood the election officials with MOUNTAINS of paper ballots, boycott their diabolical machines, panic them, create a crisis, FORCE reform NOW. I want people like you at the table, Bill Bored. I think this is the only way to do it QUICKLY. A citizen rebellion. We vote, but we won't vote on their goddamned machines. To hell with all this corruption and obscurity!

TRANSPARENT elections are very simple. People vote, and you count the votes in public view. They could have had TRANSPARENCY from the beginning. They DIDN'T WANT IT. They deliberately created a NON-TRANSPARENT system, that is so esoteric almost nobody understands it. Certainly not ordinary voters. That's why so many are choosing Absentee Ballot voting (which is up to 50% in Los Angeles). They don't trust the machines! It's ALREADY a movement, just not very organized.

AB votes are NOT "safe," and it will NOT result in accurate vote counts this fall. Accurate counts are NOT possible. But AB voting on a large scale CAN precipitate reform. A massive AB vote will be a "vote of no confidence" in the riggable machines.

Bust the Machines--Vote Absentee!

[Bill Bored]

7. Peace Patriot, please read HAVA and show me where it says...

...we have to do any of the stuff that's being done. Most of the implementation of HAVA which we find so objectionable is the result of misinterpretation by vendors and elections officials in the states.

HAVA does not require electronic voting.
HAVA does not require replacement of punch cards.
HAVA does not require replacement of lever machines.
HAVA does not do away with HCPB.
It does require one Accessible machine per polling place (not even per precinct), but that's about it and that doesn't even have to be a DRE.

If you want to rail about the statewide voter registration lists that will likely disenfranchise some eligible voters, go ahead. I'm with you! But even that is all a matter of the implementation of the thing and the states like Ohio who have decided to exceed the HAVA ID requirements.

Don't get me wrong -- I think HAVA is mostly junk law because it doesn't actually require much of anything, except the disabled-Accessible stuff, which is fine, but of course it's being used as a wedge issue as you know. But really, if you READ THE LAW, there's not much there and what is there can be fixed by HR 550 to a large extent.

If you've got too much e-voting in your state and not enough hand counting, blame the state -- not HAVA. (HR 550 would of course fix the lack of a voter-verified paper trail, but you've got that in CA anyway.)

[flyingobject]

14. absentee = secret counting of your vote on a machine

didn't you even know that absentee ballots are counted by
machines?

That is if your absentee ballot app is approved.
IF you forget to dot an "i" or cross a "t",
your ballot may be rejected.

People have corrected you on this time after time but you
keep on posting that.

[eridani]

18. Not in WA state

Machine rejected ballots are duplicated by election workers and rerun. That adds to the expense and is a good argument for keeping polling places where you can self-check ballots.

[Wilms]

4. Hang on, Bill.

I don't see that Tobi is taking issue with auditing per se. She has listed other problems she sees.

That seems to include:

1. Centralization of Executive Power-White House Control over Counting the Votes: HR550 extends beyond the existing expiry date the power and authority of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), establishing a Presidential Commission authorized to control the counting of votes in every election--federal, state, and local--in the nation.

2. Centralization of Executive Power-Crony Appointments: The potential for stacking of the EAC is evident in the scenario already played out under the current Administration. In early 2006, the Bush White House made numerous recess appointments, putting political cronies into positions of power and authority without any Congressional oversight or checks and balances. Of the eight recess appointments made on January 4, 2006, three were Commissioner to the Federal Election Commission. Two of those appointed Commissioners are known for their opposition to voting rights and clean elections. The third is a political crony of Senate Minority Leader Reid of Nevada. (Nevada is now positioned to take a lead role in the Democratic presidential nomination process. For this privilege, Nevada has promised to play the nomination process by Party rules, financed by the Casino industry.)

3. Centralization of Executive Power-Regulatory Authority: Federal regulatory authority means the federal entity preempts state and local authorities. The EAC was created as an advisory commission with one exception: it was granted regulatory authority over the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). The EAC has been steadily positioning and even suing to assert its regulatory authority in other areas under its domain. Even if it does not succeed through litigation, the EAC could, with the insertion of a single line of text in ANY congressional act, become regulatory. This is how the FEC gained regulatory powers. A regulatory EAC means that a Presidential Commission-potentially stacked with political cronies-would have legal decision making and enforcement power over the following areas, for every state in the nation:

And she does call for HCPB, among other things:

* The incontrovertible and legally defensible system of verifiable elections through the use of real, voter-marked and verifiable paper ballots (as distinguished from paper trails)

* The elimination of secret vote counting through the use of black box voting products.

* An extension of all HAVA mandated deadlines pending a complete independent investigation, analysis, and audit of HAVA monies distributed and spent on electronic voting systems, the outcomes thereof, with said investigation including information on the most advanced system of checks and balances for elections: hand counted paper ballots.

You gotta admit, legislation like that would be attractive. No? :shrug:

[Bill Bored]

5. Nowhere does it say HCPB.

"Black box voting products" means nothing unless it's defined. It's not.
So what is it? If HR 550 forces disclosure of s/w, then what is a "black box product?" Is it a DRE? What about Op Scan? She does not say to hand count anything in this piece which is why it's so ambiguous. Perhaps you are reading something into it that isn't there. She said "voter marked" -- not hand counted.

And all that executive power stuff is meaningless too. The EAC is already part of the Executive Branch and they don't do anything except write bogus voting system standards. HR 550 reforms some of that process by no longer allowing no-bid contracts. It regulates the EAC.

I think I've already addressed the other limitations of the EAC with and without HR 550 in the OP.

You quote her bullet point:
* The elimination of secret vote counting through the use of black box voting products.

Isn't that what HR 550 does by forcing disclosure of the software?

So what is she going on about? And what do they do in New Hampshire that's any better than HR 550?

[Wilms]

6. Oh please.

Read it again. She mentions HCPB as being the real Gold Standard.

And no, forcing disclosure of the software does not guarentee much. What about the Ballot Definition Files Bill Bored (oh, that's you!) is always ranting about?

Besides, Diebold has disclosed their software, albeit accidently. Are you satisfied with that?

[Bill Bored]

8. BDFs would be disclosed too. It's software isn't it? HR 550 says:

No undisclosed software.

Where does Tobi say to use HCPB? She only calls for an investigation of HCPB. So what do we do in the meantime? Funny, when I read Lynn Landes' stuff, this is quite clear.

[Wilms]

9. Does the disclosure of Source Code = disclosure of BDF's?

Does the Holt bill specifically call for the audit of BDF's?

As far as HCPB goes, fine. She seems to be advocating their use while limiting the demand to it's consideration.

[Bill Bored]

10. HCPB is already legal. HR 550 says "software" -- NOT "source code."

I wish more people would just read the stuff before making such sweeping assertions.

A little bird told me that New Hampshire actually has a very liberal recount policy. That might be a good thing, but then why not make that part of HR 550, or other state laws, word for word if appropriate, instead of gutting the whole bill? After all, recounts will be possible again in all 50 states if HR 550 passes.

[Wilms]

11. Oh, please, again. No one said HCPB are illegal.

It seems she's advocating them being mandated.

I do agree that "gutting the whole bill" is second best to debating it's improvement.

But can we really debate (with Holt, himself) the bills improvement?

[Bill Bored]

13. He did answer her on her blog didn't he?

Politics has been described as the art of the possible.

It's debatable, at least on DU, whether HCPB is possible. Personally I think it is but not with all this "Early Voting", "Absentee Voting", "Vote At McDonalds while you're super-sizing you freedom fries voting", etc. What's next? -- voting in a public washroom? (Is that why they have VVPATs shaped like toilet paper?)

Anyway, others do not think it's even possible and it depends on how many elected offices, referenda, etc. there are in a given jurisdiction. And that varies a lot from state to state. Since HR 550 is federal legislation it would have to take this into account. It may be that the best that can be hoped for is to allow HCPB.

[Bill Bored]

12. Forgot to answer about Diebold.

Not happy with the level of disclosure, but to some extent better the devil you know. The code has been reviewed by quite a few people and while it's a security nightmare, no one has found direct evidence of specific vote switching sub-routines in the source code. That said, they haven't disclosed any recent versions, have they?

[flyingobject]

16. cause no law requires Diebold to disclose

except for HR 550 - oh thats right, some people don't want
HR 550 to pass.

And, New Hampshire is a Diebold state.

[flyingobject]

15. the White House already controls the election process

in case folks haven't noticed.