Sickening.

1 Is this funny? Do you not care?

2 Is this leadership?
Do you believe this is the way it should be (and their little rulebook is simply wrong)

3 Is this oath breaking?
Does an oath of office matter?

4 Is this criminal?
Should participants see jail cells?

And bonus question: Where are the people that were elected to office if they are not in their chairs during a vote? I doubt they are in the bathroom. But one never knows. It's not time for a head count, it's not time for looking at what could be done to secure the electronic voting network. It's time for removal from office, for malfeasance, broken oaths, and corruption.

It just goes to show no matter where you use electronics to count votes, it will be exploited. They even have keys to lock those keypads. Yet even with keys, the keypads were abandoned with the key in the lock. Why even have a key at all? Better yet, why even vote at all? Why even come to the legislature at all? Obviously all those representatives are not needed. Couldn't we save money by not paying them for not doing their job. I don't want to get into money discussions. Screw the money. Here we have evidence of lawmakers with their hand in the cookie jar, on the button, illegally voting. The lawmakers everyone of them needs to be fired. (Even if all you did was witness it and say nothing.)

If your taking the road of ignoring the oath breakers, at least secure the system, so it doesn't happen again.
A lifetime vacation in Leavenworth ought to be appropriate punishment. These lawmakers need to understand that what they are doing is serious and has consequences. I say again, they should not be comfortable when they do work for us. They work for US.

And to the video of the floor, whoever set that up to pan away from the illegal activity at voting time, should be fired, if not investigated for conspiracy.

I have a pair of wire snips (dykes) that can clip the wires to the display panel, and all the control panels, if you want to use them down in Texas to restore your constitutional republic, and make the lawmakers actually work in the job they were sworn to do.

Email me and I will send them to you for free. If your not going to actually restore your constitutional republic, then don't email me.

At least cut the oath breakers wires, and force them to be present for the vote and cast their vote on paper, since they can not be trusted with an electronic network.

If you thought this was funny and laughed at the zombies looking for voting stations to exploit. You won't be laughing when you find out their decisions and votes cost someone you know's life.

Did anybody watch this and think, "Damn this activity looks like Shawn of the Dead?"

Final Bonus question

Where else is this happening?

It is incredible. I suspect that it is responding to a real need though. I wonder how other state legislatures cope with the problem of legislators who are not in attendance but who want to vote on a particular issue?

I suggest that:

legislators can log in and log out securely so that their voting buttons will not work if they are not present
they use a proxy system where a legislator can assign their proxy to someone that they choose (rather than whichever slob is nearby) whose vote counts for them unless they also vote in which case their own vote overrides. The proxy should be delegatable so that there can be a proxy chain which accounts for several people being out at the same time. Kinks would need to be worked out - how to abstain, whether to delegate votes on a per issue basis, etc... This would be very transparent since you can still see on the board who voted in which way.

I've heard that the TX leg is pretty partisan so seeing votes being voted for other members across party lines suggests to me that this is not just a case of members courteously voting for other members *as they know/suspect that the absent member would have wanted to vote or asked them to vote* but rather people are voting their own preferences on as many desks as possible.

>[AAV #3]I suggest that: legislators can log in and log
>out securely so that their voting buttons will not
>work if they are not present
>...
>so seeing votes being voted for other members
>across party lines suggests to me that this is
>not just a case of members courteously voting
>for other members *as they know/suspect that the
>absent member would have wanted to vote or asked
>them to vote*

>[Phil #2]It just goes to show no matter where you use
>electronics to count votes, it will be exploited.
>They even have keys to lock those keypads. Yet even
>with keys, the keypads were abandoned with the key
>in the lock.

Phil: Can you post a link backing up this claim? Given that I have never heard of a complaint from a TX legislator that their vote was cast by someone else in a way that they did not want, I now wonder if this is just a courtesy where congress critters vote for their colleagues as that colleague directed them to.

Eg:

Bob: Hey Jim, I'll be out for 2 hours. Please vote for me however the minority leader casts their vote.
Jim: No problemo, thanks for covering me yesterday when I was out playing golf with those great Widgets International boys.

Such a thing is against the rules but very useful from the member point of view.

By the way my questions (might there be confusion) were not aimed at John Dean, or Brad.

#4 AllAboutVoting

You wanted a link. I'll start from what I said years ago.
http://www.sacxtra.com/s...emetv/sacxtra/Hacked.jpg

I'll assume you watched the posted video, of the lawmakers walking around like zombies looking for buttons to push. There's your link for the exploit of that KIND of electronic vote counting. Each system that electronically counts votes can be exploited differently. ALL ARE VULNERABLE.

Whether or not a lawmaker has complained is irrelevant.
It's wrong. It's illegal, it's corrupt. And if I had to sit on a jury I would nullify any law saying it's right, even with your "it's a courtesy" argument. I don't give a crap who you are, if you swore an oath of office, you DO NOT BREAK THAT OATH.

The other thing which I ignored was the Voter ID requirement. If the state of Texas ain't going to go door to door (cough) Fema Camp to Fema Camp to physically provide an ID to every citizen, then not every citizen will have their constitutional right to vote. And if that's the case, again we have lawmakers breaking their oath of office to protect the constitution.

My advice to you AllAboutVoting is to design a paper ballot printer that is self sustained, has no removable eeprom, and can be adapted for use by the disabled. Because if your idea for voting is to ELECTRONICALLY COUNT the vote, the laws of physics say that it is unvalidatable, and because of that and the corruption it will be exploited.

Electronically counting the vote is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

#6 Phil:
I asked for a link for the claim that the Texas lawmakers have a key which locks out their personal 'voting terminal'. The link you provided is irrelevant to this question. (Legislature votes are verifiable in that every vote is public record. Anyone can see how each congress critter voted and can verify that the vote tabulation was correct. Fraudulently changed votes or counts would be quickly noticed by the congress critter or anyone who does arithmetic.)

>I'll assume you watched the posted video, of the
>lawmakers walking around like zombies looking for
>buttons to push
I agree it looks like they are just scrambling for buttons to push. They showed cases of cross party pressing and of multiple people going for the same button which looks pretty suspicious. But they did not show cases of lawmakers complaining about their votes being cast against their wishes. I wonder if some/most of the absentee lawmakers had pulled their keys? (Obviously enough don't that the courtesy pushes and/or mercenary hunt for buttons is considered worthwhile)

>It's wrong. It's illegal, it's corrupt. And if I
>had to sit on a jury I would nullify any law saying
>it's right, even with your "it's a courtesy" argument.
>I don't give a crap who you are, if you swore an oath
>of office, you DO NOT BREAK THAT OATH.
I don't make any claims as to it's legality. The piece mentions that it is against the House's own rules and that members who break the rules are subject to enforcement. I have no idea what that consists of. I suspect that it can be as toothy or as toothless as the House rules allow. I'm ignorant on that.

As for it being wrong and corrupt: I agree if it is a mercenary hunt for buttons. If it is a courtesy, I think that, while it may be against the rules and wrong in that sense (as well as violating whatever oaths there are regarding those rules), it is NOT wrong and corrupt in a moral sense.

I suggest that they institutionalize and explicitly allow (delegatable) proxy voting. From my point of view delegating a proxy ought to be perceived as a fundamental right in a democracy. The principal is:
* Ideally one votes for oneself in an informed manner
* Failing that one directly selects someone to represent you (selects not votes for. I see no reason why other people's views should affect who I chose to have represent my views, save that there are a limited number of people who can reasonably be elected into an assembly)
* the chain of selection can go arbitrarily many layers
* anyone is allowed to vote directly which will count for them and for their proxies. That they voted directly overrides their delegated vote.
* you can easily change who your vote is delegated to
* it is desirable to directly know and be able to effectively communicate with the person who you have selected to represent yourself. In this way they can effectively represent you.

You can read more about delegatable proxy.

In a public election where secret ballots are a requirement delegatable proxy is troublesome since it can violate the secret ballot. There is a proposed voting system called "asset voting" which addresses this to some degree.

#6 Phil:
>My advice to you AllAboutVoting is to design a paper
>ballot printer that is self sustained, has no removable
>eeprom, and can be adapted for use by the disabled.
>Because if your idea for voting is to ELECTRONICALLY
>COUNT the vote, the laws of physics say that it is
>unvalidatable, and because of that and the corruption
>it will be exploited.
Huh? What does that have to do with this post or any of my comments in this thread. We are talking about votes made by congress critters where the results are public and easily verifiable in realtime. If someone hacked their voting system between when the vote is taken and when the vote is counted, each member can see if their vote was incorrect and anyone who can add or videotapes the score board can see that the tallies were counted incorrectly. So their system is pretty transparent.

The main security issue is the one under discussion here; what happens when someone is not present. Apparently and congress critter could pull their key and then would complain if they were recorded as having voted when they were absent. (They could ask a staff member or trusted colleague watch for such problems.)

So why do many apparently not pull their key? I posit that it is because it does not substantively matter or because there is a regular practice where courtesy votes occur.

The story mentions that more information is on the KeyeTV site. Here is the transcript (look in particular at the last paragraph which is a statement from Alexis DeLee, Spokesperson for House Speaker, Tom Craddick):

There's been a lot of debate at the State Capitol on bills relating to voter integrity. Some lawmakers are pushing for measures such as requiring voters to show a photo identification before being allowed to cast a ballot.

Another bill would criminalize anyone who delivers a ballot for someone unable to drive to the polls.

With so much emphasis on one vote for one person, you'd think lawmakers would make sure they follow the rules, too.

In this CBS 42 Investigates, Nanci Wilson found many don't.

State Representative Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, authored the bill that would require voters to show a photo ID.

“It's all about integrity," Riddle said.

But the integrity of one person, one vote doesn't apply at the legislature. CBS 42 found many lawmakers vote more than once.

During a vote, Riddle votes, turns around and votes again for another state representative.

There's so much going on during the vote on the HPV vaccine mandate, you really have to pay attention.

First, State Rep. Mike Hamilton is at his desk. He leans over to vote a second time for his deskmate Dan Branch. Hamilton reaches back to vote for Charlie Howard, then casts a fourth vote for Wayne Smith.

He's not the only one scrambling to vote. State Rep. G.E. West and State Rep. Larry Phillips both lean over to vote for themselves and their deskmates.

Phillips votes a third time for State Rep. Wayne Christian. Donna Howard votes for State Rep. Hubert Vo.

State Rep. Jim Dunnam didn't have to leave his chair to cast four votes--one for himself then for Garnet Coleman, Trey Martinez Fischer and Marc Veasey.

Sometimes the voting is across party lines.

Will Hartnett, a Republican, reaches back to vote for Democrat Rene Oliveira.

Democrat Jim McReynolds votes for Republican Kirk England, and Republican John Davis votes for Democrat Rick Noriega.

Most voters have no way of knowing if their lawmakers are actually casting their own votes. Even though the legislature is broadcast on cable TV, the cameras change when it's time to vote.

But if you're sitting in the third floor gallery, you have a better view.

"I certainly noticed. There appears to be far more votes on the tick board than there were people in the room," capitol visitor Laurel Weiss said.

Arnie and Laurel Weiss were baffled when they came to see the legislature in action.

"It seems very inappropriate and they should do something about it,” Arnie Weiss said.

Riddle says voting for other members is done out of necessity.

"We have a lot of amendments,” Riddle said. “We don't have lunch breaks, dinner breaks, restroom breaks."

Necessity or not, one thing is clear, they aren't supposed to be doing it.

According to the official House rules--written, voted and approved by lawmakers at the beginning of the session--"Any member found guilty by the House of knowingly voting for another member on the voting machine shall be subject to discipline deemed appropriate by the House."

So, should lawmakers do it?

"No, there's no question,” Weiss said. “On face value it appears to be a blatant violation, an affront, of their own rules.”

It is against their own rules. But the issue is with enforcement. It is the speaker’s job to make sure rules are followed. When CBS 42 asked Speaker of the House Tom Craddick’s spokesperson about it, she just shrugged her shoulders and said it was up to the House members to decide what do to if there's a violation.

Although the practice is widespread, CBS 42 couldn't find any instances of lawmakers being disciplined for voting more than once.

Statement from Alexis DeLee, Spokesperson for House Speaker, Tom Craddick.

"Since the membership has adopted the requirement for a record vote on 3rd reading, it is probable that members may vote for other members when they leave the floor to eat, meet with constituents or go to the restroom. Like many House rules dealing with the interactions between members, we leave the enforcement of the rules to the good judgment of the members. Members shouldn't be voting for members who aren't here, but if they do, everyone has the right to ask for a verification vote. A member may always lock their voting machine and take their key when they are off the floor so they may not be voted in their absence. When a verification is called and a member is not found, the House Sergeant's office locks their machine and takes their key. When strict enforcement is asked for by a house member, the Speaker allows each member time to get to their desk to vote."

#6 Phil:
I asked for a link for the claim that the Texas lawmakers have a key which locks out their personal 'voting terminal'. The link you provided is irrelevant to this question. (Legislature votes are verifiable in that every vote is public record. Anyone can see how each congress critter voted and can verify that the vote tabulation was correct. Fraudulently changed votes or counts would be quickly noticed by the congress critter or anyone who does arithmetic.)

The video (you did watch it?) shows clearly a KEY in the voting terminal. If you have not seen the Bronze/Brass colored key, perhaps you need to look again.

I agree it looks like they are just scrambling for buttons to push. They showed cases of cross party pressing and of multiple people going for the same button which looks pretty suspicious. But they did not show cases of lawmakers complaining about their votes being cast against their wishes. I wonder if some/most of the absentee lawmakers had pulled their keys? (Obviously enough don't that the courtesy pushes and/or mercenary hunt for buttons is considered worthwhile)

It's against their rules, it's wrong, it's breaking their SWORN OATH, even a witness should be screaming bloody murder about it.

As for it being wrong and corrupt: I agree if it is a mercenary hunt for buttons. If it is a courtesy, I think that, while it may be against the rules and wrong in that sense (as well as violating whatever oaths there are regarding those rules), it is NOT wrong and corrupt in a moral sense.

It's absolutely corrupt in a moral sense, and in a sworn oath sense, and in a legal sense. If they want to do courtesy votes, then they should change the law. But I would argue the law is there for a reason. It's not okay to break your sworn oath, it's not okay to standby and watch people break their sworn oath without taking immediate action against the offender!

I suggest that they institutionalize and explicitly allow (delegatable) proxy voting. From my point of view delegating a proxy ought to be perceived as a fundamental right in a democracy.
Proxies. If you use a proxy you can not trust it. And for people tasked and sworn to protect the constitution, they break their oath by using a proxy, which is utterly unacceptable, corrupt, and illegal because you can not TRUST a proxy. There are good reasons for use of a proxy by lawmakers, they have time to discuss, they have time to vote.

Out side of government proxies are needed to remain stealth, and to give anonymity to those who might be prosecuted (like in China getting killed for speaking out. Or in the USA for things as simple as whistle-blowing.) With proxies, exist an undeniable potential for abuse. If someone has bitched about this abuse is irrelevant. And if the "sworn by an oath to serve" lawmakers are not in their CHAIRS voting, then what the fuck are they doing and why are we allowing them to serve us?

So while you ask me where the abuse of proxies is, I tell you it doesn't matter, they broke the law, and even more troubling is where are they when they should be voting and working? I mean our nation is at fucking war for god sake.

Huh? What does that have to do with this post or any of my comments in this thread.

Everything. (visiting your website) E2E is flawed, because it counts electronically. Tell me E2E doesn't count electronically, or shut up. Cause I have shown you that PHYSICS show that electronics can not be validated. Show me an E2E that does NOT count votes, and maybe I might listen to ya. I dont' give a crap about your discussions on Yahoo.

The main security issue is the one under discussion here; what happens when someone is not present.

No the main security issue here is NATIONAL SECURITY, and the exploitation of our elections by electronic vote counting in ALL forms, by corporations, individuals, lawmakers, and oath of office breakers.

If you think I will allow you to break your oath of office and get away with it, you got another thing coming. I say this issue is MORE important than our original INDEPENDENCE from ENGLAND!

How much longer until they silence me?

And before you go off on me.

Remember I first said (or asked Rather) here on the integrity driven Brad Blog, "How can an astronaut vote?"

So do you have an answer for that, without counting electronically?

#11 Phil:
>The video (you did watch it?) shows clearly a KEY in
>the voting terminal.
Yup, caught them this time (including at least one case that showed a reachover to someone else's terminal that had the key in). Thanks.

>It's against their rules
Yes. But I don't have the full picture of what it means to break that rule. Depends on what the house has decided. It seems that in practice they do not enforce that rule.

>it's wrong
As I argued before that depends. I think that proxy voting should be encouraged in an above-board manner. I think that oath breaking and mercenary 'push every button around' behavior is despicable.

>it's breaking their SWORN OATH
This might be in which case it seriously disturbs me. Hopefully someone will do their homework and make the case that this explicitly breaks their sworn oath. I can imagine oaths that this would not break. Eg: "I swear to abide by all the rules of the House or face the censure outlined by the rules." Even if the censure is severe, one could choose to break the rules on the grounds that the censure would be applied evenly and hurt 'the other guys' more than you.

>It's absolutely corrupt in a moral sense, and in
>a sworn oath sense, and in a legal sense
See my above comments. I agree that it is wrong if it is oath breaking or if the votes are not courtesy votes as requested/expected by the absentee legs.

>If they want to do courtesy votes, then they
>should change the law.
I definitely agree. I think in most assemblies this would not be the law but the rules of the assembly. Assemblies usually have the right to manage their own rules.

>even more troubling is where are they when they should
>be voting and working? I mean our nation is at fucking
>war for god sake.
This is the TX leg which has little authority over the war so that is irrelevant. In an earlier comment I posited that they were out playing important golf games. Seriously, I do not know what the life of a legislator is and whether it is practical or expected for them to be physically present at every session. I can easily imagine it not being the best use of a legislators time (with respect to serving his constituency) to physically be present for every session especially if they have a reasonable way to delegate their vote to someone they trust and they know what business the leg will be voting on at that time.

I don't find this stuff funny.

I been to Texas, I have great respect for that state. I personally offer to send dykes (at no cost to the receiver) to someone with integrity that will restore the constitutional republic there.

Not only is this oath breaking behavior unacceptable, it's destructive, and ultimately it's deadly as well.

Remember that, when you laugh about it.

What's happened to the United States constitution is not a laughing matter. It may be "only Texas" but again, how many other states are doing this bullshit?

They all add up, and it DOES effect more than the one state.

They were sworn in to be sitting in that fucking chair, unless an act of god removes them from it.

We The People, are not going support oath breaking.

Another thing, how do they even know their vote was pushed for them --- WHEN THEY ARE NOT EVEN THERE!?

whoops there goes your argument.

This might be in which case it seriously disturbs me. Hopefully someone will do their homework and make the case that this explicitly breaks their sworn oath.

Look man, I am a fucking idiot. (Some might say the village idiot.)

But when they are sworn into office, they are no longer allowed to break that oath they took. You go fucking dig in all the Texas Rules books, I don't give a fuck. I am telling you what the reality is they TOOK an OATH.

Now your telling me it's okay to break that oath?

I don't agree. The oath is Sacred. Your sworn oath is enough to lock your ass up for LIFE IN PRISON.

It is *THAT* important.

You should NOT BE comfortable when you take the oath.

Phil #11:

>>[AAV]I suggest that they institutionalize and
>>explicitly allow (delegatable) proxy voting. From
>>my point of view delegating a proxy ought to be
>>perceived as a fundamental right in a democracy.
>[Phil]Proxies. If you use a proxy you can not
>trust it.
If you select the proxy you choose to trust them
in the context in which you empowered them. I see
this as a right. Consider the context of a public
election. We elect representatives in single member districts where usually almost half the population disagrees with their representatives view. Further the districts are gerrymandered for partisan or bi-partisan gain. (see also my other posts on gerrymandering, including proposed solutions). So our "representative" is unlikely to actually represent us. They are our "unrepresentative representative". A system of delegation of powers to people who are freely selected at each level seems much better to me. People are free to reassign their proxies at any time so an abuser of trust is quickly avoided.

>And for people tasked and sworn to protect the >constitution, they break their oath by using a proxy,
Yes. This is back to the oath breaking question
detailed in my comments above. If oaths are being
broken I agree that there is a serious problem.
I don't have the energy or inclination to research
whether oaths are being broken in this case. Do you?

>With proxies, exist an undeniable potential for abuse.
Sure. But the abuse is transparent and would generally
result in the abuser no longer being the abused
person's proxy. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool
me twice, shame on me".

>If someone has bitched about this abuse [the leg
>members voting for other members against TX House
>rules] is irrelevant.
I see it as relevant since it helps differentiate the acceptable case [assuming no oath breaking] (please cast my vote for me buddy) from the unacceptable case (hah! That sucker left his key in).

And so there it goes, the sucker that left his key in. (Or willing participant)

I ASK.

WHY WAS A KEY MADE TO LOCK THE VOTING TERMINAL?

One more.

If let's say the law was changed to ALLOW PROXIES.

the proxy vote should be in writing. And therefore on Paper, and therefore eliminating electronics from counting the vote.

What legislation is in place to roll back a proxied vote that was wrong?

Do they roll back the law?

Well do they?

no?

Then there's the reason WHY they took an oath, and why they have rules, and KEYS to lock the fucking terminals.

(remember I am the village idiot)

And again I disagree, it's not okay for Osama Bin Laden to have your PROXY VOTE.

>[Phil #12](visiting your website) E2E is flawed,
>because it counts electronically. Tell me E2E doesn't
>count electronically, or shut up. Cause I have shown
>you that PHYSICS show that electronics can not be
>validated. Show me an E2E that does NOT count votes,
>and maybe I might listen to ya.
Hey, I don't mind a plug for my website.
E2E is short for end-to-end verification. It means that one can easily verify that one's vote was counted and that the whole election was conducted without fraud even if there are lots of parts of the voting system that you cannot observe and do not trust. The election inputs and outputs tell you enough to be confident in the results. There are a number of E2E verifiable systems that do not involve electronic voting. For example, consider the Rivest and Smith schemes (and be sure to read the 'Machines' section). More to the point, it becomes irrelevant if electronic counting is involved if people can and do reliably and independently verify that their vote was counted-as-cast.

Back on topic with the TX leg multiple voting:
A legislatures votes are generally completely transparent and a matter of public record. There is no secret ballot in a legislative vote. So each voter can look and the board and raise hell if their vote was miscounted. And anyone can look at the board and raise hell if the counts do not add up. And all the data becomes available as public record later, so they can raise hell if, at their own leisurely pace, they notice that their vote was misrepresented or the election sums don't add up. E2E verification is totally straight-forward and transparent in contexts like this. And there is no harm in having electronic voting used as part of the process because the election outputs are transparent and trivially verifiable that any fraud can be easily noticed.

>[Phil #14]Another thing, how do they even know their
>vote was pushed for them --- WHEN THEY ARE NOT EVEN
>THERE!?
>whoops there goes your argument.
The vote is a matter of public record and is published (I think in real-time after each vote). Since every vote is public it is easily verifiable.

>[Phil #17]*stuff about the oath the leg members took*
You might be right. I have not dug around to see what oath(s) if any they took so I do not know whether they are breaking an oath. They may well be breaking an oath in which case the behavior is unacceptable.

No don't go off on some system that says it validates electronics. It CAN NOT.

There's only ONE CHOICE, removal of systems that count electronically.

if people can and do reliably and independently verify that their vote was counted-as-cast.

Interesting word choices.
Why not just say, no more electronic counting period? I mean come on one of the first damn logic circuits I did was a counter (to use up all the memory segments for an audio delay), and it was imperfect.

My opinion is that Electronic Printing of ballots to be hand counted with public oversight... is Okay And would meet the HAVA requirement and stop the corruption. You want to print that from space via a modem? Have at it.

e.g. The Disabled connect to a terminal, print their paper ballot, review it, and then it is placed in the bin with all the other paper ballots to be hand counted with public oversight. In this context an astronaut is a disabled voter.

And, that astronaut should have the right to say, HOLD my Ballot up to the Video Camera so I can see it. And also say it's wrong, destroy it, and start over.

And all the data becomes available as public record later, so they can raise hell if, at their own leisurely pace, they notice that their vote was misrepresented or the election sums don't add up

When it reaches this point in time (ala San Diego) it's too late! and NOTHING will be done about the corruption. So it's imperative to count the vote properly the first time. However much time that takes.

WE THE PEOPLE BAN ELECTRONICS COUNTING (OR TABULATING) VOTES! AND ALLOW ONLY PAPER BALLOTS, HAND COUNTED, WITH PUBLIC OVERSIGHT.

Anything less is not a Constitutional Republic.

Or are you saying that we are NO LONGER a Constitutional Republic?

>And again I disagree, it's not okay for
>Osama Bin Laden to have your PROXY VOTE.
Well duh. In the context of proxy votes in a leg
only another leg member could hold a proxy.

But what about public elections? Here is my very off-topic and incomplete answer. I do not currently advocate for this system but would like to see delegatable proxy without secret ballot used in the context of organizations that do not wield power ("free associations").

(I'll see if I can get the primary proponent of delegatable proxy to stop by, share his vision, and hopefully document it in some well written easily referenced place.)

In the context of a public election, only a valid "elector" could hold the vote. A public election with delegatable proxy sacrifices the secret ballot which can be a problem so instead Asset voting can be used. Asset can act like delegatable proxy when there are many "elector" candidates and people tend to vote for electors whom they personally know, trust, and can communicate with. This would mean that people (eg members of the organization; in the context of public elections this is 'citizens') can cheaply register as electors, be assigned a unique number, and be available in a widely available directory. After the election the electors each hold some number of proxies which they can assign as they see fit.

Okay, okay, breathe... lots of other news, too, ya know....

AAV, please quit baiting Phil, and Phil, please quit falling for it.

Regarding Proxies.

IF the Texas Legislators can TEXT 111 to 555-1212 is not the electronics itself a PROXY?
Answer Yes.

Is that a PROPER use of technology?
Answer No because anyone can dial the number.

If a disabled person, uses his own computer to PHYSICALLY connect to a SHIELDED and SELF SUSTAINED MOBILE PRINTER (which is locked down as explained earlier, no proms, eeproms, PLCCs' etc.) to PRINT an OFFICIAL BALLOT. Is this a good or bad use of technology?
I say it's a good use. The output is PAPER, it's VISIBLE, and can be VALIDATED by someone within that person's PARTY. And it can be Hand Counted Manually, with public oversight. (It's NOT OUR fault you are disabled. I might be disabled one day too! And it's not a reason to taint the rest of the ballots by counting electronically as opposed to PRINTING a single Ballot. Although your right to vote needs to be absolutely guaranteed by the Constitution, there are limits to existing technology to give you feedback.)

If a disabled voter wants to use his own computer to file an electronic vote. Good or bad use of technology?
Answer Bad. Too many ways to attack it in between.

So basically Proxies are both good and bad. Like I first said, YOU CAN NOT TRUST ANY PROXY EVER.

You show me how to show a blind man that what was printed on paper is what he said it was. Your going to need a brail translator, where the astronaut only needs a nasa a video feed.

Instead of voter ID's we need to remove electronic counting, and get more public oversight. You want to PRINT electronically, that's a different story.

Let's talk.

Alright, 99 at your request.

/quit ~poof~

Thank you, Phil. xoxox

np 99. Yeah that's slaughter going on in Burma. I doubt the USA will get there until the monks are all dead and the OIL is ready to be pumped.

You got that right! (Except, of course, our oil companies...)

>AAV, please quit baiting Phil, and Phil, please
>quit falling for it.
I stand by everything I said here but I do think that we have each thoroughly expressed our positions. Anyhow, I've put enough thought into this dialog that I've posted about the Texas legislators voting multiple times.

Phil: I notice that you are also based in Sacramento. Maybe sometime we can meet up in person and hurl arguments at each other directly (er... on second thought maybe not such a good idea). I was also thinking of starting a Sacramento election reform 'meetup' group. Do you know other local people interested in election reform?

I remember when people around the world respected America
now you kill for profit and amuse yourself with Brittany and Paris to avoid the collective responsibility and shame .Only handfuls protest and things are just getting worse every day . How many Iraqis died this month ? Don't know and don't care but you all know who's got Brittany's kids , ask your friends see if I'm right .

#37 AllAboutVoting,
#38 Mick (Kevin Federline has the kids now)

I am not going to throw anything at you or scream bad things at you in public. (e.g. battery or assault.)

My position is pretty clear, I am a simple guy, I don't like electronics that tabulate results and the only alternative to electronic counting is hand counted paper ballots with public oversight, if need be an electronic printer (if locked down and hardened.)

I produce a music cable tv show locally in Sacramento. (Which is probably why I saw the bronze key in the voting terminal) This takes up most of my time, production, promotion, and programming, but anything is possible. I don't really see how being surrounded by folks that want electronics counting their votes can be anything but fruitless for me. I'd rather they have NO MEDIA coverage, than pro electronics spin.

I know a lot of folks that do not like electronics that count votes, but they are really not in a position to understand the physics of electronics, or programming, which is partially why you rarely see them at election reform groups, and public debates. (the mainstream media blackout is the other part) Electronic technicians and programmers are usually overworked. You might even say I am overworked. Folks who can not visualize power, frequency, logic, the doping process, or software exploits mentally in their head, are not likely to take as strong (sometimes crude) opinion as I do, since they will not be absolutely sure about what they speak, only what they have been told or read somewhere. And then subtract from that the ones that have taken an oath and understand the ramifications of that oath. Then subtract from that group the ones who have seen the introduction of electronics in counting and the simultaneous destruction of the constitution and civil rights since it's beginning.

When you add to that the way that corporate mainstream media puts a pro-electronic voting machine spin on all public debate (like the hatchet job they ALL did to the top to bottom review by Debra Bowen), or the treatment and response from HAVA, it makes me not want to chat with anyone. Sometimes it makes me want to take aspirin and drink beer.

I'd rather just make music videos. And just keep pointing out that which I have already said in this and other threads, on the slim chance that someone new will pick up on it, become extremely upset and be in a position to actually do something about getting all electronics removed from the counting process.

The Brad Blog is really the only place online where I can get my message out quickly and without being censored. I believe Brad has the integrity, and knowledge which has led to the creation of the best method of how to do this effectively. A Fidonet/BBS styled sysop (non censorship/open board style) This is why when Agent 99 ask me to stop a thread, I surely do, since I too was a fidonet sysop in the day, most people are reasonable, and I am no exception. Most websites have lost sight of this in a giant soup of advertisements and over moderation. I think of Brad Blog more of a Brad BBS than a blog, and it wasn't the first place I tried to get my message out, but it has ended up being home for my anti-electronic tabulation, pro constitution message.

I don't think I have ever been on Brad's shows (or his bbs back in the day), but I have been on Christine Craft's show talking to Bev Harris http://blackboxvoting.org .

I don't have the best English skills, so I do open myself up to being taken out of context from time to time. It's true, I am not happy, but I am also not a psychopath. This electronic vote rigging situation consumes me, it's become a resentment that can't be let go of, because to let go of it is to let go of the United States of America and the Constitutional Republic it represents to me and I swore an oath to defend.

Oaths? We don't need no stinking oaths. We're from TEXAS, and our President says that oaths are just WORDS and they can't be held against you.

It don't matter if your a Democrat or a Rethuglican --- oaths are just for the LITTLE PEOPLE to say in court before we take their house and throw them in the hokey. Rich White Men (and the occasional woman) don't need to follow no oaths.

What the....???

They should be thrown in jail!!!

This person Debbie Riddle THEN rationalizes/justifies breaking the law!!! By saying, "We do it out of necessity."

So, they BREAK THE LAW out of necessity? Not to mention, she's a hypocrite who should be thrown in jail for proposing that photo id law.

And what's going on in Texas with the people there, not freaking out about this? What the....????

Until it is banned, the republican party is, has been, and always will be, AMERICA'S ULTIMATE HATE CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. Eliminate republicans, ANY WAY YOU CAN. 'Nuff said.