Blogged by Brad Friedman from Richfield, UT (Bruce Funk Country!)…
[UPDATE: As we reported from our source late last night in the article below, the Rules Committee hearing today was indeed canceled. See below for more details.]
Have been on the road all day, so playing late-night catch up. So here’s a few tid-bits, items, rumors, and innuendos as we’ve been able to collect them from various sources concerning the latest on the fate of the Holt Election Reform Bill (HR 811) in the U.S. House and the proposed Susan Davis (D-CA) amendment for it.
To briefly recap, Davis’s amendment, if allowed by the House Rules Committee to be considered with the bill, would limit use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines to one per polling place on Election Day, but allow their full use during Early Voting periods. Unlike CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s similar restriction, her amendment, as currently drafted, would not require a 100% manual count of the touch-screen “paper trails.” Many more details on that amendment reported here yesterday, followed by a full statement we received from Davis herself later in the evening, in which she described the matter of whether to use DREs or not as the “800 pound gorilla” that folks in Congress, up until now, have been largely afraid of debating at all.
But that seems to be changing quickly.
The New York Times last night gave the idea of a full ban on DREs a boost when they called for exactly that in a long-overdue editorial in this morning’s paper calling E-voting an “abysmal failure.” They said, “It is unfortunate that the [Holt] bill does not contain a provision banning the use of touch-screen voting machines,” adding, “There is still time before the bill becomes law to add a ban on touch-screen voting.” And, “If the House fails to do so, the Senate should,” and that putting it off to 2012 — as Davis’s amendment as currently drafted does — is “too long to wait.” Huzzah.
Now to the latest updates at this hour…
We’re getting conflicting word tonight about the scheduled hearing in the House Rules Committee. It’s currently scheduled for 10:30am ET to reconvene where things left off yesterday, after a reportedly contentious hearing where Holt was put on the defensive as few, if any, on the committee seemed happy with the bill as is.
If the committee meets, and determines a rule for the bill, it is said to be headed to the House Floor for debate on Monday. The “rule” in question is whether or not to allow any and all amendments (Open Rule), only certain amendments (Restricted Rule), or no amendments allowed at all (Closed Rule).
We have heard from a good source — though we are unable to confirm the report at this hour — that it’s possible the Rules Committee will not meet at all tomorrow, and the bill could then be put on “indefinite hold.” Our source on this took pains to point out that he/she was not able to confirm that point one way or another, but believed his/her source was usually reliable. Take that all for what it’s worth. As of now, the committee is still scheduled for 10:30am to reconvene on the matter of HR 811 as the only order of business on the committee’s calendar tomorrow.
Either way, we’d still recommend, as we did yesterday, that folks contact the members of the Rules Committee and the House Leadership, and ask them to allow the Davis amendment restricting the use of DREs. Better yet, let them and your own members know that DREs should be banned entirely in the Holt Bill (HR 811) before they even consider voting in favor of it. Such a ban should be added to HR 811 or any other such bill, as even the NY Times has now caught up with common sense, computer science, and mountains of reasons to call for such a ban themselves.
Contact names/numbers for Leadership and Rules Committee members are posted at the end of the article again for your convenience. We hear they’re getting a lot of calls on this. Let’s help them get many more!
Davis’s office has let us know that both Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) have signed on as co-sponsors of her amendment, now being referred to as the Susan Davis-Hinchey-Lee amendment.
While we don’t support HR 811 as currently written (despite having worked on some of the language ourselves before it was introduced), some of its biggest supporters have now endorsed the Davis-et al. amendment. Endorsers include MoveOn.org, Verified Voting, and VoteTrustUSA. Notably (and embarrassingly) absent in their endorsement is People for the American Way (PFAW), which prefers DREs to paper-based systems, and Common Cause, which seems to follow whatever PFAW wants to do, apparently.
Finally, before the contact names and numbers, here’s a terrific sample letter to email or fax to your members, as written by New York Election Integrity advocate Teresa Hommel of WheresThePaper.org…
—YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS—
September 6, 2007
Members of the House Rules Committee
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
By FAX: 202-225-1061
Dear Representatives:
HR811 has been modified since most of its sponsors signed on. Activists are now calling the bill “Microsoft 811” because it is more favorable to vendors and software makers than to citizens.
HR811 allows continued use of invisible electronic votes and voting counting. Under HR811 the paper trail would not be counted for election night tallies, but only for 3-10% “recounts” days later. But everyone knows that once a winner is announced, it is nearly impossible to correct any errors. Just look at the Christine Jennings race where 18,000 electronic votes “disappeared.”
VOTE YES — Please work for the following amendments to HR811.
1. BAN DREs (“Direct Recording Electronic” voting machines that record and count votes) including in early voting! We do not wish to ban ballot marking devices with touchscreens that assist disabled voters to mark paper ballots that are the same or similar to ballots marked by hand by able voters.
2. All voters must have a voter-marked paper ballot for November, 2008, whether marked by hand by able voters or marked by “ballot marking devices” by disabled voters. (We agree with California Secy. of State Bowen’s temporary measure to allow use of DREs with paper trails to be used as “ballot-printing devices” by disabled voters.)
3. No secret software! All software used in equipment for public elections to record, cast, store, handle, or count votes must be freely available to the public.
4. Election records available to the public. The public has a right to request, and promptly receive, any data from an election or audit.
5. Election Management systems must be “standalone” with no communications capability.
6. Audits to confirm the true winner of every federal election with 99% statistical certainty.
7. The Election Assistance Commission should not be given any additional power over American elections, which should remain a state matter.
VOTE NO — Please work AGAINST any amendment to postpone these requirements. Optical scan ballots and scanners have been easily implemented in 2 or 3 months in several jurisdictions.
Sincerely yours,
—SIGNATURE—
Now go save democracy! Because it looks like I’ll be on the road again for much of tomorrow! I expect democracy saved by the time I pull over for the night. Thanks!
Here are Leadership and Rules Committee Member contacts again…
House Leadership:
NANCY PELOSI (D-CA)
Phone: (202) 225-4965
Fax: (202) 225-4188
STENY HOYER (D-MD)
Phone: (202) 225-4131
Fax: (202) 225-4300
U.S. House Committee on Rules:
Main Number: 202-225-9091
Democrats:
LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER (NY) – CHAIRWOMAN
http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=84
Phone: (202) 225-3615
Fax: (202) 225-7822
JAMES P. McGOVERN (MA)
http://mcgovern.house.gov/?sectionid=2§iontree=2
Phone: (202) 225-6101
Fax: (202) 225-5759
ALCEE L. HASTINGS (FL)
http://www.alceehastings.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=30
Tel: (202) 225-1313
Fax: (202) 225-1171
DORIS O. MATSUI (CA)
Phone: (202) 225-7163
Fax: (202) 225-0566
DENNIS CARDOZA, (CA)
http://www.house.gov/cardoza/biography.shtml
Phone: (202) 225-6131
Fax: 202-225-0819
800-356-6424
PETER WELCH, (VT)
http://www.welch.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=61
Phone:(202) 225-4115
KATHY CASTOR (FL)
Phone: (202)225-3376
Fax: (202)225-5652
MICHAEL ARCURI (NY)
Phone: 202-225-3665
Fax: 202-225-1891
BETTY SUTTON (OH)
Phone: (202) 225-3401
Fax: (202) 225-2266
Republicans:
DAVID DREIER (CA) – Ranking Minority Member
Office (202) 225-2305
Fax (202) 225-7018
LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (FL)
Phone: (202) 225-4211
DOC HASTINGS (WA)
Phone: (202) 225-5816
Fax: (202) 225-3251
PETE SESSIONS (TX)
(202) 225-2231
(202) 225-5878 fax
On HR 811: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjFHNfKWkCs
http://www.bbvforums.org…essages/19523/47394.html
KILL THIS BILL
… susano said…
“(abbreviated url snipped)”
susano’s URL above got truncated so here it is wrapped in a…
LINK
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums...523/47394.html
I don’t trust people who say “kill the bill” or “save the bill” if they offer no rationale. That is so fundie, like the “one true religion”.
I am appreciative of those who have debated the issues deep within the various versions of the bill, showing where it can be made better, and where it is failing, and most importantly, why.
That is what the folks in congress and the folks who vote need … detailed discussions of the strength and the weaknesses, discussed on an issue by issue platform, so they can proffer “perfecting amendments”.
After all, HR 811 RH is an “amendment in the nature of a substitute” at this juncture, and it needs some detailed perfecting amendments to help it along.
After the perfecting amendments are voted up or down on the floor, we will then see the official and resulting “amendment in the nature of a substitute” as perfected.
Then the unbiased person will be able to determine whether they are still for it or still against it. No need to have a knee jerk reaction and then try to convince everyone that the knee jerk reaction is actually intellect.
Those who are for or against an entire bill before it technically even exists in finality are just biased political hacks from the gadfly party.
Please read this document which explains the nature of amendments in the House of Representatives.
You will then know the difference between an “amendment in the nature of a substitute”, a “substitute amendment” (which is entirely different from an “amendment in the nature of a substitute”), and a “perfecting amendment”.
I have yet to see an article anywhere that distinguises the meaning, purpose, and import that these differing amendments have.
The use of the word “amendment”, without explaining the type being discussed, lacks fundamental clarity.
Likewise the use of the word “law” can lack clarity in some contexts, because regulations, statutes, constitutions, and cases are all “law”.
But as it works out, like House amendments, they are entitely different issues in practice and implementation.
The link susano provided is to research on HR 811 by a variety of people (including me) so her comment is quite valid.
As for Dredd’s made-up-as-he-goes BS attempting to obscure what is happening with the bill… that’s part and parcel of Dredd’s nonstop shilling for passage of this bill.
Did the furrynurs find this or did I?:
(Holt HR 811 RH page 21, lines 16-23 thru page 22, line 7, emphasis mine).
Doesn’t that mean we do not have to use the EVM, and instead must be allowed to cast a paper ballot vote instead? Notice further:
(id at page 22, lines 8-18, emphasis mine). It seems to me that it could be argued that anyone can cast a paper ballot under Holt HR 811 RH, and furthermore, that the paper ballot must be counted.
Nelson’s S. 559 IS and Holt’s HR 811 IH and HR 811 RH have some other good text:
(S 559 IS, page 13, lines 12-18; Holt HR 811 IH, page 14, lines 6-12; Holt HR 811 RH, page 18, lines 17-24).
Is anybody here opposed to that principle?
Nelson’s S. 559 IS, Holt’s HR 811 IH, and Holt’s HR 811 RH have some more good text:
(S 559 IS, page 12, lines 16-24; Holt HR 811 IH, page 13, lines 11-19; Holt HR 811 RH, page 17, lines 18-25 thru page 18, line 6).
Is anybody here opposed to that principle?
Nelson’s S. 559 IS, Holt’s HR 811 IH, and Holt’s HR 811 RH have some more good text:
(S 559 IS, page 2, lines 7-25 thru page 3, line 2; Holt HR 811 IH, page 3, lines 4-24; Holt HR 811 RH, page 3, lines 17-25 thru page 4, line 11).
Is anybody here opposed to that principle?
Which Sounds like a Winner? “Romney/Gingrich, Romney/Thompson or Romney/Giuliani”
The National Republican Party is starting to streamline its focus towards selecting a 2008 Presidential Candidate ticket. “Romney/Gingrich, Romney/Thompson or Romney/Giuliani” ticket scenarios will all be filtered through the lens of questions like;
1.Can They Win a visual media campaign? I.e. “Can they look good on TV?”
2.Do they have any appeal to the “Low Income Non Ethnic Voter”?
3.Can they create a passion that will mobilize the “Religious Right Wing”?
My answers:
Romney/Thompson [NO]
Romney/Giuliani [NO]
Romney/Gingrich [YES]
Sen. Fred Thompson’s good old country boy southern sound has appeal but the cynical voter will see him as an actor more so than a national leader, that will be opposite the dynamic of Ronald Regan.
Mayor Rudy Giuliani seems like a nice guy but his appeal is only regional at best and he is not physically very attractive. He can raise big money but money will be a non issue for any Republican Party Nominee.
Rep. Newt Gingrich has that divisive rallying quality that can motivate the powerful Republican Party base of voters. This party needs someone with “Super Star” like qualities that will not be confused as a closet liberal.
The National Democratic Party seems to be committed to using their big money generating candidates to win the White House [Clinton/Obama in “08], with John Edwards waiting in the wings to replace Obama in the event of any missteps or negative changes in public opinion polls.
What Do YOU Think??
We can fix the machines but until we fix our election laws to catch up with technology, our election processes will continue to be broken. Touch screens, ballot scanners, voting machines”¦Computers, paper, people will fail. We must revamp election laws to recognize technological voting anomalies and statistically improbable results. In 2006, it was the failure of Florida’s election laws that permitted an election with statistically improbable results to stand (Sarasota’s 18,000 undervotes). Our 2000 debacle with the pregnant chads resulted from failure to maintain the voting equipment properly. However it was the failure of Florida’s election laws that permitted the chaos that followed. Had Florida’s election laws been on par with technology, both elections would have been an automatic re-do.
While the heroine in A MARGIN OF ERROR: BALLOTS OF STRAW scoffs at the notion of a silent coup marching across America in her fictitious voting machines”¦. It could happen more easily than any of us want to believe.
Lani Massey Brown, MARGIN OF ERROR: BALLOTS OF STRAW, political intrigue of a stolen election, Amazon com.
Nelson’s related bill (S. 559) to Holt’s bill (HR 811 IH and HR 811 RH) has some good text:
(S. 559, page 46, lines 11-15). In my opinion, this language would outlaw the Ken Blackwell syndrome, where Ken Blackwell was Secretary of State in Ohio, and at the same time he was a campaign manager for Cheney / Bush.
Likewise, Debra Bowen would not be allowed to be the campaign manager in California for Hillary Clinton’s campaign while Debra is Secretary of State in California.
Is anybody here opposed to that principle?
I say draw a black line through the whole god damn bill, and change it to
No electronics will be used except to PRINT a ballot to be hand counted with public oversight, or to assist the disabled to PRINT a ballot to be hand counted with public oversight.
I hate this god damn nonsense.
Use a radio teletype, use a radio packet, use a modem, use a wireless phone, use a dumb terminal to PRINT a ballot for the astronauts who want to vote down on earth.
As long as no electronics are used to COUNT the actual votes. As long as public oversight exists on both ends.
QUIT COUNTING ELECTRONICALLY!
PUT SAFEGUARDS IN TO *PRINT* ELECTRONICALLY!
What’s with all this unofficial crap?
These people are going to pass an unofficial bill to be official, a bill that apparently changes dynamically each day, a bill that the public can barely keep up with, a bill that continues to allow “God knows who or what” to actually count votes.
Give the people the right to remove the corruption from office, if that corruption is democrat or republican I don’t care.
I want the right to vote, so that the constitution can be restored.
NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!!
If I wanted trails I would take acid.
I have it from Committee staff that the meeting was canceled early this morning. No followup has been scheduled at this time.
Dredd, I would like to get into each of your posts but I simply don’t have time right now. Hope to get back to you on those tonight.
I too am lit on the susano link!!
Sacxtra! Approved!
I hope folks have the bandwidth to even listen to it.
What with the Just US departments hatred of net neutrality and all, maybe we won’t have a voice pretty soon.
And dredd,
I don’t hate ya.
I sense a lot of folks getting exhausted with ya.
I will still go with ya on that beer one of these days.
Your a citizen just like me, and have the right to shoot your load just the same as me.
You have a lot of good points you bring up, but I have just one fuckin plan now.
Restore the Constitution.
Remove the OATH OF OFFICE breakers.
Another constituent letter to share for anyone to use in whatever way.
Re say No to HR 811 AND to MoveOn
Dear Congresswoman Woolsey,
This is letter #4 to you this week from me on this topic. Unbelievable.
Here is yet another incredibly compelling reason to dump HR 811, go back to square one, and start all over again with this whole election reform issue, with the goal being this time to do the right thing for the citizens of America, instead of doing the right thing for the electronic voting machine industry.
The Automated Teller Machine industry, which includes Diebold, has an amazingly successful business model, if you use company profits as its sole measure of success. Under this model, Diebold and the other touch-screen machine companies, first eliminate American jobs in the banking industry, by training banking customers to use ATM machines instead of going into the bank and having a human being process their banking transactions. After all the jobs that can possibly be eliminated are gone for good, resulting in a reduction in operational expenses followed by increased profits, the only way for this industry to continue growing is to outsource the self-service ATM operational expenses to wherever … Bangladesh, New Delhi … it doesn’t really matter as long as operational expenses are reduced for the touch-screen machine companies, a reduction resulting from reducing payroll expenses.
I don’t think that any sane American citizen feels that this is a good thing to be happening to them, to their jobs, and to their communities, yet it is happening, and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it.
Now, we have this same business model exerting its influence in the realm of elections, and the companies that are doing this to us are the same ones that did/are doing it in the banking industry. It is very clear to many of us exactly what is going on here, and I hope it is clear to you and to your staff before you develop a final position statement re HR 811.
First the electronic voting machine company AKA the touch-screen machine company takes over the operations of U.S. elections. They do this by lobbying our legislators, and creating and influencing legislation that will hand over the running of our elections to them. They spend gobs of money, start-up money, venture capitalist money, doing this. This is the stage of the business plan we are in right now with this industry.
It is very clear that HR 811 is NOT a piece of legislation that will save future elections from being stolen again. It is a piece of legislation that will allow the electronic voting machine company to outsource the operational expenses of our elections to wherever … Bangladesh, New Delhi … anywhere except the United States.
This is ultimately where HR 811 will take us. Anybody who can’t see this, or just refuses to consider it, is simply not paying attention.
I am beyond disappointed at MoveOn right now for sending out to its membership a “poll” to see if the organization should support or reject HR 811. Before asking members to “vote,” it “informed” its membership about HR 811 using loaded language and rhetoric, such as “[w]ith time running out to secure our voting machines before the 2008 election, …” and “[HR 811 is] our only chance to make significant national progress before the 2008 election.” No wonder, with directed statements such as these, MoveOn’s “poll” resulted in almost 3/4 of its respondants replying in support of HR 811! That the organizers of this MoveOn “poll” stooped to this level of membership query is unforgivable, and I hope that you and your staff will communicate with them about this. This is no way for a powerful citizens advocacy group to legitimately conduct itself.
If we allow HR 811 to move forward, we will be setting up a scenario in which, later on down the road, things will be happening to our elections, to our communities, and to our nation, that no sane American citizen would support, and nobody will be able to do anything about it.
We CAN do something about it now. I am once again, in a very informed manner, requesting that you assume a leadership position on this issue, with this bill, and work to defeat HR 811.
Phil #20
Same here.
Bob #17
I will be patient, take your time, I appreciate your concise thoughts.
After all, we are commenting on these things to benefit others first, ourselves second. That is what I like about you, John, Brad, and a whole host of posters on this blog.
It is the best blog IMO.
A reminder that a paper ballot in Holtese is really a paper trail, and not an undepedent indication of the voter’s intent. With reluctance to count thermal paper, when in the end no mandate in the bill to reconcile anomalies, we are stuck exactly where the bill’s non-disclosure lets officials off the hook.
Meaningful audits would be needed, or they shouldn’t have electronics.
Existing law supports voter generated hand-marked paper ballots, and not the trail, which voters don’t look at, can’t find errors, and can be gamed to be different from the legal, secret vote inside.
That said, and however I like static mechanical means of voting, an optical scanner can confirm that hand count, which, too, isn’t completely reliable. In NY, we are trying to promote an open system, not trade secret, where we operate ourselves top to bottom. A good compromise.
After the system technology, we need to protect precinct counts and a well-organized Election Day, to avoid a mass vote flipping and other changed totals like we have had since DREs have been in place.
BAN DREs, with 100% audit for the one at the poll site if necessary, just like CA. The vendors are hoping distrust will fade as the voter likes the video game.
And try to convince Steny Hoyer he represents the country as Majority Leader, the entire state of Maryland, and not just his state’s National Federation of the Blind (which is not even representing their own constituency by promoting electronic touchscreens).
Linda, thank you for reminding about the business plan. It’s more in the open now, but not enough, as people would be less reluctant to go along if they knew.
Time again for another media expose. I remember around 2004, with information going back to the 70’s, maybe 80’s, with a Christian fundie company owner, the usual low lifes who started Diebold, who no doubt hoped to persuade policy by secret and manipulated vote counting.
That’s another unintended consequence of an election. Media framing of how they won, with money and policy changes to match.
The whole amazing scam needs to exposed, now, when people are paying attention, finally.
The bills seem to be coming straight from the W.H. with lobbyist input. Heard Harry Reid say a while back re. the immigration bill..he talked to the prez. and the repubs. would have to have enough votes so that his freshman senators could vote no. It was more important than party lines. Does this seem like democracy or dictatorship. Pelosi was against the bill giving bushco more power to spy on US. Isn’t it supposed to go the other way around with house, senate and then the prez. giving it the o.k.? Maybe somebody has some pictures of him and Jeff and the nightmare will go away. Think it would be mean a lot to the south if they knew their man likes men.Nothing wrong with that but that’s how bushco got in…that and racism.
Dredd, getting back to your posts:
Dredd #3
“I don’t trust people who say “kill the bill” or “save the bill” if they offer no rationale.”
I agree, sometimes to my colleagues’ chagrin. 😉
Those who are for or against an entire bill before it technically even exists in finality are just biased political hacks from the gadfly party.
I do not agree. There are some important things missing from your synopsis of how the process works. Chief among them is the role of the Majority Leader and the various Committees that touch the bill along the way. Consider, for example, that the Rules Committee, at which this bill is currently logjammed, can decide to limit which amendments will be heard on the Floor, IF ANY. If it so desires, the Rules Committee could simply say that none of these “perfecting” amendments will be allowed, at all.
You cannot simply hold your breath and hope that a flawed bill will be made whole by a magic bullet amendment. You have to deal with the bill in its current form. I don’t think that makes someone a political hack. Its simply prudent.
Dredd #5
The problem with the bill’s “paper or plastic” provision, as written, is that it does not specify when the paper ballots must be counted. So, three weeks after the election results are announced would be fine, for example. If you think I’m being silly, recall the HAVA fiasco – it specified that provisional ballots had to be offered, but neglected to specify that they had to be counted. Result? Many weren’t counted.
Dredd #6
Such information should be made available to the public, not the Commission. Our elections must be transparent. Giving access to four Presidential appointees doesn’t cut the mustard.
Dredd #7
Parse the language you quoted again, very carefully. You’ll notice an odd thing. At first it talks about “voting systems”, but later it refers to a “voter device”. Is there a difference? According to HAVA, yes. The upshot? The machines that actually tabulate your votes, the ones that determine who gets elected, CAN be connected to the internet.
Dredd #8
Remember that the language you quoted has been modified by the so-called Manager’s Mark that Hoyer and PFAW wrote. Durable paper ballots are no longer required. Thermal reel-to-reel printers are an acceptible substitute. These printers failed a comprehensive study at NJIT so badly that the NJ Superior Court declared “this is a crisis” and ordered an immediate plan to scrap the state’s DRE systems.
Dredd #11
You are quoting the Nelson bill, and not the Holt bill under discussion, and potentially up for debate. The Nelson bill is moot, according to my sources. Since the Senate has its own bill under consideration (S1487), it is unlikely to give Nelson’s any consideration.
General reply
I think what you did is exactly what people ought to do, and I appreciate that you took the time to read the bill, which many folks have not. However, I want you to consider something. You tried to pick some of the most innocuous passages you could find in Microsoft 811. Yet, even those passages all had serious problems. Does this not suggest to us how badly flawed this bill truly is?
This was in response to another similiar article and is pertinent here as well.
How about ‘paper ballots’ instead of ‘machines’. Overall, probably saves $$’s, creates local employment, a sense of community and then they won’t have to be concerned with TOO EXPENSIVE, TOO CUMBERSOME and I like that last one, OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE.
Also, ‘paper ballots’ are easily implemented and then there’d be no need to postpone deadlines unless of course that is the objective so that nothing gets done at all or too late and politicians can roll-play without end.
I’m not a paper technical specifications specialist, but I notice the term “Thermal Paper” coming up over and over again. Look I can’t follow every damn technology, but thermal paper is a joke. And I say that even though I am promoting Paper Ballots Hand Counted with Public Oversight.
DO NOT ALLOW THERMAL PAPER. I could spill a friggin coffee on it and the information will disappear!!!
Whatever the technical specifications of our “Paper Ballots For America” should be, I don’t know, but that should be figured out. As well the INK.
We don’t want ink smearing with that glass of water.
Personally I’ve always used pencil, because when the paper gets wet, my data remains intact. Where if you used pen, and the paper got wet it can be lost.
A sweaty handed poll worker could screw it up.
Some might argue that pencil can be erased. I don’t disagree, but so can a PEN be erased. That’s why you have PUBLIC OVERSIGHT.
Anyway, just trying to give more pre-thought to solving this problem, If we are no longer going to COUNT electronically, but still allow PRINTING electronically, then we better figure out the technical specifications on the PAPER and INK which is required, which will be allowed, and which will be banned.
The thought of using Thermal Paper to me brings up two ideas, a.) someone want’s to cut cost again and b.) someone wants to introduce the possibility of yet another exploit (e.g. The erasing of data by using heat) to the system and blame it on cost.
This shit needs to be WELL THOUGHT OUT.
Then hit it with a BILL
Time is a wastin…