OT
God damn it, I've been tring to post Chris's latest article for several hours now!

http://www.chris-floyd.com/

I'm a disappointed customer.

[ed note: Well and a lame-o on the tubes, too. When you want to link an article, you click on the title of the article so you can copy the correct URL to paste in your OT comment!!!!

Sheesh. --99]

How about restoring the franchise to prisoners and convicted felons. The High Courts in Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the European Union have all declared the disenfranchisement of prisoners to be unconstitutional. The USA is way out of line with other western democracies on this issue. A huge percentage of the black population in the USA is deliberately disenfranchised through high rates of imprisonment, and in some states, because of some minor felony in the past. Permanent disenfranchisement is truly monstrous.

Good point, Grace. And I'm sorry I hadn't remembered that one when compiling my list originally.

But is that one best left to states to determine? Or the federal level? (I have my own unformed thoughts on that question, but am interested in yours and others first.)

Couldn't we just boil it all down to Clone Che Guevara so we'll get a decent country back?

I'm having a bad day.

Good list.

Dang,

Missed you on KVMR today! My wife listened in though and told me about it.

Great List

Precinct-Based Counting: Ballots cast at the precinct are to be counted in a fully public, transparent, and verifiable manner at the local precinct level, with full citizen observation allowed by law, and results posted publicly at the precinct before either ballots or results are forwarded to any other location(s).

What methods of counting ballots would fully satisfy this recommendation, other than hand-counting?

Perhaps scanning all ballots and putting on the web as in the Humboldt Transparency Project, but then you might have issues with non-secret voting, if a carefully placed subtle mark could be recognized from the web photos and identify a ballot as belonging to a particular individual.

Is there any other fully public, transparent and verifiable counting method?

Move Election Day to Wednesday: Election Day is to be moved to Wednesday. (Would likely require a Constitutional amendment - see this for a quick explanation of why moving it to Wednesday is a good idea.)

It's a good recommendation, but hardly one for which you could get a consensus and move on quickly. Your other recommendations are more important and could be achieved sooner.

Seems major disenfranchisement issues are missing or low on list (e.g. define provisional to be valid at any polling place in county/township). Hand counting before releasing results will not fly due to lack of poll-worker capacity and delay for media, introduces all kinds of avenues for cheating including by biased neighborhoods, and does not address vote by mail, which is 100% in Oregon and upwards of 40% in some some major states. Also, baked in is some kind of assumed knowledge of the alternatives in perpetuity; starting with principles instead of prescribing detailed "solutions" would make much more sense.

I understand you're doing a to-do list rather than detailed legislation, but the elephant in the living room is HAVA. HAVA with both its assumptions of the nonexistent coupled with its demands for the impossible and its backdoor transfer of both federal and state election control to the executive branch...

... and I say again, because I was right and still am right in this regard: that you cannot get the election reforms you want from legislators while HAVA and what it represents is dangling in front of them like a shiny bauble in front of a two year old.

We'd best make HAVA reform and EAC restructuring part of the list... or the current status quo with HAVA and the EAC will be used against us every step of the way.

I've said it often enough before: We'll have to say "No. You can't have that." and take it away from them... because they sure as hell won't give it up on their own. And they're not going to pay attention to anything else we want with that distraction dangling in front of them.

As for released convicts... given America's soon to be booming incarceration rates (You think it's bad now? Wait until the economic crash is in full swing...) given the high percentage of the population disenfranchised thusly I think a civil rights case could be made for a federal mandate that someone who's served their sentence and is not on probation can vote in federal elections.

But it'll be a fight, and the Rethugs on the Supreme Court will spike it if they can.

Of course the Rethugs on the Supreme Court and off will promptly try to implement "eternal probation" and "conditional not-parole" as soon as they can as well.

It depends on how much of an additional fight you want to add to an already uphill battle...

Zap is right. Priority One, nix the fascist EAC.

Bluebear2 said:

Missed you on KVMR today! My wife listened in though and told me about it.

Was I on KVMR today? What did I say? And how was I?!

Lora @ #66 said re: transparent counting:

Perhaps scanning all ballots and putting on the web as in the Humboldt Transparency Project, but then you might have issues with non-secret voting, if a carefully placed subtle mark could be recognized from the web photos and identify a ballot as belonging to a particular individual.

I used to share that same concern. Once I spoke to Harri Hursti about it, he straightened me out. In CA, for example, we already have some 40% of ballots cast by mail (unfortunately). If you're gonna use those marks to buy/sell ballots, it'd be a helluva lot easier to do it via the absentee balloting going on already!

Overall, I think the transparency gained by the Humboldt Transparency Project far outweighs the downside you mention, at least for now, with such schemes.

Anonymous @ #7 said:

Seems major disenfranchisement issues are missing or low on list (e.g. define provisional to be valid at any polling place in county/township).

First, please feel free to use your name. You are welcome to do so AND express opinions, even if they might disagree with mine.

Second, I should have noted that the items on the list aren't necessarily ranked in any particular order of importance, or what I believe is most necessary.

Third, I agree, provisionals should be counted no matter where they are cast, as I strongly argued to Obama's EAC transition team when they consulted with me. It may lead to other problems, which I don't think have been well thought out yet (at least by me), by agree something needs to be done about that. Will keep pondering it.

Hand counting before releasing results will not fly due to lack of poll-worker capacity and delay for media, introduces all kinds of avenues for cheating including by biased neighborhoods,

First, I said nothing about hand-counting in my list. But perhaps you were replying to Lora. But in either case, the arguments above are all stuff and nonsense, unless you don't know anything about real hand-counting (for example, of the type done very successfully in NH). Fully transparent hand-counting is *exceedingly* difficult to game. Far more difficult than doing so via op-scan and tabulators, far easier to catch, and the time and capacity issue I find similarly unconvincing. Pay people to come in (instead of wasting money on shitty machines) to count and keep your precincts small enough that no precinct has more than a few hundred votes to count. No problem.

In any case, my list above purposely does not speak to hand-counting at this time.

Also, baked in is some kind of assumed knowledge of the alternatives in perpetuity; starting with principles instead of prescribing detailed "solutions" would make much more sense.

No idea what you're referring to. My list speaks to doable election reform items. For discussions of principles, see a few hundred (or thousand) other items here at The BRAD BLOG.

ZapKitty -

I won't respond in detail for the moment, but wanted to let you know, I read your thoughts, and appreciate them.

For the record, the Holt Bill is meant as an amendment to HAVA. It is meant to correct some of the HAVA problems. On some levels, as its currently written, it succeeds, on other levels, it leaves huge problems, as I detailed in my analysis of the bill.

While I likely share many of your concerns about both HAVA and the EAC, I also believe that correcting many of the probs, in all 50 states at once, rather than one by one, may be a better way to go. I've met many of the state officials, and I see no reason to believe they'll *ever* do the right thing in many cases. If we can have a single federal success, rather than 50 that may take forever, I think we'll be better off over all.

I'll leave it at that for the moment. And thank you for your --- as always --- VERY keen analysis of this stuff!

Naturally, it's the best list around, Brad.

I know the precinct-based counting would eliminate most of my concern on this issue, but i'll mention it anyway.

I would like to see strong cybersecurity guidelines, including more frequent network security audits for state departments of elections. I was shocked last year to find that Pennsylvania only performs internal security audits every two years.

The transmittal of results to the state office on election night should also be properly secured in some fashion.

Of course, if counting is transparent and properly conducted on the precinct level, then any inconsistency down the line would become immediately apparent. But I would still like to see higher network security standards.

Brad, IMHO it must be a federal law, not for each State to determine, because we know what they variously do already - disenfranchise prisoners and felons for electoral advantage.

Primarily this is a federal constitutional issue (other federations like Canada and Australia recognise this), not just a local electoral issue, because it is about the fundamental right to vote that should be available to all citizens.

Hey, Brad, that's pretty much BS from the same politicos as I warned would not turn loose of HAVA in the first place.

HAVA can be reformed and reconstructed using the carrot of "you must have these minimums in place in your state for federal elections"... and the worst of HAVA's offenses can be easily corrected by having it under congressional mandate rather than executive.

HAVA/EAC's "backdoor" mode must be deactivated for reform to proceed.

I say again: you'll get nothing like you want in reform with HAVA hanging over anything we may do... no matter what sweet nothings Obama's team may be whispering in your ear.

And there is no place for a local state-by-state reform effort? You will exclaim "Of course there is!" and I say "No, there is not... for there is no state by state reform plan in the eyes of congress. They will insist that it's HAVA in backdoor mode or nothing."

And it was Democratic support that enabled HAVA and it wasn't the federal government that got us as far as we've gotten... it was local and state... it was Bradblog.

So why do you espouse the views of those who perverted the election system in the first place... those who still haven't gotten crap all right with elections in the second place?

And of course the reason Holt's bill is currently such a useless mess is because he will not turn loose of HAVA/EAC as it is currently configured come hell or high water.

And Brad... it is a useless mess. You above all other people have seen how Holt twists and turns the bill every which way the wind blows but one... turning loose of HAVA/EAC as they are configured. The bills current purpose is to legitimize that backdoor mode. Nowadays pretty much everything else in the bill is window dressing designed to placate and distract "teh bloggers"...

And that HAVA-caused distortion in the bill has cost us how much time and trouble? The bill is a constantly inconsistent mess designed to prop up HAVA and the EAC... in backdoor mode.

And if you bought into a line they're handing out that "We can't get you your reform without HAVA/EAC in backdoor mode" then you'll wind up totally screwed sans vaseline, wondering just how the cripppled and watered down reforms got that way... and with HAVA/EAC permanently entrenched.

Entrenched and just waiting for the next Karl Rove to realize "... Hey... you know, we've got centralized control of elections here..."

Again, zap's right, Brad. They do not want to do the right things. They want to seem as though they want to do the right things, and perhaps the most trenchant usage here was "sweet nothings".

Bingo. Sweet nothings. Obama has been a one man symphony of them, and all kinds of awful stuff is actually taking place behind all those sweet nothings.

Somehow we must figure out a way to drive them to do the right things. We must never fall for their nods in our direction, their invitations to blogger lunches, any of that stuff. It's just making everyone feel good about input that goes nowhere, and that's the entire reward they are prepared to give for your having succeeding in making enough noise that they finally hear.

I think a solid little group should be on them like white on rice until a sweet something is finally wrung from them.

i can't immagine after a 14 to 16 hour day, as an election judge that counting & posting the results at each precinct would be that far a stretch in the name of democracy. i'd do it.

the incarcerated felon thing is a little more complicated. who's to say that the guards/ warden doesn't tell the inmates how to vote & then rewards or punishments follow? there is no privacy in prison. once a person has paid their debt to society, though, they should have the right to vote.

... jacki penny said...

"... the incarcerated felon..."

Ain't gonna happen in the first go round... in fact the uphill fight I mentioned is that it's going to be a royal slugfest just to get them to stop disenfranchising people who've paid their debt to society... because most of those people happen to be black.

Convicted and incarcerated... no.

But don't worry! We'll be accused of wanting to allow pedophiles on death row to vote within, say, an hour of any real election reform bill being presented...

1. What about Voter Registration reform? Similar to what the Brennan Center has presented as "Universal Voter Registration" - i.e. all citizens are voters. This should extend, for the purposes of federal elections to US citizens overseas.

2. Please consider pro-actively noting whether your list of reforms covers voters who vote under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

i know u said it wasnt meant to be a complete list but the middleman,soe, is the most dangerous new tactic i see the neo cons using...

it as close to having "centralized counting" as they have gotten so far

counting and posting at the precinct level is good but here in bloomington,they post the machine tape results a day or 2 ,take them down before they post the soe "results" and no one realizes the totals have changed(well nobody but me and i seem to be powerless)

mark had posted a link i read and it is keeping me up at night...if the neo cons(govt) can do this shit and get away with it,there really probably isnt any hope left

http://www.thepeoplesvoi...es.php/2008/03/10/p23979

"Disclosure of Federal Testing Processes/Results: All federal voting system testing/certification processes must be fully documented and results made immediately available for public inspection."

This is already happening. All test plans, preliminary test reports and final test reports are posted by the EAC. They are very thorough and show that there is not much difference in the process from when NASED and ITAs were doing it.

Matt Sircely @ #14:

I would like to see strong cybersecurity guidelines, including more frequent network security audits for state departments of elections.
...
The transmittal of results to the state office on election night should also be properly secured in some fashion.

I'm not sure if the first point above is a function of the *federal* government, Matt. Though in either case, both that issue, and the second one quoted above, would most likely be taken care of (at least to a large extent), with my suggested item on "No Remote/Networked Communications", no?

I would move Outlaw Deceptive Practices to very high on the list, and add jail, not fine punishments. These are 100% planned / willful / malicious, and very effective in preventing voters from making real informed decisions. The intentional promulgation of lies about either the candidates or the election process must be ended, and then we focus on problems dues to error or incompetency, which at least have a chance of being random, affecting the parties equally.

Grace Pettigrew @ #15:

Brad, IMHO it must be a federal law, not for each State to determine, because we know what they variously do already - disenfranchise prisoners and felons for electoral advantage.

Fair enough. And should only released felons be allowed to vote? On parole? Or while still in prison? I could make an argument for all three personally (which is one of the reasons I hadn't yet included it in the list, because I'm not sure what or where we can find reasonable consensus yet, federally).

ZapKitty @ #16:

HAVA/EAC's "backdoor" mode must be deactivated for reform to proceed.

You mentioned that "backdoor mode" several times. Forgive me, but I'm not sure what you're referring to with that phrase??

I say again: you'll get nothing like you want in reform with HAVA hanging over anything we may do... no matter what sweet nothings Obama's team may be whispering in your ear.

For the record (and hopefully Agent 99 reads this comment as well), there are no "sweet nothings" that anybody is whispering in my ear. None. Obama's EAC transition team talked to me to get my input on the mess that is the EAC. They said virtually nothing about their plans. It was me talking (whispering less-than-sweet nothings) into their ears, in hopes that they might listen.

And there is no place for a local state-by-state reform effort? You will exclaim "Of course there is!" and I say "No, there is not... for there is no state by state reform plan in the eyes of congress. They will insist that it's HAVA in backdoor mode or nothing."

You're right, I do say "of course there is!" and lots of it! But you'll have to explain what "backdoor mode" is for me to respond in more detail to your point there.

So why do you espouse the views of those who perverted the election system in the first place... those who still haven't gotten crap all right with elections in the second place?

I don't believe I have espoused any such views. Please feel free to correct me, as usual, of course. But I don't know what you're referring to, Zapper.

Jacki Penny @ #18 said:

i can't immagine after a 14 to 16 hour day, as an election judge that counting & posting the results at each precinct would be that far a stretch in the name of democracy. i'd do it.

Cuz you are a great patriot. But, in truth, it wouldn't be needed. A fresh counting crew ought to be brought in at poll close. Should be a lot easier getting folks for that crew anyway, since most polls close well after the work day is over.

Renee Kovacs said @ #25:

I would move Outlaw Deceptive Practices to very high on the list, and add jail, not fine punishments.

As I *think* I mentioned, placement on the list is not necessarily meant as a statement on how important any particular item is. Though you and others have felt that way, so I'll try to take a look at reordering things on next draft. Thanks, Renee. And yes, I agree that needs to be a top priority (and frankly, it's one of the few things I actually have any confidence may be reformed this session! But we'll see...)

I was talking about sweet nothings in your ear at the same time they're coming into all our ears, but also for those times when you are in personal contact with these people... these sweet nothings experts... these legislators.

I'm specifically remembering Russ Feingold inviting a bunch of bloggers to have lunch with him, and then continuing to only sporadically speak as though he had a spine. I'm specifically remembering candidates scrambling to appear at YearlyKos and then continuing * and Fudd's fascistic policies.

So don't you go falling for their sweet nothings.

Well, and I don't know what Zap meant by "back door", but the way I read it is that HAVA and the EAC will become permanent federal control of voting. Sort of like this quiet vitiation of Posse Comitatus is turning into permanent federal troops, the US Military, policing our streets. Sort of like the supposed loss of Habeas Corpus for noncitizens only is actually the loss for us all because the president can declare ANYBODY a noncitizen at will. All these supposedly temporary, or supposedly limited, little nips out of our Constitution that have turned us into a fascist state that only just doesn't quite realize it yet. That's the back door I was thinking about.

By the way, I think you should change the name of Velvet Revolution to Velvet Restoration.

And, by the way, a lot of the stuff I've mentioned here has a post or posts at my blog, but I think everyone's probably seen evidence of it, so I'm not running around looking for the links....

HAVA Look: A Simple, Verifiable, Open Source, Paper Ballot Vote-Recording & Counting System

http://www.geocities.com...ctionmodel/HAVAOnePC.htm

On the other hand, paper ballots can easily be input to a standard personal computer spreadsheet. Voters can request a copy before leaving the precinct. The precinct (spreadsheet) file is uploaded to the Internet. The voter can quickly and easily verify his vote as the spreadsheet ballot records are sorted by a unique Precinct/Ballot ID code. At the same time, he can view and/or download the total precinct ballots to verify the vote counts. Consolidation of district/county/state vote counts is tabulated by Open Source software.

Three (3) volunteers input and verify the paper ballots. As Volunteer A reads the ballot, B enters the data and C verifies the result. Data entry would be completed shortly after the polls closed. The voter fills out a ballot marking each selected candidate's code (i.e. a=Dem, b=Rep, c=Ind). The volunteers use their god-given optical scanners (EYES) to read the ballots and enter the codes in a spreadsheet. As each code is entered, the spreadsheet automatically calculates the total vote and percentage for each candidate.

here are many advantages over the current, vulnerable system. HAVA look:

* Data redundancy:

1. Original paper ballots: retained in a secure location
2. Precinct spreadsheet files: ballots sorted by ballot ID
3. Internet: copies of uploaded precinct files for online viewing/download
4. Internet: County/state composite files (vote totals sorted by precinct/county) for online viewing

* Data / software integrity:

1. Original paper ballots: documented chain of custody
2. Data integrity (100% automatic audit to catch discrepancies between the local precinct spreadsheet and corresponding internet file
3. Open Source code: eliminate proprietary code on DRE/ Optiscan/ central tabulator

* Eliminate corrupting influence of vendors and election officials:

1. Hardware: Eliminate bribery of election officials for purchase of DREs and optical scanners
2. Diebold/Premier & ES&S out of the DRE/Opscan voting machine business

Let me add one more item to your list.

When there are multiple precincts at the same location all candidates in all election contests must be in the same order.

This is to avoid what allegedly happened in Ohio in 2004.

One thing that I did not see on your list was a mandatory canvass/audit of election results. In Minnesota, each county is required to conduct a random hand count of a certain number of precincts to ascertain whether the scanners had tabulated the ballots correctly. The canvass/audits should be transparent and open to citizen oversight.

Posting results at the precinct location after closing (and having the facility open to the public) might be problematic solely because the poll workers have already worked 14+ hours already and have an incredible amount of work to complete before they can call it a night. It may be possible, but it would be difficult (for example, we'd need to pull at least one poll worker to serve as a liaison for the citizens and to make sure ballots and all materials (e.g., tabulation tapes) are kept secure. Minnesota does give a chance for citizens to witness vote tabulation at the city location. That, of course, occurs after the ballots and tabulation tapes are transferred from the precinct to the city. I do not know how many people actually go in to watch.

Great list!

Actually, 99, upon review it seems I confabulated both of Brad's replies to me into some things he didn't actually say. As I was under the influence of Jero pre-made margarita mix at the time I plead a 5th.

But really... Brad should not post important issues when I'm trying to drink away celebrating my latest birthday

Conducting a more sober review of the issues now.

Well, actually, that's some kind of wonderful! I love it when drunks make perfect sense to me! This must be why I also have such a deep connection with lunatics!

Anyway, your "celebrating" proved a good springboard for what I already thought, and old and decrepit as you undoubtedly are, I'm glad you had another birthday.

From Brad above:

Lora @ #66 said re: transparent counting:

Perhaps scanning all ballots and putting on the web as in the Humboldt Transparency Project, but then you might have issues with non-secret voting, if a carefully placed subtle mark could be recognized from the web photos and identify a ballot as belonging to a particular individual.

I used to share that same concern. Once I spoke to Harri Hursti about it, he straightened me out. In CA, for example, we already have some 40% of ballots cast by mail (unfortunately). If you're gonna use those marks to buy/sell ballots, it'd be a helluva lot easier to do it via the absentee balloting going on already!

Overall, I think the transparency gained by the Humboldt Transparency Project far outweighs the downside you mention, at least for now, with such schemes.

Brad, to clarify:

I understand and agree in terms of the value gained from the Humboldt Transparency Project vs. the danger of non-secret ballots when compared with the absentee ballot mess and when considered in light of the GEMS snafu.

That wasn't what I meant in my post above.

I was commenting on your Precinct-Based Counting item from your list above (emphasis mine):

Ballots cast at the precinct are to be counted in a fully public, transparent, and verifiable manner at the local precinct level, with full citizen observation allowed by law, and results posted publicly at the precinct before either ballots or results are forwarded to any other location(s).

I mentioned the drawbacks of posting ballots on the web --- i.e. non-secret, possibility of being able to identify a particular ballot as having been cast by a particular person --- and I add --- not restricted by those with access to ballots at the precinct, but available to anyone in the world with internet access --- not from the standpoint of "it's lots better than what we have now," but from the standpoint of "what's the best way to count ballots, period."

I mean no criticism of the Humboldt project and I applaud their method and efforts. However, the votes were already counted, the election was over, and no one who might be into vote-buying or vote-coercion knew in advance that these ballots would be placed on the web.

Taking the point of view of the best way to count ballots, period, which is what I assumed you meant in your Precinct-based item above, putting photos of every ballot on the web for anyone to view has the drawbacks I outlined above.

I ask again, what methods other than hand-counting would fit your requirements here?

Heh...after reading Brad's new story today, let me rephrase:

"GEMS snafu" should read "GEMS totally illegal flagrantly irresponsible possibly deliberately designed incredibly fucked-up system"

Brad, first off: an apology. I was celebrating my birthday and really had had too much margarita mix to be posting...

And, equally seriously, I've been wading hip-deep in Holt's latest "discussion draft" since you posted about it. I've been working on integrating it into an actual (and coherent) election reform bill... and the unending BS underlying nearly every part of that bill and the HAVA bill it is based on has really gotten to me.

And somewhere in the haze I confabulated things you had said into things you had not said. And for that I apologize to you.

So now let's review what I did... and if there's anything that may be worth keeping.

... Brad Friedman wondered bemusedly...
"You mentioned that "backdoor mode" several times. Forgive me, but I'm not sure what you're referring to with that phrase??"

That's just a shorthand phrase I coined on the spot for how the mess came to be. But does it apply? Let's see. HAVA/EAC was a post-2000 shock doctrine-style effort to "temporarily" override state election prerogatives... and of course now the EAC just won't go away. And "backdoor" also applies to the underhanded way the mess operates (see Bradblog, Tobi, BBV et al etc etc etc etc). And add to that the less-than-honest efforts of certain parties to make that "temporary" mode of operation a permanently funded government agency with regulatory powers. (which was one thing that HAVA/EAC was promised to not become...)

So, yeah, it's a lot of problems rolled into one and complicated by the insistence of the parties involved in being less than honest about the subject... and "backdoor mode" popped into my buzzing head and I used it repeatedly... without explaining it. I blame the margarita mix.

... Brad continued...

"For the record (and hopefully Agent 99 reads this comment as well), there are no "sweet nothings" that anybody is whispering in my ear. None."

My apologies again. I confused your support of HAVA/EAC-style top down enforcement by fiat as supporting HAVA/EAC in that "backdoor mode." I blame the extra lemon juice.

... Brad then corrected us firmly...

"Obama's EAC transition team talked to me to get my input on the mess that is the EAC. They said virtually nothing about their plans. It was me talking (whispering less-than-sweet nothings) into their ears, in hopes that they might listen."

My paranoia got loose again. I blame the extra lime juice.

... the zapkitty liquidly ranted...

"And there is no place for a local state-by-state reform effort? You will exclaim "Of course there is!" and I say "No, there is not... for there is no state by state reform plan in the eyes of congress. They will insist that it's HAVA in backdoor mode or nothing."

... and Brad replied...
"You're right, I do say "of course there is!" and lots of it! But you'll have to explain what "backdoor mode" is for me to respond in more detail to your point there."

Given the explanation above this part almost makes sense. Top down is what DC does, Various parties in both parties have lusted for ages for a way to centralize control of elections... and HAVA/EAC, a Rethug power grab in the wake of the 2000 election debacle, is the closest they're ever going to get to it. If we're lucky.

("It's okay! They're our planes now!")

Thus its very existence distorts even well-meaning bills that have no need for the EAC yet find references to it somehow crammed in just to justify the EAC's continued funding.

So actual election reform will need to see the HAVA/EAC mess acknowledged for what it is and then straighten it out.

And when that is brought up the dancing will begin. Just like Holt twists and turns every which way, baiting the EI movement then handing everything to the corporations... but never,
ever questioning HAVA's origins or the continued existence "as is" of the EAC. The dancing will start and you will be told that the states must have election reform rammed down their throats by executive fiat and that only the EAC can do the job. You'll find that any attempt to actually bring the EAC into line with the balance of powers will be stonewalled. And any reforms will be at the mercy of the continuation of the EAC or will be distorted to support the EAC.

This has happened before to the EI movement. This will happen again to the EI movement. And Starbuck is still dead

... the zapkitty quietly raved...

So why do you espouse the views of those who perverted the election system in the first place... those who still haven't gotten crap all right with elections in the second place?

And Brad responded:
"I don't believe I have espoused any such views. Please feel free to correct me, as usual, of course. But I don't know what you're referring to, Zapper."

Again, my sincere apologies. I blame the salt

Oh, by the way, for those who think I'm too harsh on Holt... dig this little distraction buried in his latest "discussion draft":

(III) The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verified paper ballots in any manner that makes it possible, at any
time after the ballot has been cast, to associate a voter with the record of the voter's vote without the voter's consent.

... can you hear it ticking?

Glad to see you answering requests (mine for one) from last year.

On "No Internet Voting"... How about except for assistance voting, No Electronic Voting"?

I believe that those who commit voting crimes (caging, suppression, etc.) should lose their right to vote for set periods of time.
I agree that most of those in prisons should still have the right to vote despite being incarcerated.
The exceptions to that should be publicly debated and agreed to by the majority..... a voting jury.

As you pointed out the sooner a vote is transparently counted after casting the less chance of outside manipulation occurring.

Someone made a comment about how good the NH vote counting was.... hmmmm.... that is not what I remember from reading the coverage here on BradBlog.
There was definitely shenanigans going on during the recounts.... something that was never honestly settled.
In my opinion Obama beat Clinton but something happened between some of the voting precincts and the Secretary of State's office.

One issue that was not addressed was voting by the military and others overseas.
I believe overseas voters should not be disenfranchised due to the mail not arriving on time.
I would set an international voting date one week prior to the US date for posting an overseas ballot.
Or there should be voting precincts in each country's US embassy or US central military base that counts the ballots, reports them and securely ships them stateside for a mandatory verification recount.

ArchiCoot (#42)~

"Someone made a comment about how good the NH vote counting was.... hmmmm.... that is not what I remember from reading the coverage here on BradBlog."

Thank you for addressing my 2008 NH Primary obsession!

Actually, it was the pristine, completely open and transparent hand count procedure in NH that allowed us to run the numbers and discover:

"...New Hampshire’s (Diebold) machines experienced an error rate approximately 163 times greater than the error rate allowed under federal Election Law. In addition, the number of machine counts that were in error by more than 2 votes was 9.81 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 2 votes..."

(Robert Schulz, We The People Foundation)
http://www.wethepeoplefo...-RecountRpt-Feb-2008.htm

In fact, it was a fascination to watch the meticulous, dedicated, experienced NH state employees struggle to explain the number of anomalies they encountered on any given day.

Considering the evidence compiled by BlackBoxVoting.org's now infamous ballot-tracking investigation/ car chase(playlist ELECTION TV link: http://www.youtube.com/v..._list?p=9ECEABC09579F656) it would follow that the outrageous violations on record of the NH ballot chain of custody would be reflected directly in the number of recount anomalies. And boy, were they ever...

You can see for yourself in this video, where a sharp-eyed counting team observes UNSORTED ballots coming out of the ballot box in sequential order.
NH REPUBLICAN RECOUNT 1a/ Ballot Irregularities: SEQUENCING
http://www.youtube.com/w...amp;feature=channel_page
(Video features NH Secretary of State Gardner and Deputy Scanlan "marking judgement" on these ballots.)

"There was definitely shenanigans going on during the recounts.... something that was never honestly settled."

Here, here, ArchiCoot! Thank you for the mention. That still bothers me and Karen from Illinois, too.

(Happy Birthday, Zap! I find myself impressed that even drunky, your endless hours of research bleeds through (mostly) coherent. I'm lucky if I don't piss in the hamper.)

WobegonGal @ 35:

The canvass/audits should be transparent and open to citizen oversight.

Canvass/audits would be transparent, under the list item above requiring "Full Transparency" for "All ballot counting/tabulation/auditing processes".

Posting results at the precinct location after closing (and having the facility open to the public) might be problematic solely because the poll workers have already worked 14+ hours already

If they've op-scanned results, those tapes could be posted in a window, no problem. If they are hand-counting results, a new crew can be brought in to do that, and the all-day crew can go home. In any case, no need to keep the facility open, as far as I can tell, as long as the results are posted before its closed for the night, and before ballots move.

ZapKitty @ 36:

Actually, 99, upon review it seems I confabulated both of Brad's replies to me into some things he didn't actually say.

Happens to me all the time. I accept your apology, though none is necessary. Your admitted shame is more more than adequate. And happy birthday!

I think I'll reply to your later clarification on the EAC/HAVA issues in a separate reply.

Lora @ 39:

I ask again, what methods other than hand-counting would fit your requirements here?

Well, since I don't know what sort of schemes will be invented (see, for example, the Humboldt project, and others like it), all I'm doing is calling for full transparency, citizen oversight at the moment. Obviously, hand-counting fits the bill. But there may be other methods, that might be deemed acceptable, and potentially, even more transparent. So I'll leave that as my answer for now, with an acknowledgment that hand-counting, if done properly at the precinct, is certainly the most transparent method that I know of at this time.

Archicoot @ 42:

How about except for assistance voting, No Electronic Voting?

I believe the first item in the list already does exactly that, no?

As to your suggestion of a majority vote to determine whether felons should be allowed to vote (in prison and/or after), voting on rights is always a terrible idea (see Prop 8 in November, for just one example). We need to determine what rights citizens do and don't have, and then enforce those rights. That's one reason why the list above contains a constitutional amendment, clearly declaring the right to vote.

Someone made a comment about how good the NH vote counting was.... hmmmm.... that is not what I remember from reading the coverage here on BradBlog.

You're referring to NH's recount procedure (and horrible post-election chain-of-custody mess.) Not the precinct-based hand-counting procedures used at some 20% of it's polling places, as I was referring to. (And I now see that Jeannie-Dean responded similarly, with whom I'll happily associate myself.)

The newly sobered ZapKitty @ 40 clarified his (her?) EAC/HAVA "backdoor"...

This discussion may be more meta than we likely want to get into in this thread. But where the classic federalist (and yes, conservative, but real conservative) argument is made concerning the EAC's (and HAVA's) existence, there is something overlooked.

That is: Before the EAC, there was the FEC who created the federal voting system standards, and then the horrible and unoverseen NASED who carried out testing and certification for them (they like to call that certification "qualification" now, but it was federal certification, as required by many states).

Nobody oversaw NASED's testing, which was carried out largely by the companyies themselves, and nobody at the FEC bothered to do anything with the voting system standards, created back in 1990, as I recall, and un-updated until 2002.

I believe there does need to be a federal body overseeing much of this stuff, even as I realize that I may be in disagreement with some of my EI colleagues who feel differently. As mentioned up-thread, I don't want to have to go through much of this shit in all 50 states, one state at a time. And there needs to be a federal oversight, testing, certification system in my opinion. At least as long as anything electric is allowed to have anything to do with elections.

The references made above (by you and others) to EAC "controlling elections", I believe to be somewhat of an overstatement. From their current perch, I don't believe they have the capacity to "control elections", though they can, as it is now, control the machinery of elections, and control it poorly. The EAC certainly needs to be reformed. Big time. And it's so bad, I don't care if they abolish it and start over with a different agency, or move it's functions to other existing federal agencies, but there will still be a need for what it is they do (or, more appropriately, what it is they are supposed to do).

And, again, I'll leave it there for now, so as not to ramble on even longer than I already have in these last bunch of replies...

... Brad Friedman said...

And, again, I'll leave it there for now, so as not to ramble on even longer than I already have in these last bunch of replies...

(Waving now-empty bottle of Jero) Come back here and fight, you!

More seriously... these are all things that should be discussed in advance of and then in conjunction with any reform effort. And as you suggest there are alternative solutions that have been discussed before as well. How about I write up a guest article discussing the parameters of, and various views on the subject and invite discussion thereof?

It'd be a nice break for a day from Holt's draft and I promise to stay off the Jero

Brad wrote in a response above, "Pay people to come in (instead of wasting money on shitty machines) to count and keep your precincts small enough that no precinct has more than a few hundred votes to count."

I actually think a limit on precinct size should be on your list, given how some states have been pushing a move to "superprecincts." This is both because of the election night counting issue you spoke of, and also because it's important that polling places be close to the places people live. That's an access issue and a disenfranchisement issue.

... Emily said...

"I actually think a limit on precinct size should be on your list, given how some states have been pushing a move to "superprecincts." This is both because of the election night counting issue you spoke of, and also because it's important that polling places be close to the places people live. That's an access issue and a disenfranchisement issue."

As I've noted before, it's also a product of EVM's and leads to a self-reinforcing loop:

"Thanks to e-voting we can have suburban superprecincts!" ... ... ... "We can't get rid of e-voting because we have superprecincts!"

ZapKitty:

In regard your suggestion to submit a guest blog on this, please touch base with me via email. Happy to discuss that idea, and appreciate your interest!

Just brainstorming here...

There might be a way to mark ballots so they could be posted on the Web and still protect the secret ballot...

How about if the ballot were under a clear surface, and the voter marked the ballot with a single uniform brand and color of marker, and the clear surface had openings only where the ballot should be marked, and a device could "read" the ballot so as to determine if the marks were complete?

It would be very much harder to make an identifiable stray mark that might be recognized from a photo on the web, right?

Or---how about an automatic marking device that would deliver the appropriate amount of ink only to the correct location?

#46
At least as long as anything electric is allowed to have anything to do with elections.

should be

At least as long as anything electronic is allowed to have anything to do with elections.

electronics = chips, boards, caps, coils, resistors, memory, logic, etc. 5v, 12v DC voltages.

electrics = wires, power distribution, voltage regulation, high current load balancing, transmission lines, 120VAC 60Hz voltage phase

also in your networking thingy, add no synchronous or asynchronous telnet.

If they got to report results, they should drive node to node face to face, even a voice phone call could be intercepted these days!! Got an alligator clip?

Also

Boxes that fail should be destructively reverse engineered for possible tampering. We want to know what happened at the doping level, was any extra logic added and attempt to be destroyed by burning it out type coverup. Just cause a part manufacture stamps a part number on a chip don't mean it's the chip they say it is, it has to be checked for backdoors logic bombs/radio control/killswitches/etc.
Not sold on freaking ebay as a memento.

There are irrefutable arguments why elections should not involve computers.

Here are three references. One is based solidly in information theory. To believe, after reading it, that computers can be useful is like believing in a flat earth; simply impossible.

Then there are two papers by leading scientists dealing with subversion at the working level.
[Look them up in Wikipedia for more.]

I’ve tacked on two minor points at the end.

But the only valid conclusion is: hand count paper ballots at the polls...

In “An Undetectable Computer Virus” David Chess and Steven White of IBM show that you can always create a vote changing program (a virus in their context) that no ‘verification software’ can ever detect. They do this by a very clever argument which you can pursue in that paper,

but the important thing to realize is that their results are not in doubt.

You also should know that these arguments apply to every computer system that can ever be created. Therefore, if you use a computer anywhere in the vote counting process, you cannot be certain of the result.”

http://www.research.ibm....s/SciPapers/VB2000DC.htm

Dr. Peter Neumann, one of our most distinguished computer scientists: “Even if you can look at the source code, you can’t guarantee that there’s not a Trojan horse embedded somewhere in the code. Any self-respecting system programmer can hack the innards of the system to defeat encryption techniques or any password protection, or anything like that. All this stuff is trivial to break, for the most part. In most computer systems out there, it is child’s play. Given the fact that the underlying systems are so penetrable, it is relatively easy to fudge data-for example, to start out with three thousand votes for one guy and zero for the other before the counting even starts, even though the counter shows zero. Essentially a Trojan horse in the coding. I can do it in the operating system. I can do it in the application program. Or I can do it in the compiler. I can rig it so that all test decks work perfectly well….”

http://www.csl.sri.com/users/neumann/dugger.html

Dr. Kenneth Thompson, another of our most highly-regarded scientists, won the Turing Prize [maybe one level below a Nobel award]; he wrote a paper which has become one of the classics; in it he showed how a trojan horse can be designed and released to do its work undetectably...

“The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) [ ] No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code.”

[His attack inserted malware in the source-level code whence the compiler translated it to machine-level code. Then he erased the malware items in the source level code. But the compiler itself had been subverted and remained ready to pass on the malware indefinitely in later occasions.

http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html.

===
In addition to legislating against the communications devices mentioned by Brad and others, note that some machines communicate by transmission over the 110 V AC power lines. This came to light in the Snohomish County [WA} case a while back.

The Automark design is flawed. Many voters have no way to check whether the ballot, as printed by the machine, correctly records their choices.

Also, the idea is really odd. Other countries’ election systems [e.g., Canada] have provisions for voters to have assistance from humans in casting ballots. All involved find this satisfactory. [BTW: Whence came the idea that using a machine is preferable to dealing with a sympathetic human? From a manufacturer?]

Why not just let everyone in the country vote, leagal or otherwise? How about voting more than once? You are a freak.

The most needed election reforms? Sure, here they are:

1) How's about a break from the unichoice afforded to us in the polling place? I mean, unless you're content to squabble over wedge issues for the rest of your life, easing ballot access for a second party to oppose the republicrat's uber-grip on our federal government would be the most welcome change.

2) Finance reform. I am so sick of being out gunned by multi-nationals and other groups who's desires and ends are clearly at odds with the best interest of the electorate.

Admittedly, I don't know what the best way is to end this bribery. Whatever the answer, however.. I support it 100%. Publically financed campaigns have been mentioned in the past. Perhaps that's the place to start. Repealing the 17th Amendment might not hurt either. ANYTHING, really.. Just to bring some degree of accountability to congress.

3) A "None of the above" vote, resulting in a re-do if "None" wins, would help engage those who currently feel disenfranchised. It would also help keep the party's focused on the quality of their nominees.

4) Representative representation might be long overdue. As it is, half the country is disenfranchised by our "winner take all" system. With a proportional system, the representation is broken down in percentages.. There are no "losers" who get ignored till next time round.

Actually, in political parties, as in many other large group human affairs, it is usually the most charming and disingenuous or the scariest and most disingenuous who rise to the top. That right there is the reason we get no decent choice in every election.

How about NO political parties?

And certainly repealing the 17th Amendment wouldn't help because the State Legislatures have no more morals than any of the other officials elected from political parties to "serve".

And if you're going to have huge immigrant populations becoming citizens, you can't take away their votes and call the citizens. If people are sheep, flesh-eating and herbivore alike, making wedge issues is as easy as boiling water and won't ever fail till people stop being sheep.

One of the single most productive things we might be able to do, in terms of who it is getting placed on the ballots, is to abolish corporate personhood... unless we can get everyone to rise up and force public campaign finance, one of those restorations that shouldn't be called revolution.

Here are my thoughts:

Not good to have "new team" come in to count votes. I think only partisans will come. If someone can't work the 14 (or 8 see next comment) hours, come vote and go back to work, you're a sissy.

I think mandatory holiday is license for people to take the day off and not vote at all. I think it could be mandatory 1/2 day holiday, which would split up the pollworkers day into two shifts to make it more manageable, especially if counting ballots at poll.

I have now looked at several hundred poll worker precinct reports in a big audit being done in L.A. County. This is not definitive yet, but of those several hundred, only about 10% were accurate. There were fewer votes than signed the poll book, there were more votes than signed the poll book; there were counts of more ballots (including voted & not voted) than the precinct had been given; there were many that had less. Counting the votes at the poll? People need to learn how to do basic math first maybe? I do not think this is fraud as if someone was committing fraud, they were make all the numbers work.

Training. Need more and different.

Thinking from the perspective of someone who might try to 'alter' an election by changing results, the 3rd and 4th ones together seem to be the most powerful method to thwart such an attempt.

results posted publicly at the precinct before either ballots or results are forwarded to any other location(s).

Voting Databases Released: All vote tabulation databases are to be made available to the public.

Brad, I don't see anything in your list of election reforms on the disenfranchised military voter. We are missing-or should I say dissing--a huge number of American voters whose voice MUST be heard. These servicemen and women are putting their lives on the line for the freedom of all of us in the USA as well as those less fortunate in other countries who have no freedoms, yet their votes are routinely tossed for political and bureaucratic reasons. Please visit www.countusin.us to learn more about this serious problem. We are working on a grassroots effort while other colleagues are fighting the bureaucratic battle to get state laws changed to comply with federal laws, get over the snail mail rules that create illogical problems for overseas voters and open the doors for our heroes who don't get to have a voice in the government they protect. I'd hope you would put this initiative tops on your priority list!