[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FW: From Bev Harris, An upcoming editorial -- want input?



I received the following e-mail from Bev Harris, founder and author of Black Box Voting and www.blackboxvoting.org (note the .com address no longer works).

Her new approach closely mirrors the approach that Coloradoans for Voting Integrity (www.cfvi.org) has maintained all along, and I personally endorse this approach.

CFVI will be announcing a 6-month campaign to do precisely what Bev's group is lining up to do: to train poll watchers and election judges on what to look for; to create media advisories and citizen hotlines to report suspicious or questionable voting processes (especially related to touchscreen machines); and to advocate for verifiable counting (as well as verifiable casting) of ballots.

I look forward to hearing from any of you on related actions happening around the country and around the state of Colorado, and ways in which we can support each other in these vital acts to conserve our democracy and our voting priveleges.

Bob McGrath, Director
Coloradoans for Voting Integrity
www.cfvi.org


From: Bevharrismail@xxxxxxx
To: Bevharrismail@xxxxxxx
Subject: From Bev Harris, An upcoming editorial -- want input?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:37:22 EDT

Bev Harris; http://www.blackboxvoting.org (note: The ".com" site is not
affiliated at all - use only ".org"). Bevharrismail@xxxxxxxx

I'll fomalize the following essay next week, and will send it to the
editorial boards of several major newspapers. I have been able to get them to start
printing these editorials. It would be good if this editorial comes from a
coalition. Let me know if you support this and would like your organization listed
in the tag line, or if you would require some tweaks to support it.


By the way, Black Box Voting is now a nonpartisan nonprofit, focusing in the
immediate future on continuing an investigation into kickbacks and the money
trail behind the procurement of electronic voting machines and, beginning in
August and continuing for five months, mobilizing two thousand citizen auditors
for the primaries and then the Nov. election. We'll be "coming out of the box"
with announcements shortly.


===========

Editorial draft

===========

Voting on machines: It all boils down to this: Election procedures are not
computer security issues -- they are transparency issues, and we must insist on
policies that keep the people involved in "We, the people." Citizens must be
allowed to participate in their own voting system.


- We have stripped poll workers of their power, by not allowing them to help
count the vote.


- We have stripped poll watchers of their power, by not allowing them to
observe the counting of the vote.

- We have stripped election judges of their power, by not allowing them to
participate in the counting of the vote, or even observe the counting of the
vote.


- We have stripped the central count room of its security, by not allowing
citizens to observe it, forcing us to put full trust in the handful of county
employees and vendor technicians with access.


- We have stripped our county supervisors of their power, by making them
reliant on vendor technicians, who are often temporary workers whose names are
never provided to citizens.


- We are stripping elections of their checks and balances, by putting audits
into the hands of just a few people and eliminating some audit measures
altogether. Touch screen machines have eliminated physical ballots; Diebold has now
produced card encoders designed to eliminate the physical poll book, which
gives a human-verified record of how many people signed in to vote. Do we really
want invisible ballots, invisible poll books, and invisible central tallies?


- Even paper ballots (when there are any) have been stripped of a certain
level of integrity, because they are no longer counted immediately, and usually
are not counted at all. Instead they are put into a central location for
storage, a room which is not observable by the citizenry. Counting paper ballots
(when it takes place at all), is now done later, giving the ballots -- which have
at that point traveled in cars, been toted around in boxes, and secreted in
unobservable rooms -- less integrity than paper ballots counted immediately at
the polling place.


Citizens should be allowed to participate in counting and observing the
counts. We, the People, will be more interested in voting if we are allowed to
participate in the process.


County supervisors lament that it is hard to find enough people to help on
election days. And is it any wonder? What fun is it to sit there for 14 hours,
with a computer that doesn't always work, with minimal instruction, with the
"help line" to the county tied up, when you can't even count the votes at the
end of the day? It will help get people involved if we restore the poll workers'
right to count votes, and citizens' rights to observe the counting.


We can vastly increase the number of citizens who get involved in elections,
if we require employers to give poll workers and election judges the day off,
with pay. Better yet, make election day a national holiday, and encourage
everyone to use this day to vote and to help watch, count, and monitor local
elections.


By the way, technology has its place. We should consider an inexpensive idea:
Add webcams and a live Internet feed so that citizens everywhere can watch
the counting of the vote. To protect voter privacy, cameras would be activated
when the polling place closes. Webcams can transmit all phases of absentee
ballot counting and the central count room, 24 hours a day.


When computer scientists start focusing on ways to use technology to increase
citizen participation and bring full transparency to the process, instead of
advocating complicated encryption schemes and finding new ways to tinker with
the black box, we'll know we're getting somewhere.


We'll restore trust in our elections procedures more quickly if we identify
the problem accurately: It is citizen participation and transparency, not
technological security, that best defines democracy.