RE: VVPB or VVPAT under attack in Mitchell/Madden bill - call Friday

["Michael Melio" <meliom@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Margit, Neal and CFVI members:

Timing, of course, is everything.

By stating that we oppose the M/M bill (SB05-079.1) in it's
current revision WITHOUT clarifying the type of bill we
would support (the 2 points we voted on) would be fruitless.

But by stating that we do oppose it's current revision, we
make a strong case for change. If the legislators percieve
that CFVI and other voting reform organizations will "settle
for VVPAT" without objection then we have lost a major
protection for the integrity of the vote.

Here's why.
VVPAT, such as the Sequoia "scroll" option, is easily
recreated by running a program embedded in the voting
machine-tabulators, should there be some damage or loss to
the paper scroll. Moreover, the current bill allows for
machine recounts, which means that a scanner could be used
to read the encrypted bar codes on the "scroll"; but as we
noted earlier, the VOTER DID NOT VERIFY THE BAR CODE, NOR
DID S/HE VERIFY AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF HIS/HER VOTE. This
"paper scroll" technology (VVPAT) is highly suspect in my
opinion because it is so easily manipulated.

VVPB, requires that each voter will receive a discrete Voter
Verified Paper Ballot that clearly indicates the voter's
choices in a readable format. This becomes the official
record of the vote.

All mandatory audits and recounts must be manual recounts of
VVPBs.

If we stand firm on these 2 requirements, while being
flexible on all other objections to the bill, we will have
better represented the concerns of citizens around the
state. For it is my reading of the citizenry, that they want
verifiability and accuracy first, not convenience or speed.

So tell me further why we should wait before we start our
email and calling campaign to both OPPOSE SB05-079.1 and
PRESENT OUR 2 POINT ALTERNATIVE?


Sincerely,
 
Michael David Melio
Jefferson County, CO.
meliom@xxxxxxxxxxx
 
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous
sea of liberty." --  Thomas Jefferson

 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:55 AM
To: Margitjo@xxxxxxx
Cc: meliom@xxxxxxxxxxx; warren@xxxxxxxxx;
atoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bjbarkey@xxxxxxxxx;
bthack@xxxxxxxxxxx; carolyn@xxxxxxxxx;
courtenay.white@xxxxxxxxxxx; WthrngHite@xxxxxxx;
debsueadams@xxxxxxxxxxx; deenalarsen@xxxxxxxxx;
dthiel714@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; donnamp@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
wildgrass@xxxxxxxxxx; inkcat42@xxxxxxxxx;
ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxx; taichiproj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
j.c.callahan@xxxxxxxx; jleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
j_erhardt@xxxxxxxxx; MagandKen@xxxxxxx; laurieannb@xxxxxxx;
lseaborn@xxxxxxxxx; Mary.Daugherty@xxxxxxxxxxx;
mlambie@xxxxxxxxxxx; jwarner2000@xxxxxxxxxxx;
ross12410@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; randyg2001@xxxxxxxxxxx;
mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx; svlocke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; vrprods@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
vincencollins@xxxxxxxxxx; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: VVPAT under attack in Mitchell/Madden bill -
call Friday

I'm afraid that my subject may have been confusing.  The
Mitchell/Madden bill is the only one I know of in Colorado
that
PROPOSES VVPATs.  I was disappointed that there are some who
are
opposing its requirements for VVPATs and manual audits.  So
the VVPATs in the current version of the Mitchell/Madden
bill
are under attack, it is not Mitchell/Madden that is
attacking
VVPATs.

I agree entirely with Margit, and with the CFVI position on
Tuesday,
which just requested a few strengthening proposals.

We need to SUPPORT Mitchell and his bill in general.  There
are
certainly things that can be improved, especiallly the need
to require
hand counting of recounts, but the bulk of it is a huge step
in the
right direction.

Opposing it at this point would just kill the only forward
step
available at this time!

-Neal

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 06:13:34AM -0500, Margitjo@xxxxxxx
wrote:
>    We need to make a strong case FOR VVPB's.  We need to
ask for revisions to
>    protect the usefulness of voter-verification.  Since
the bill still needs
>    to go before the House, give them a chance to make the
changes before
>    then.  Since the SOS and parts of the disabled
community do not appear
>    to genuinely support VVPB's, we need to.
>    Margit