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

[Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The point of my first message was that getting ANY kind of VVPAT is
even harder given Scott's testimony, which will be compelling to many.
Making further, unique, sophisticated demands at this point seems more
likely to complicate and scuttle the whole thing, than to lead to
progress in this state which has some of the most unfavorable voting
laws around.

It would be pretty hard to rig an election by not only hacking the
machine to print different paper scrolls at different times, but also
getting the judges to re-run the roll at enough polling places to make
a difference without causing a big uproar.  I also don't know how a
"discrete" ballot would be handled.  Without clarity, examples of
compliant machines, support from other states, etc. it sounds like
a complication that will turn legislators off.

I'm also still confused by the term "SB05-079.1".  Where does that
come from, and which versiono of the bill are you referencing?  I
don't see it associated with any bill I have.  I see either
"SB079_L.001" (the rewrite from a week ago) or the original bill which
just says "05-079" on the paper version, and has a PDF filename of
079_01.pdf

> 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?

I'm calling for action, not waiting.  The action should be to mail
members and ask them to call Mitchell saying we appreciate and support
his efforts, that we support VVPAT soon, rather than the delays called
for by Scott the Secy of State.  That we support Manual Count Audits,
and manual recounts in all cases.

I haven't heard enough about "discrete" ballots to know if it would
help or just complicate things.

Thanks,

-Neal

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 08:34:36AM -0700, Michael Melio wrote:
> 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?