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

Re: Fw: 100,000 Strong

I don't agree that the Clinton bill is a step in the right direction. It's full of unfunded mandates (early voting, election-day registration, national election-day holiday) which are also gross violations of state's rights, not to mention what I already did mention -- the required use of technology that doesn't exist. Will the requirement for pictorial verification eliminate the use of optical scanners? Once we figure out what pictorial verification is, I can imagine many claiming that it requires DRE.
 
The state's rights violations in HAVA are causing serious problems in states where the election system wasn't broken. Counties that have been conducting elections successfully are now switching to flawed and insecure systems -- or spending bundles to get something that isn't even better than what they had. Sometimes, local areas know what they need better than a centralized government in a faraway place.
 
I believe it would be far better for the federal government to investigate election fraud and indict those responsible rather than make new laws that infringe on the rights of some states because of the fraud taking place in other states. 
 
No, we won't eliminate fraud by using paper ballots, but at least with paper ballots fraud can be detected. I'm weary of those who say that all the fraud we know about has been committed with paper ballots. Duh! That's because you can detect it. And with electronic fraud, you either can't detect it at all or you call it a software error. "Oops, we'll reprogram that correctly and run the ballots through again."  
 
Ellen Theisen
www.VotersUnite.Org
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: 100,000 Strong

The Clinton Bill's "visual, audio, pictorial verification" is in reference to disabled voters, and it does make it easier for a larger contingency of outside observers to monitor the election on the precinct level, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't address monitoring of Central Counting, but maybe I missed that section. To cover all bases, central counting should have mandatory monitoring by all affected parties throughout the entire counting process.  
 
Do you really believe the election of Federal officials has ever been fair? Maybe some state elections have been free and fair.... But to think that we do, or ever have lived in a true Democratic Republic, is a little naive. Going back to a hand counted paper ballot system won't prevent fraud - even on a grand scale. With today's technology, couldn't paper ballots be switched, duplicated, destroyed or manipulated even with a decent marking system?
 
"Never underestimate the ability of a small group of people to change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." .....but in most cases, not for the better!
 
Actually DRE's with a VVPT could be a more effective system because you have two records to compare instead of only one paper record. If a double blind counting method is employed (one hand count, one machine count with different groups of people conducting each count, not knowing the other's outcome) wouldn't that make for a less easily corruptible system?
 
The Clinton Bill isn't quite there yet, but it is "a step in the right direction." To think that going back to only hand counted paper ballots (in a complex modern world) will guaranty fairness, is a misguided concept. "Evil Doers" have in the past, and will in the future find a way to get around such a simplistic system. The solution to the problem of vote fraud will not be a simple one.
 
    
Subject: Re: Fw: 100,000 Strong

I am getting really tired of Clinton's bills and all other approaches which mandate particular technology instead of saying what they really want. If they want accessibility, then say so. If they want election integrity, then say what that consists of -- non-technical citizens can effectively observe every part of the election procedure and must be allowed to do so without obstacles that would prevent their effective observation. As soon as you get into the technology, the election gets lost.

Teresa Hommel
www.wheresthepaper.org

Michael Melio wrote:

I?m sure each of us will find something that we can object to in the bill.

 

But it is a step in the right direction, even if it is a small step.

 

We have to crawl before we can walk.

 

Sincerely,

 

Michael David Melio

meliom@xxxxxxxxxxx

 

"Never doubt for a moment that a small group of committed, thoughtful people can make a difference. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." --  Margaret Mead

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ellen Theisen at VotersUnite.Org [mailto:ellen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 1:02 PM
To: Teresa Hommel; dougrcurtis
Cc: TresCeeA@xxxxxxx; toso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; taichiproj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; SDeLeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ralphs@xxxxxxxxx; pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx; pklammer@xxxxxxx; pam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; myriah@xxxxxxxxx; mlambie@xxxxxxxxx; Monty Lambie; Robert Mcgrath; Margitjo@xxxxxxx; laurieannb@xxxxxxx; jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx; evan@xxxxxxxx; dill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bobmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mcgrath, Bob___PI_Mkt; Bevharrismail@xxxxxxx; AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Fw: 100,000 Strong

 

This one seems to have the paper requirement solid, but my concerns are about some other areas where it seems to mandate the use of technology that doesn't exist -- as did HAVA.

 

- "Any direct recording electronic voting system or other voting system described in subparagraph (A)(iii) shall use a mechanism that separates the function of vote generation from the function of vote casting"

 

I'm not exactly sure what that's getting at, but I don't think such a technology exists. If it does, it seems to me it would abolish the use of the current crop of DREs, wouldn't it?

 

- The paper produced by accessible devices "shall be available for visual, audio, and pictorial inspection and verification by the voter, with language translation available for all forms of inspection and verification"

 

Do any of the current ones provide all three verification methods? Does anything provide pictorial inspection? At least it leaves out verification software.

 

Ellen Theisen
www.VotersUnite.Org

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:42 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: 100,000 Strong

 

Read the bill carefully. Whether it is her staff undercutting her, or ignorance, or whatever, her last 2 bills on this issue were counterproductive. PADA allowed rather than requiring a paper trail, and RECORD required a paper trail unless states said they couldn't comply and then they didn't have to. Stupid, counterproductive, and all announced with much fanfare.

Teresa

Teresa Hommel
http://www.wheresthepaper.org
212 228-3803
10 St. Marks Place
New York, NY 10003


dougrcurtis wrote:

Inch by Inch....

but I sure do hate the generalization: "paper receipts."

 

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:08 AM

Subject: 100,000 Strong

 

Friends of Hillary - Click here to visit FriendsOfHillary.com

Dear Friends,

What better way to advance our Count Every Vote reform initiative than to show the power of democracy in action!

Last week I asked you to become a citizen co-sponsor of this vitally important reform legislation that Senator Barbara Boxer and I have made a top priority for 2005.

100,000 of you answered our call to action -- and the number is growing every day.

http://www.friendsofhillary.com/CountEveryVote

Today, we take the next step. This afternoon, I will step onto the Senate floor and formally introduce the Count Every Vote Act.

Providing paper receipts for electronic voting machines, creating uniform standards for provisional ballots, and guaranteeing adequate equipment to prevent long waiting lines are common-sense reforms. They will help strengthen our democracy and they are supported by the vast majority of Americans.

But here?s the reality. Many of the Republican leaders who make speeches about democracy abroad will resist this attempt to strengthen it here at home. They don?t want to face the issue of electoral reform, and they don?t want to vote on it - so they are going to try to ignore it.

That?s why I am committed to building grassroots momentum -- to insist on action for the Count Every Vote Act of 2005. We are going to show that the American people are determined to have fair, free and credible elections - our democracy demands no less!

100,000 citizen co-sponsors is a great start. But, it is only a start.

Will you continue to help me build support? Will you forward this email to your friends, and ask them to join us? The more citizen co-sponsors we have, the louder, and stronger, our voice will be!

Thank you,

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Clinton

Contribute to Friends of Hillary today!

 

If you feel you have received this message in error, we apologize.
Unsubscribe from HillNews

Contributions to Friends of Hillary are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

 

Paid for by Friends of Hillary

 

All content © 2005 Friends of Hillary
1717 K Street, NW, Suite 309A Washington, DC 20036.