Please read the following email.
It explains why VVPAT (voter-verified paper audit trails) are totally inadequate,
and why we must have PAPER BALLOTS.
Legislators are being intensively lobbied
by vendors and election officials to support VVPAT. Vendors can cheaply
retrofit their insecure and inaccurate voting equipment. Election
officials can cover-up their irresponsible decision to purchase Direct
Recording (DRE) voting equipment.
We must lobby them to require PAPER
BALLOTS. This is the only technology proven to provide (a) private, (b) voter
verified vote recording and (c) publicly verified vote interpretation and
counting.
Al
From:
EarthAngelsNtwk@xxxxxxx [mailto:EarthAngelsNtwk@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:37
AM
To: undisclosed-recipients :
Subject: Re: Holt Bill;
"Support Our Campaign for Paper Trail," Etc., A Response
In a message dated 6/9/2005 3:58:48 AM
Eastern Daylight Time, Sherry Reson writes:
>Should the California Election
Protection Network support the Holt bill?
The
>Holt bill stands for the principles of voter verified ballots, open source
>codes and no wireless transfer of data. We are prepared to promote it
>through the internet.
Hi, Sherry, Chellie, Sheila, Sally, Dan, Jonathan, Kat, Kip, Seth, Paul,
Teresa, Heleni, Victoria, Lotus, Richard, Lynn, Kathleen, Bev, Bob, Susan,
Linda, Kevin, Donna, Ernest, Joe, Brad, Nancy, Jim, Judy, Vickie, Abbe, Al,
Lee, Ted, Perry, CJC, Cynthia, Robert, Russell, and ALL.
This message is intended to address the Holt Bill and related issues:
We appreciate the spirit and energy of the recent efforts in Washington, D.C.
to ensure the all-important preservation of paper in America's elections. And,
it's probably safe to assume that we, on this list, are very much in support of
a paper record of our elections, across the board.
However, there are some hidden matters, which are of some concern and
importance that are worthy of our collective attention.
About VVPAT:
As we know, in an attempt to "just get the paper," some in the
election justice effort are working hard for voter-verified paper audit trails
("VVPAT"), via legislation, in hopes that we might one day
"get the paper counted." Though good people who are well-intended,
many in the effort are greatly concerned that this approach may prove, in time,
to be misguided and a grave mistake.
This is, firstly, due to the fact that, as a by-product, pressing for VVPAT may
well serve to further entrench highly suspect electronic voting systems and
services, via legislation, into our elections. This will make certain
e-voting vendors happy, of course, and might also account for some of the
surprise support for "paper" we may be seeing on the Hill.
**********************************************************
Smoke
and Mirrors:
Secondly, due to a little-known, hidden, "sleight-of-hand" aspect of
e-voting. Numerous technical experts have warned us that:
"Any programmer can write code to
display one thing on a screen, to record something else, and to print yet
another result."
~Dr. Rebecca
Mercuri
As
we know, what this means is that a voter can "verify" that a receipt
"confirms" their intended vote, and walk away feeling assured, while something else entirely is being invisibly
registered, as their actual vote, into the voting machine. The
so-called "voter verified paper receipts," which are said to be a
safeguard "in case of recount or audit," are, in fact, in most cases,
never even counted.
This sort of smoke and mirrors in electronic elections is extremely dangerous
to democracy.
In some areas, in fact, we are seeing a recent rash of rules and directives
upheld, which render access to the actual "paper" impossible, whether
for purposes of counting or recounting.
(We might have noted that these folks won't even let a voter hold their own
receipt! :)
**********************************************************
Of course, VVPAT has been tried before (with respect to HR 2239, the first Holt
Bill). Yet many of us (some of whom also once advocated for VVPAT) in
hindsight, and armed with more information, are now relieved that it didn't
succeed.
To be right upfront, some leaders in the election justice effort have recently
expressed concern, and even alarm, that VoteTrustUSA has determined to
encourage Common Cause and well-meaning others down the VVPAT path.
This is, in part, because our fellow advocate in the effort, Joan
Krawitz, its Executive Director, and a co-founder of the National Ballot Integrity
Project, is well-advised of this hidden aspect of VVPAT and warned us about it,
herself, in her White Paper, "Urgent
Threat to Democracy - The Case Against Computerized Voting - An Inside
Look," dated September of 2003. (See "Key Findings," top of page
2.) http://www.qnc.us/documents/bip/Threat_To_Democracy_5-04.doc.
We understand that Dr. Dill, of Verified Voting, is advised of this hidden
aspect, also.
Regarding Open Source Code Software:
This is an interesting issue because, for all intent and purposes, it seems
like a great idea. Of course, we election justice advocates are all for
optimum transparency and integrity in our elections!
The problem with so-called "open source," however, is that, no matter
how "open" it is, we will never really know for sure if the software represented to
us, as what is in use in a given system, at any particular point in time, is,
in fact, what is actually in operation.
Experts tell us, too, that, even if a cadre of computer programming experts
were placed in a room, to study open source code for weeks, they could never be
certain, in the end, that they've identified all
potential security problems in the code. This is, in part, because
"bugs" can be camouflaged, cleverly - disguised and hidden by
"the best" - as invisible bugs within bugs within bugs. Then,
there are, among other serious issues, the last minute mystery "patches"
and "fixes" to contend with, like those we saw in Georgia in Election
2002.
How will we ever know for sure, at any
given point or place in time - even with "open source code" software
- that all is well with electronic elections all across America?
Too Many Variables
Some have determined that there are just too many variables in e-voting, for
even all of us, together, to effectively oversee even one election - much less
future elections, indefinitely.
Now, consider that, with virtually every election, the equipment and memory
cards of each jurisdiction across America will be reconfigured. Who will
oversee all the infinite technical and non-technical issues? Corporate
privatized e-voting vendors? Their non-partisan technicians? Let's ask
Wally O'Dell if Diebold technicians are absolutely impartial overseers.
Defaulting these logistical and technical matters to proprietary e-voting
equipment and services vendors is partly how we got into this election mess, in
the first place.
If not entrusted to partisan e-voting vendors, do we have enough
"impartial citizens"and/or state and county-assigned "impartial
overseers" to take their place? And, if we did, would the non-vendor
employee replacement technicians even be permitted anywhere near the proprietary
technology?
Even if they were permitted to access the equipment to service it, how much
would all this cost us, and for how long... both in cultural and monetary
terms?
Let us very carefully consider the value of simplicity in our elections.
Regarding the Holt Bill and Wireless
Technology:
On its face, this is fabulous! Yet, effectively unenforceable.
The following section in this message, "Evidence
of Defense Industry and Covert Ops in Our Elections," and
accompanying articles, only just begin to address this issue. Suffice it
to say that there are advanced technologies in existence [See Articles 1-3, "Eternal Vigilance & Protecting Our
Elections - Why America Must Say NO! - Right Now - to Electronic Voting &
the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)," below*] of which we the
People have not even been advised. How, then, are we to regulate and
oversee what is unknown and invisible?
Evidence of Defense Industry and Covert Ops
in Our Elections:
While some are attending to lobbying on the Hill for the Holt Bill and others,
or to determining "which technology," others are unearthing further
evidence of additional sophisticated smoke and mirror-styled corruption and
malfeasance in the underbelly of e-voting. For example, the overt and covert
involvement of at least 5 former CIA Directors in election engineering - among
these, Deutch, Inman, Woolsey, Gates and Bush. If all were well in our
elections, why would this be the case?
And, further uncovering the direct involvement of such defense industry
insiders as the Carlyle Group's Frank Carlucci, Admiral Bill Owens, and
questionable connections to Dick Cheney, via Halliburton's association with
e-voting systems and services vendors, Andersen Consulting and Accenture.
(See VotingMachineCompanies
at http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm.)
Also, now being revisited, the hidden, but ever-present origins of the
"Help America Vote Act (HAVA)," as first quietly conceived by a
consortium of defense contractors, e-voting vendors, and lobbyists, such as
I.T.A.A., to "create more business for themselves as integrators."
(See, for example, Chapter 16 of Black
Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century, by Bev Harris, with
contributions by David Allen.)
Might it be time to overturn the tables and to toss the money-lenders out of
the temple?
HAVA, as "God":
Questions arise, such as:
"Why are we permitting ourselves to be held hostage to the 'god of HAVA,'
when it has, all along, been the marketing tool of the very interests
(corporate e-voting vendors, defense contractors, and certain intelligence
interests) who would see our cherished democracy robbed right out from under
us?
At present, we are on a most unfortunate course. Our cherished voice - the very
will of the people - is about to be voided via the vote. We must act
firmly, in empowered fashion, to reclaim our rightful inheritance as American
citizens and souls.
No More Deals With the Devil - Taking Back
Our Power:
As such, a number of us are now working to bring greater attention to such
clandestine operations and activities in our cherished elections, to promote a
vote of "NO CONFIDENCE! in e-lection
2006" (and in electronic elections overall), and to rally for
what many believe to be a critical "Consumer Protection Outcry"
across America. This, with the intent of challenging the present
"business as usual" attitude toward HAVA-compelled fast-tracked
contracts for suspect e-voting systems and services. Also, of further
awakening and empowering We, the American People, to reclaim our rightful
legacy of legitimate stewardship and honorable elections.
The Suggested Message:
"We never wanted them and you never
asked!
They're paid for with our money and without our consent.
We vote 'NO CONFIDENCE!' in these machines,
That are now a known threat and menace to America,
And we want our money back!"
For example, signs and bull horns at events, rallies with press conferences,
lots of clamor, t-shirts, buttons, billboards, banners, bumper stickers, and so
on saying,
"Voters ripped-off. Refunds now!"
The object of this endeavor is to inspire county and state Election Boards to
start second-guessing these questionable election equipment and services
contracts, to think twice before pursuing business as usual, to look to their
warranties, consult with their attorneys, and to begin to question the wisdom
of pursuing these private partisan vendor-made voting machines for legal,
liability, uncertainty, public pressure, ethical and accountability reasons.
Perhaps, also, to seed concerns over potential class action lawsuits for
amounts of money exceeding HAVA "carrot" monies. Such suits, as
necessary, will potentially have the effect of nullifying any net gains and, as
such, may inspire consideration of refusal, rejection and/or return of
portions, or all, of such "carrot" monies. State and county attorneys
may also wish to look into seeing to it that a portion of HAVA moneys
previously received can be retained for costs already incurred.
Refusal or return of such "carrot" monies can signify a state's --
and its citizens' -- “Declaration of Independence” from both
HAVA’s alleged “mandates” and the imposition of contracts for
unwanted and suspect e-voting systems and services.
A key point of organizing such events is, also, for we the people to push back hard with an emphatic, unmistakable,
resounding, clear and coordinated nationwide "NO!" to these machines, which are simply not what they
seem.
Cynthia's Advice: "Ratchet it up."
Some of us will recall that, at the recent National Conference on Election
Reform that took place in Tennessee, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) advised us,
in the election justice effort, to "ratchet it up." This sort
of approach is resonating for many.
Regarding "Random Sample Audits":
Many of us are advocating for 100% audits
versus 2% or 3% (or some such low number) random sample audits, about which
there has also been a good deal of concern expressed.
As Teresa Hommel of WheresthePaper.org (attorney, election reform
activist, and computer programming expert, since the 1960's) says well, "If only 3% of ballots are audited, that means
that 97% are being counted by partisan voting machine vendors."
Jonathan Simon (exit polling analyst, election reform activist, attorney and
sage :), cites that (paraphrased), mathematically, 20% is the bare minimum for any kind of real value to
a random sample audit at all, and even that is insufficient.
These concerns have been shared, in past, with Ellen Theisen of Voters Unite!,
and others, who have been assisting with the language of election reform
legislation. However, efforts to pursue such low percentage random sample
audits are ongoing.
Many have noted, e.g. in Ohio, that so-called "random sample audits"
can be "managed" and manipulated in the field, such that they are
neither random nor real audits.
This was evidenced by what occurred, during the Ohio "recount,"
involving TRIAD. (See “Triad Had Remote
Access – Election 2004,"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121604Z.shtml, by William Rivers Pitt,
and "Conyers
Demands Investigation of TRIAD - Is Rapp Tied to the GOP?",
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=332.)
Such folks seem to have found ways to pre-identify "random" areas and
adjust outcomes, as necessary, and to be practiced in the art of deception in America's
elections.
Are We Giving Corruption an Edge?
Would we agree we should not give corruption an edge at all, much less 97 or
98%? Some are concerned, quite frankly, that, despite the earnest and
best intentions of activists who are advocating for low percentage random
sample audits, in order to "to get what we can get or what they'll give
us," that we the people are at risk to be taken for fools.
Victoria Collier (Editor of http://www.votescam.com)
says this: "It is either transparent or it isn't. There is no
such thing as partially transparent!"
Given the flagrant abuses in evidence in America's automated elections, many
contend that the American people should be insisting
on hand counted paper ballots with citizen observed fully
transparent vote counts, and with 100% audits only, across the board!
Sound far-fetched? This is not just "Luddite-ism," or an
issue of resistance to "progress" or change. It is good
old-fashioned, simple common sense.
What could be simpler than:
"Count the damn ballots!"
as investigative journalist, Lynn Landes, urges, and then count the ballots
again? (See "Democrats! Paper 'Trails' Aren't Good Enough. Count The
Damn Ballots!" http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1225,
by Lynn Landes.)
Have we the people become so timid of our "servant government" that
we hesitate to demand 100% integrity in America's elections?
Consider the alternative...
Elections... "The reform upon which all
others depend."
~Bill
Moyers
Simplifying the Ballot
As for the logistics of paper ballot elections, if the ballots are too complex
and there are too many races on the ballots (justification asserted by
proponents of suspect automation, especially in urban areas), simply simplify
the ballots (as Victoria Collier has suggested) and (per Black Box Voting's
suggestion) use different-colored ballots.
Separate out the federal from the local and county races (such as VotersUnite!
and National Ballot Integrity Project proposed in EM2004 {Emergency Measures to
Protect the 2004 Election}). Run the respective elections on different
days, in alternating years, or on the same day, if need be, by simply having
voters cast both colored paper ballots, fastened or stapled together.
Thoughtful and appropriate provisions for the blind and disabled can be made.
Many agree that auditing anything other than 100% in industry (in banking, for
instance) would not be considered a bonified "audit" and, so, would
be seen as unacceptable.
Particularly now, with the obvious and flagrant assault on our liberties in the
legislature, why would we wish to allow anything less than 100% auditing and
oversight of our elections?
Sharona
Sharona Merel, Co-Founder
National Ballot Integrity Project
http://www.ballotintegrity.org
Co-Founder, NH Ballot Integrity Task Force
EarthAngelsNtwk@xxxxxxx
"I never consider a difference of
opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from
a friend."
~Thomas Jefferson
-------------------------------------
*Articles 1-3, "Eternal Vigilance & Protecting Our
Elections" :
"Eternal Vigilance & Protecting Our Elections: Why America Must Say
NO! - Right Now -To Electronic Voting, Part 1 of 3"
http://www.ballotintegrity.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&om=339&forum=DCForumID1
"Eternal Vigilance & Protecting Our Elections: Why America Must Say
NO! - Right Now - to Electronic Voting and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA),
Part 2 of 3,"
http://www.ballotintegrity.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&omm=0&om=340&forum=DCForumID1
"Eternal Vigilance & Protecting Our Elections: Why America Must
Say NO!- Right Now - to Electronic Voting and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA),
Part 3 of 3 - Red Flags - Unduly Elected & Covert Ops in America's
Elections"
http://www.ballotintegrity.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=printer_format&om=350&forum=DCForumID1
In reply to Sherry Reson re: supporting the Holt Bill:
In a message dated 6/9/2005 3:58:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
Sheila Parks writes:
absolutely not.
*****what is the proof that what is on the vvb is what is counted?******
none, to answer my own question, so what possible good can it be?
and when would this vvb be used anyhow since it is not the ballot that is
counted? and what kind of paper would it be written on, and on and on and
on. but my first question is primary here
sheila
In reply to Sherry Reson re:
supporting the Holt Bill:
In a message dated 6/9/2005 3:58:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sally Castleman
writes:
my understanding is that
open source code does still not preclude people
changing the code after the system has been certified. (if it is even
certified
-- i have heard reports of many systems that aren't even certified or are
certified by people who know nothing about what should be required.)
there will
never be enough people trained well enough and free at the needed times to
double-check all code in every voting machine in the country.
i also inderstand the holt bill requires only 2% manual count as a security
check. that sounds awfully low. wouldn't 5% be ideal?
even 3% is still
preferable.
i also heard that the bill permits NO verified paper ballot for the disabled.
the following from a paragraph describing the volusia county
"victory":
'The touch-screens, purportedly being purchased to serve the needs of the
disabled, are passionately opposed by those Volusia citizens who understand
that the
right of the disabled to have a private, independent vote is meaningless
unless that vote is accurately counted, recountable, and therefore verifiable.
They
also understand that having some votes on paper and others not renders an
entire election non-verifiable and thus disenfranchises ALL voters.'
lastly, i thought DREs are the potentially worst offender. doesn't this
bill
allow DREs?
In reply to Sherry Reson re:
supporting the Holt Bill:
In a message dated 6/9/2005 3:58:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Paul Lehto
writes:
As with HAVA, activists
and others have been handed something that appears
to be reform, but it is not.
Holt seems like the real deal as far as I know. Problem is He'S TRYING TO
MAKE A SILK PURSE OUT OF A SOW'S EAR.
Subj: Regarding: Support Our Campaign for
Paper Trail
Date: 6/8/2005 2:05:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Hygeianwnh,
To: CauseNet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In a message dated 6/7/2005 7:48:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Hygeianwnh
writes:
Dear Common Cause,
After many studies, workshops and talks I've now
come to the conclusion that ALL electronic voting machines are worthless, are
corruptible, and a waste of time and money. They are not acceptable now
nor in the near future.
I am now supporting a paper ballot/hand count at every
opportunity.....and telling others to do so also....whether it be individuals,
groups or organizations that are dealing with the theft of our elections.
We need to collectively come to understand that
there have been major elections which have been hacked and that Americans are
tired of not being heard and have become disenfranchised. It is very simple to
turn this around in this age and become humane again, if we do the right thing
and throw out the machines, and those that run them.
The machines are corrupt, the companies that own
and operate them are corrupt (why are we having private companies run them in
the first place???) the memory cards are corrupt (no matter how many paper
receipts there are!), and the central tabulator is corrupt.
There simply is no system that we can trust,
except citizens with a pen and paper doing what has been done for many years,
putting their individual mark on the ballot. This does not take time, is
community friendly, has much less error rate, and most important builds trust
again in the public that their votes matter, that their voice matters, and that
democracy matters.
Thanks for trying to build integrity back into
the system,
Mrs. Nancy J.M. White
Amherst, New Hampshire
In a message dated 6/7/2005 12:51:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, , writes:
Subj:Support Our Campaign
for Paper Trail
Date:6/7/2005 12:51:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: CauseNet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Chellie Pingree, CEO, Common
Cause)
Reply-to: CauseNet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: EarthAngelsNtwk@xxxxxxx (S. Merel)
Dear S.,
A little more than three weeks ago we invited you to come to Washington, D.C. on June 9 & 10 to
lobby your congressional representatives to support House and Senate bills
requiring all voting machines to produce a voter verified paper ballot that can
be audited and used in the event of a recount.
We are so excited that hundreds of citizen activists from around the country
have accepted our invitation and are planning to converge on Congress to lobby
on this upcoming Thursday and Friday. We knew that you, as a Common Cause
supporter, believe individual citizens can be powerful advocates for reform.
Yet, we were still overwhelmed and heartened by your passion for activism
to reform our elections.
However, because of the larger than expected turnout, we also will have larger
than expected costs for these events. So, if you aren't able to attend in
person, please consider supporting the efforts of your fellow Common Cause
advocates by making a contribution to support their efforts for paper trail
ballots:
http://www.commoncause.org/supportpapertraillobbydays
We are asking you to help us raise $10,000 to fund the activities for 200 paper
trail advocates for these lobby days. It will cost us $50 to engage your
fellow citizen advocates who are going to lobby our legislators on June 9 &
10:
$30 for training
$20 for food and drinks Can you help
us raise $10,000 during this week so that we can use the funds
raised from your contributions to provide a "How to Lobby
Effectively" training session on the morning of June 9, with me and other
experienced Common Cause advocates giving background information and advice.
We will also provide food and drinks in the morning and evening to your
fellow activists, who are coming to Washington D.C. on their own dime to lobby.
As you know, there have been too many instances where paperless voting machines
have "stolen" citizens' votes. We are working with a coalition
of public interest groups to support bills that ensure that such a loss of
votes doesn't happen again. While a number of state legislatures are
enacting this reform, we feel it would be fairer to enact it at the federal
level, ensuring that voters in all states enjoy the same safeguards and
protections. The lobbying of hundreds of your fellow Common Cause
activists during June 9 & 10 will be a crucial part of our campaign for
obtaining a paper trail for our election ballots.
We hope that you will be part of our lobby day efforts this week, even if you
can't be with us in person in D.C. Small contributions of $100, $50, $30,
or whatever you
can afford to give, will directly go to supporting these efforts
of election reform activists:
http://www.commoncause.org/supportpapertraillobbydays
We'll let these citizen lobbyists know that you are honoring their efforts from
all across the country. It takes the work of all of us to push for
effective reform.
Thanks again for all you do for Common Cause and our country.
Sincerely,
Chellie Pingree
President & CEO, Common Cause