PERMISSION TO REPRINT OR EXCERPT GRANTED. MUST LINK TO
http://www.blackboxvoting.org.
There is a major push right now to pass H.B.
550, a bill put forth by Rep. Rush
Holt to mandate a paper trail (along with a flimsy audit that no
accountant
would agree is adequate).
Election reform groups are split on whether they support H.B. 550.
Black Box
Voting normally does not weigh in on legislation, this time we
will. Citizens
need to be informed of the dangers as well as the benefits when
being urged to
support legislation.
Like an antibiotic that's too weak, we belive that H.B. 550 will
create a more
resistant strain of election infection.
Like a placebo, people may think the election system is getting
well when in
fact, the medicine is only a sugar pill that makes everyone think
it's better.
For a minute.
Paul Lehto, an attorney who is a leader in the
election reform movement and the
plaintiff in a groundbreaking lawsuit related to electronic
voting, has a
unique clarity in public policy issues. Lehto says:
"[the] paper record requirement, combined with a worse than anemic
audit
feature, is so darn dangerous in terms of its ability to create false
confidence...
"Putting into the Holt bill a provision specifying the method of
EAC audit (2%
or more precinct sampling) simply telegraphs to cheaters how to
cheat and not
get caught..."
Any major political movement has the inside game and the outside game
The inside game involves writing letters, lobbying, cozying up to
legislators,
and in the case of a privatization issue like voting machines,
meeting with
vendors and working with regulatory groups.
The outside game involves investigative work, communications on
subjects even
when they are considered impolite, exposés, agitation, occasional
civil
disobedience, and an overwhelming push to give citizens power over
those who
govern them.
The inside game resists the outside game
Those who play the inside game tend to believe that the outside
game is
undisciplined, a bunch of mavericks, endangers the goal. The
inside game is
polite, conciliatory, respects authority and likes to tell others
what to do.
"Support H.B. 550 it's good push this button send this email now."
Those who question and probe are painted as irresponsible.
There is no doubt that Black Box Voting usually
plays the outside game. We know
we'll be attacked from within the movement -- from the
establishment-oriented
inside game - for taking the position that H.B.
550 is will do more damage than
good.
But here it is: Black Box Voting believes that H.B. 550 is unwise.
It will not
be effective to improve citizen oversight or election integrity.
It is
dangerous, because the weakness of the antibiotic will create a
more resistant
strain of election manipulation.
The likelihood is that, if H.B. 550 is passed, it will simply
"prove" that
electronic voting works "fine."
It was a "fine" election...
As another blogger noted, notice the frequency
with which elected officials are
now using that word. I suppose it's an improvement over a couple
years ago,
when they called us "terrorists", but I still scratch my head when
I hear the
new talking point: "We had a fine election." Not
"we had an accurate election."
Not "we had a fair election." We had a fine election. What do they
mean by
that?
Well, rest assured that electronic voting will look just "fine"
under the Holt
bill because, as Paul Lehto notes, the way the audits are set up
they won't
catch anything to make the election look "not fine." To solve the
inadequate
auditing provisions in the Holt bill will require drafting a whole
new bill.
So if H.B. 550 is passed, everyone will pat themselves on the back
and go home
and not a damn thing will actually change,
except that more taxpayer money will
be expended for retrofitted machines.
The inside game people want the current kinds of technology to work
And -- note the players involved -- many of them will have no role
in this if
they don't make the current kinds of technology
work. Note the recent Wyle Labs
transcript, where Systest Labs refers to the meeting in Nov. 2005
-- you know,
the one where all the industry perps showed up but the public, and
even the
chair of the California Senate Elections Committee were excluded.
Systest
reports that the academics seem to be heading toward creating an
IV&V effort,
another layer of testing and certifying.
More taxpayer money, more scientists, more
paychecks, more layers of complexity,
more people to point the finger at when elections turn out to be
secret
unsubstantiated messes.
The inside game has tolerance for a much longer timeline
You don't need to hurry if you don't think any crimes will be
committed.
The inside game is addressing what they percieve to be the problem
by adding a
"vvpat" and quibbling over just how to do a 2 percent audit, or
layering test
labs into the process, or ponderously altering standards in
response to
critical security failures, while grandfathering old systems in
for years.
No major reform movement will survive without the outside game
The civil rights movement would not have gotten very far without
the outside
game. Rosa Parks was outside game. The Selma-to-Montgomery March
was outside
game. The civil rights workers -- some of whom were killed -- were
outside
game.
The anti-Viet Nam movement would have failed
without the outside game. Viet Nam
Vets Against the War were outside game. Burning draft cards was
outside game.
The outside game knows it needs the inside game, because when the
message is
sufficiently focused and the goals are sufficiently clear and the
people
themselves are beginning to drive the train, it
gets pitched to the inside game
and changes are made to legislation.
But it isn't just legislation that is pushed down the tracks by
the outside
game. Media tends to gravitate towards coverage of the outside
game. The
message of the outside game sticks in the public's consciousness
better then
legislative bill numbers. After the outside game succeeds in
pushing the
message into the mainstream, embedding it in the public psyche,
change becomes
more durable.
The inside game doesn't necessarily think the
outside game is necessary. Because
the outside game pushes the envelope, opening up new frontiers, it
pushes
concepts into the mainstream that are -- by definition -- not
really accepted
yet. When you depend on the establishment to do your bidding, you
have to
distance yourself from the outside game. The smartest of the
inside game folks
recognize how the ecosystem works, though, and often provide
discreet support
and/or intelligence to the outside game.
Less savvy inside gamers allow themselves to be
persuaded that the outside game
is dangerous, puts the agenda at risk, endangers the country. This
is helped
along by disruptors (posing as part of the movement) who are
actually working
for the opposition. In the civil rights movement, and in the anti-
Viet Nam War
movement, there were paid infiltrators who posed as activists, but
those
individuals persuaded many real activists over to a more
controlled, less
"dangerous" point of view. They also helped pit them against the
outside game.
It's all part of the play book.
You don't catch criminals by passing a rule against it.
The outside game defines the problem a bit differently. Let me
give you an
analogy to show just how ridiculous the current inside game is to
those of us
who start with the premise that there just might -- possibly -- be
a criminal
enterprise at work in certain election situations.
Let's say it's small, localized, and simply mercenary. For $40,000
a guy with
inside access will make sure a developer-friendly commissioner
gets in. To get
the guy in, he arranges to exploit a known hole in voting machine
security.
Now, the Rush Holt bill will have you wait a
couple years before it even gets to
the rules committee, where the lobbyists step in and gut the bill.
So that
won't do a thing to protect 2006, because it wont be in effect by
then, and it
probably won't protect 2008 because even if it
makes it to the rules committee,
it will be quietly tweaked behind closed doors.
So the guy pockets his $40,000 and the commissioner gets into
office. It will
almost certainly never be discovered, because there are no audit
provisions
anywhere for electronic voting machines likely to catch this
stuff, but let's
say it does get caught.
If you're playing the inside game, you take this example of the
$40,000 cheat
and spend nine months discussing it into new standards, then a
couple years to
grandfather the old voting systems, and finally, around 2009, you
address what
the guy did for $40,000 back in 2006.
By this time, another guy is selling elections using a different
back door. He
builds a better hack, having learned from the NIST discussion what
they ARE
looking at. All he has to do is go where they are not looking.
If you're worried about national politics, listen up:
In a time-critical situation, the inside game runs out the clock.
Let's not call this dirty tricks or Rovian spin or pretend it is
just the way
hardball politics work. If we can't substantiate the data in our
elections
systems (both voter registration and votes) these weaknesses will
attract
people who want to manipulate elections. Subverting election-
related data is a
criminal act. If it involves more than one
person, it is a criminal enterprise.
If criminal enterprises want to manipulate a
national election by attacking the
data, that criminal entity will be thrilled to see activists
derailed into
sincere actions that actually just run out the clock.
Efforts to steer everyone to the inside game a a bit insidious.
Think for
yourself.
The idea that you can solve election fraud by
making standards, putting machines
into testing labs, and doing poorly defined, weak, and statutorily
limited
audits came about because the inside game
thought it was impolite to define the
problem accurately.
It's not about a paper trail -- It's about banning SECRECY
If we want a trustworthy system, we need to be unafraid to
entertain the idea
that if you make any facet of elections secret (other than who a
person votes
for), it will attract criminals. Such a temptation may take place
inside a
voter registration database or voting machine vendor's operation.
In the case
of a rogue programmer, management need not even know (if the
programmer is
positioned correctly). It may exist inside an elections office, or
with a
pollworker, or through a political operative.
You won't stop it by passing a rule against it. We need to be
lobbying to end
secrecy and re-enable citizen oversight.
Lobbying for anything else may give us
"fine" elections but we'll never really know
whether our vote was counted as we
cast it.
Save your lobbying for something that eliminates
secrecy. And if only a computer
scientist can understand it or only an elections official can
monitor it, it's
still secrets. H.B. 550 doesn't do much of
anything to get at the core problem.
Wishing you the very best,
Bev Harris
Founder
Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
* * * * *
Black Box Voting is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501c(3) elections
watchdog group.
If you want Black Box Voting to exist, here is where you can vote
with your
credit card: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
or your checkbook:
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98055
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
THIS MESSAGE IS FROM THE Discuss_ER@xxxxxxxxxx LIST!
+ You are subscribed as saveseedsnow@xxxxxxxxxx
+ To LEAVE... mailto:Discuss_ER-LEAVE@xxxxxxxxxx
+ To Temporarily SUSPEND Notes... mailto:Discuss_ER-
SUSPEND@xxxxxxxxxx
+ To RESUME again afterwards... mailto:Discuss_ER-RESUME@xxxxxxxxxx
+ For HELP... mailto:Discuss_ER-HELP@xxxxxxxxxx
+ Contact Kat L'Estrange at Kinc@xxxxxxx for more info if needed.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>