Bradblog response to Alternet article on Holt bill

["Margit Johansson" <margitjo@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4294#more-4294

Steve Rosenfeld Critical of Our Call for a DRE-Ban in Article Published
Today at AlterNet
Says 'Voting Machine Purists Should Not Let The Perfect be the Enemy of
the Good'
We Disagree With Both the Premise and the Conclusion...

Using often inaccurate characterizations of my position, and the
position of those like me who are in favor of amending Rep. Rush Holt's
Election Reform Bill (HR811) to include a ban on Direct Recording
Electronic (DRE, often called "touch-screen") voting systems, my friend
Steve Rosenfeld filed an article today at AlterNet titled "Are Voting
Machine Purists Standing in the Way of Reform?" which is critical of my
position.

The piece is in direct response to an article of mine published at
AlterNet several weeks ago on the false arguments being put forward by
supporters of Rush Holt's Election Reform Bill (HR811) --- folks like
PFAW, Common Cause, MoveOn, etc. --- in trying to see the bill passes as
is and in opposition to an amendment that would ban dangerous,
unverifiable, disenfranchising DRE voting systems.

In the editorial, Rosenfeld, describes folks like me, misleadingly, as
"voting machine purists" and inaccurately suggest we have an "all or
nothing approach" to Election Reform. Further, he goes on to
mischaracterize a number of provisions of the Holt bill, as well as many
of the arguments that have been made in favor of banning DREs.

I just spoke with Steve...

He did not speak to me before filing his piece, but rather worked from
my original AlterNet piece --- adapted, in turn, from an article here at
BRAD BLOG --- and built his presumptions from there. His presumption, he
told me, was that various supporters of the legislation explained to him
that "the bill could not pass if it included a DRE ban." That premise,
itself, was examined --- and I thought, debunked --- by the original
article he was responding to. As well, he confirmed that he didn't hear
that argument directly from any Congressional offices who would actually
be voting on the bill, but rather, second and third hand from various
folks who have been in close touch with Holt's office and the
disinformation campaign they've been very actively running in support of
the bill.

Simply put, his argument is that folks like me are attempting to derail
the Holt Bill (not true, we've both worked on its development in
support, have detailed many of the very good and much-needed provisions
in the bill, and are now attempting to see it amended to help move us
closer to true Election Integrity, transparency, and verifiability).

Steve concludes his "Don't let 'the perfect' be the enemy of 'the good'"
argument thusly:

If a newly responsive Congress fails to act because of Internet-based
critics, those who say they are defending elections may end up
prolonging the very problems that they have worked to expose. HR 811 is
not a perfect solution, but it is more than a good start.

While my longtime girlfriend may be surprised to learn that I'm
"Internet-based", I'll leave the bulk and the specifics of Steve's
comments for you to assess on your own for the moment. It's a lengthy
and well-meaning (if misguided) response and will, undoubtedly, require
a lengthy response in response by me. I hope to find the time to create
such a response.

Since I don't, for the moment, I'll just underscore my point in
referring to Steve as a friend who has worked assiduously in the name of
election integrity, particularly along with the good Bob Fitrakis and
Harvey Wasserman at Columbus Free Press in their exhaustive
investigations of the 2004 Ohio election debacle. I don't believe Steve
had a nefarious purpose in writing his piece. I believe he was simply
misinformed about both the bill and the political landscape, which leads
to him being completely wrong in his conclusions about both.

Beyond that, as Steve was, until recently, the producer of Radio Nation
with Laura Flanders on Air America Radio, I might suggest that Laura
have both of us on to debate this most important matter live on the air.
I believe such an open and direct discussion would be very enlightening
for the entire debate.

While I'm at it, and while Congress has been having a series of hearings
to discuss the Holt bill, I might suggest that they too have a hearing
dedicated to the pluses and minuses (if they can find any) for a DRE ban.

UPDATE: Mark Crispin Miller, author of FOOLED AGAIN: How the Right Stole
the 2004 Election and How They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop
Them), responds to Rosenfeld's piece by writing, in part: "While I
respect Steve's point about the frequent need, in politics, for
incremental measures, I think that HR 811 could easily do more harm than
good. I oppose it only for that reason, and not because it isn't
perfect."