Richardson OP-ED: A reliable, verifiable vote in 2008

[seasat]

This is published in the Hill today.

In November 2008, voters will go to the polls and choose the next president of the United States and their representatives to Congress — or will they?

According to Common Cause, more than a third of our states still use voting machines that do not support hand recounts and provide no auditable paper trail. “One person, one vote” is the hallmark of America’s democracy, but to make sure that our next president is elected by people, not by the malfunction of an electronic voting machine, we must immediately move to a durable paper-ballot system backed by regular audits in every state in the nation. For these reasons, Congress should quickly pass H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007, introduced by Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) and cosponsored by more than 220 Democratic and Republican members of Congress.
...
New Mexico’s conversion to a paper-ballot system made sense. Paper ballots are the least expensive, most secure form of voting available. For people with disabilities, ballot-marking devices were available at every polling location to ensure that every voter was treated equally. Voters who required assistance to vote in their native language, such as Navajo, could also use ballot-marking devices. Using optical scanners meant quick and accurate results, while at the same time paper ballots became the permanent, verifiable, durable record of the vote.
...
One person, one vote is in jeopardy if we do not act boldly and quickly. It’s time we undertake national electoral reform that restores confidence in our electoral system and our democracy.

[beachmom]

1. Didn't Richardson stop a New Mexico recount in 2004? And then destroy the ballots?

Makes this essay he has written a bit cynical, doesn't it?

[Deep13]

3. No, he did not.

The Sec. of State declined to allow a recount because there was no legal basis for it.

[Alexander]

7. But he did allow DREs in New Mexico for 2004.

And NM went to Bush by the barest of margins, with accusations of electoral fraud.

I do not trust this man with my right to vote. He has shown, at best, to have terrible judgment on this issue.

[Deep13]

8. DREs?

Not familiar with that abbreviation, but I have participated in arguing this point about the recount ad nauseaum.

[Alexander]

12. DREs = direct-recording electronic (voting machine)

He approved of their use in New Mexico during the 2004 election. This probably caused NM to go to Bush - by the narrowest of margins.

No Richardson for me.

Although the Hillary fans probably like him and are salivating at the prospect of a Hill/Bill ticket, I don't.

[Deep13]

13. See, I don't equate Richardson with the Clintons.

I know he worked for Bill C. I was looking at him as an alternative to the socially liberal North-East urban candidates. It is those hot-button social issues that offend voters in a lot of those swing states. I think he has a better chance to do well outside of the 00/04 blue states than HRC. I also think he is the most qualified in terms of resume with the best chance to smooth overof foreign policy disasters.

I know we got screwed by those electronic machines. We had them in Ohio and they were nothing but trouble. Even if we had a D sec. of state or governor at the time, it would not have been his decision alone to allow them in. Still, to the degree that Gov. Richardson allowed DREs, yeah, that was not such a good idea. Here there was no one in power opposed to them and Sec. State Blackwell pretty much handed our electoral votes to Dubya. I don't think establishment Ds are sufficiently suspicious of to what ends the Rs will go to keep power.

[Alexander]

14. He looks good on paper. But policywise, no thanks.

My alternative to the "socially liberal North-East" candidates is Gore, who is currently tied with Obama in the polls without even announcing a presidential run.

Gore fought for every American's right to vote. Richardson screwed up. I won't be voting for Dodd either because of his promotion of the "Help America Vote Act".

[Deep13]

15. Well, yeah, if Gore runs he's my candidate.

I'm trying to figure out my irrelevant choice among candidates who are definitely running. Here's my problem.

HRC: Might not win in November. Too conservative economically and too liberal socially. Wants to take my guns away big time. High negatives might cost us Congress in a reverse coat-tail effect. Nothing is worth that. Not for immediately ending war. Not for real universal health care. No Senator has been elected since 1960.

Sen. O: Same concerns about conservative vs. liberal. Not really for universal health care. Not a lot of experience. Might end up being a Jimmy Carter with great ideas and no ability to make them a reality. gut feeling is he would have voted for IWR if in Senate at the time. Religosity is a bit disquiting after Dumbass. No Senator has been elected since 1960.

Sen. Edwards: Not much more governmental experience than Obama. Voted for IWR but later said it was a mistake. No real health care plan. Aggressive stance on war mongers makes him my 2nd choice.

Richardson, as indicated. Corporate ties means he is probably not committed to egalitarianism. Looks like he doesn't own the suit he is in. Not the best speaker. (OTOH, neither was Bush.) Not for real health care reform. Pros: Only governor running. Most extensive foreign policy background of anyone running. Wants to end the war immediately. Stated a commitment to new energy sources. Immune to NRA. Tough to stick him with N.E. liberal elitism. Negotiated arms control with N. Koreans and others.

Clark: not running.

Gore: Nearly perfect, but not running.

Biden/Dodd/Kucinich: no chance in hell of winning. All are more experienced that HRC, Obama or Edwards. No member of Congress has been elected since 1960 and even that was rare. Harding was only other Senator elected in 20th century and no House members were.

Out of this unimpressive bunch, the most tolerable seems to be Richardson to me.

[Deep13]

2. K, R.

:kick: :thumbsup:

[some guy]

4. Thanks for posting this.

It's an important issue, not receiving near enough coverage, and I'm also glad to see Mr Richardson getting some exposure.

( k & r )

:hi:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

5. Restore national integrity by imposing equal justice.

that's all

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

6. Okay, that was weird. How this post end up here?

:shrug:

[Peace Patriot]

9. Bill Richardson is for transparent vote counting the way Hillary Clinton is for

ending the war.

Not.

A "paper ballot" does not make vote counting transparent if 98% of said ballots never see the light of day, if the "numbers" are conveyed as electrons to central tabulators run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, and if you need to put up a ONE MILLION DOLLAR BOND to get a recount. Bill. Yeah, you, Bill!

[seasat]

10. Here's what I found on the NM 2004 election.

I wrote a journal article on it so I would have the links handy.

The NM system was in place before Richardson was elected in 2002.

New Mexico only has 5 electoral votes. Kerry needed 18 to win.

There were less than 4000 under-votes on countable paper ballots. * lead by 6000 votes. Repolling the electronic machines would have given the same result. Therefore, there was no way for Kerry to win NM with a recount.

Neither the Democrats nor the Kerry Campaign challenged the NM election in 2004. It was the Green and Libertarian Parties.

NM election commission required them to put up the cost of the recount as bond before proceeding. The Green and Libertarians refused. They took it to the courts. The courts backed the NM election commission. On Jan 14th the Secretary of State authorized the machines to be cleared so they could be reprogrammed for the school elections during the first of February.

Governor Richardson acknowledged the problem with electronic voting machines. Richardson then pushed through a model paper ballot bill (in time for the 2006 election) that required paper ballots with an auditable trail and random audits to assure accuracy.

[BradBlog]

11. Unfortunately, Richardson doesn't appear to have actually read the Holt bill...

Since it allows for the same DRE touch-screen machines that he OUTLAWED in New Mexico.

It would be nice if the bill did what Richardson claims it does in his op-ed. Unfortunately, it doesn't. But I suspect he, like so many others, have been fooled by the propaganda about the bill being put out by Holt's office and PFAW, etc.

AGain, the bill allows for the continuing use of Touch-screen DRE voting systems, that do not allow a user to verify their ballot either before or after the vote is cast and counted. Paper trails, required by Holt, are absolutely meaningless and can be gamed as easily as the internal numbers. Either way, 97% of the paper trails are not actually counted in the election and 100% are not counted on Election Night before announcing the "winner".

See http://www.BradBlog.com/Holt for much more on this unfortunate scam.