Serious Question: Would Andy Stephenson Have Supported HR 811 as Written?

[Bill Bored]

This is not meant to be an exploitive or emotional appeal in any way. It's a very serious question.

As far as I know, during the 109th Congress, Andy Stephenson supported 2 verified voting bills:

1. Senator Ensign's VIVA 2005 (S330) and

2. Congressman Holt's HR 550

What did both of these bills have in common? Not much. They were Senate vs. House, Democratic vs. Republican, maybe even conservative vs. progressive. Ensign's bill left the audits and recounts up to the states while Holt's bill required a 2% audit of all federal elections. And there were other differences.

But they both had this language in common:

Ensign:

"The individual permanent paper records produced under clause (i)
shall be used as the official records for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used."

Holt:

"The individual permanent paper records produced pursuant to subparagraph (A)
shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official records for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used."

Pretty close huh? Now let's look at the corresponding language in Holt's NEW bill -- HR 811:

"In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic vote tallies and the vote tallies determined by counting by hand the individual permanent paper ballots produced pursuant to subparagraph (A), and subject to subparagraph (D), the individual permanent paper ballots shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used."

"In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities...?" In other words, before the so-called paper "ballot" can become the official record of the vote, there has to be an audit or a recount AND there have to be inconsistencies or irregularities found.

Now, do you know what triggers a recount in HR 811 so that such inconsistencies or irregularities might actually be discovered? Absolutely NOTHING. There are NO recounts required by this bill -- EVER. Just random audits.

So there is absolutely no assurance that the voter-verified paper "ballot" will ever be used to decide the outcome of an election. Why? Because it's NOT required to be used for Recounts.

Now I'm sure Holt will say that his office had no idea about this problem, even though they wrote the damn bill, or that he wants to correct it, amend the bill, etc., etc., etc. But until that happy day, there is no reason for anyone to support this particular version of this particular bill, especially when there is a Senate version coming out that might address this problem and perhaps numerous other problems.

Meanwhile, go here, read about some other problems with the Holt bill, and ask yourself honestly what Andy would do in this situation. <http://www.votersunite.org/info/HR811EssentialRevisions.htm>
FYI, the Progressive Dems of America have signed the above letter. If anyone is in contact with them, perhaps you can get them to post a statement here on DU. Or if you happen to be a member, consider signing it too.

And I'm genuinely asking those who knew Andy best what they think he would have wanted or would have done in this situation.

I think supporting the Holt bill at this time sends exactly the wrong message. So what would Andy do?

[troubleinwinter]

1. I would never speak for Andy.

He spoke for himself. It was a draft written when he was very ill, but he WANTED to leave it for us.

What a ballot is: It is not merely a piece of paper, it is me...it is my voice. Each of us should guard it more than we would our most prized or precious possession. That ballot protects our other possessions. Without it you have no say. Over the last couple of years I have been adamant about the need for a voter verified paper ballot. It has been the driving force behind what I have done and will continue to do. To me, my ballot is the most sacred sacrament of the secular religion we call Democracy.

I have traveled around this country meeting with Election Officials such as Michelle Townsend. I sent her into a tailspin when I put a camera in her face. Mischelle Townsend as you remember was the County Registrar in Riverside CO. Ca. Mischelle is a drippy sweet kind of woman but underneath beats the heart of a true viper. Mischelle has unwavering faith in Sequoia Voting Systems. She is a huge proponent of paperless DRE's. Where is Mischelle now? Well last I heard she was at home tending to her father-in-law's knee. She spent her last day at work holed up in her office with the door closed to avoid cameras. David Elliot is another viper. David was the head honcho over at NASED. He was the one person most responsible for allowing DRE’s to be approved for use. David was another really bad guy. He told me that he would have liked to have been able to talk less formally “without the camera.” I am sure he would have. But hey…I wanted to keep him honest. David retired from service to the state to attend to a “nervous condition.” Another piece of work was Scott Konopasek. Scott was the Registrar in San Bernardino Co Ca. Scott was the man responsible for DRE’s in two places, Snohomish WA and San Bernardino CA. Scott once remarked that Bev and I were waging “Jihad”, but not in a “Palestine Israel sense of the word, but in more of a Northern Ireland sense of the word.” Excuse me but WTF? Scott is now a “consultant” I worry when former elections officials become consultants. The one thing all these people have in common is an undying faith in paperless voting. I would say that they were all crooked but that would get me sued so I won’t say it. But I had no faith that they were protecting the ballot.

Now I know that I have gotten off track here and talked about all the bad guys in elections but there are people protecting your ballot. Some examples are Freddie Oakley of Yolo County California, Ion Sancho of Leon County Florida and Kevin Shelly and Julie Anne Kempf formerly of King County Washington. These people are examples of people working hard to protect our right to vote and in the case of Julie Anne losing their job in the process. I have talked here about the people but not ballots up to this point. There is a reason for that. The first group of people is out to get your ballot the second wants to preserve your ballot.

There are currently many definitions and thoughts on the subject of ballots. Some would argue that paper records or paper trails can serve the same purpose as a paper ballot. All legislation I see coming from Washington these days talk of Paper records/trails that are kept in a similar manner as ballots. They are to be the official record of the election and are to be used in case of manual recounts. As an example of how hard this would be, let’s look at Diebold’s VVPAT. A long register receipt type “paper trail” is printed. Granted it is better than what does not come from their DRE’s now but it would be very difficult to “hand” count. So why spend money on it, if it does not really do what we want it to do? It is similar but not the same as a ballot. Imagine a 75 year old trying to read the small type on that paper trail. Some, such as our first group of people would argue that an electronic version of the ballot is ok and perfectly acceptable. David Dill explains that voting on DRE’s is like handing your ballot to a man behind a curtain, telling him how you want to vote, he fills in your choices and you never see the ballot again. This is UNACCEPTABLE! Our ballot must be human readable we must be able to discern our own choices and not leave it to a machine interface. Now this is not always possible as in the case of the blind but there are technologies that help the blind to vote in secret that produce a ballot. Equipment such as Automark produces an optical scan or human readable ballot. The ballot is printed on a heavy weight 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper with standard markings. Any human or optical scan machine can read these ballots and they are ideal for hand counts should the need arise.

Now there are many people that say we should be all hand counted paper all the time. In an ideal world we would do that. But realistically that is not going to happen. Elections offices in most jurisdictions if not all, are under funded. Elections officials struggle with tight budgets and in most cases do a damned good job with what they have. Not all elections officials are bad and many want to run good clean elections. Keeping the system honest is up to us. With proper auditing and truly random recounts optical scans are the safest and most accurate way to count an election. The trouble starts when the votes are sent via electronic means to a central tabulator. I would also add that the tabulator needs to be as secure as Ft. Knox because after all our votes are more precious than gold.

Much of Andy's work was not merley to fight "the battle", but to teach others to learn, annalyze, weigh, fight, struggle, and to recognize our allies as well as enemies..

My own opinion has been quite obvious for over a year and a half in my signature. I demand paper ballots (not 'trails' or 'receipts'), rigorously and randomly audited. Optical scan seems the most sensible. I don't oppose hand count at all, I would support it, if we develop a workable system for our complicated ballots (we are not near that at all). I oppose those who would give us chaos and catasrophe by insisting on hand-count without a plan and system.

I don't think Andy's intention was for us to ask 'WWAD', but to do what we are doing: think, learn, analyze, fight the bullshitters and liars tooth and nail, realize our allies, and never, ever give up, and demand a Voter Verified Paper Ballot.

[Bill Bored]

2. The supreme irony is that we had 2 bills last year in which the paper "record"

had to be used for recounts. But now we have a bill in which a paper "ballot" does NOT have to used for recounts.

The whole thing makes me want to puke. But we will fix it.

Thanks for posting this!

[EFerrari]

13. That's exactly right, trouble.

:)

[BeFree]

3. Bad Bill, no not you Bill, but THE bill

Andy said:

....Not all elections officials are bad and many want to run good clean elections. Keeping the system honest is up to us. With proper auditing and truly random recounts optical scans are the safest and most accurate way to count an election. The trouble starts when the votes are sent via electronic means to a central tabulator. I would also add that the tabulator needs to be as secure as Ft. Knox because after all our votes are more precious than gold.....

So it looks like Andy'd want a total rewrite. Maybe a whole new bill even, one that flat out called for audits, audits and more audits. A bill that covered all the bases and excluded the dependence on software enabled electronics that are too secretive for public elections.

[JohnGideon]

4. Andy and I Argued About This Issue

Andy always argued for "paper ballot" as you all have stated. I argued that it didn't really matter what it was called as long as it was what we all want the paper ballot to be. They could legally call it a "garage door" and define it as what we think of as a paper ballot and that would now be the legal definition a "paper ballot". Unfortunately Holt turned the tables on us.

Rather than changing the legal name and defining that as what we think a paper ballot should be; Holt stole "paper ballot" from us and defined it as what is, in fact, a 'voter verified paper trail'. I think this was a calculated move to garner more support from the "paper ballot" community thinking we are all dumb enough to see the words and then blindly support the bill.

We aren't and it's not going to happen.

[Febble]

5. Would you like to define

what you would regard as a "paper ballot"?

That would be useful.

Thanks

Lizzie

[Cookie wookie]

8. Some of us have fought hard to have the paper from DREs

defined as a "paper ballot" because we were stuck with DREs. The paper printout needs to be designated as the "ballot of record." Combine this with random audits of that will determine the outcome within a 99% confidence rate. This turns the DREs into nothing more than ballot printing devices and undermines their value, thus putting a stake in the heart of DREs. Of course, the Holt 811 bill does not have the audits right yet, which is a shortcoming that can be fixed. We would need to change the language in Holt that says it's the ballot of record for audits and recounts to making all the paper the ballot of record period. Paper absentee would have to be included in the audits as well. That would do it.

Edited to add it has to be a voter verified paper ballot!

[Bill Bored]

15. Recounts also need to be Hand Counts. Not required by this bill except for audits

or recounts triggered by audits.

[Bill Bored]

6. Even worse....

...the "paper ballot" does not even have to used for recounts!

Do we know if this was intentional or unintentional?

[Cookie wookie]

9. That's definitely a flaw that needs to be fixed! n/t

[BeFree]

7. "...stole 'paper ballot' from us..'"

And yet we've got people right here wanting us to make minor changes to the bill.

I say the bill coddles the current election system vendors and even goes so far as to make them all bright, shiny, and new looking. What we are dealing with here is a bunch of used car salesman.

[EFerrari]

14. No. You are exactly right. They steal the words for their own uses.

That's about the level of engagement we need to expect from them. In fact, this is their area of excellence -- appropriating our terms for their uses.

[Melissa G]

10. A paper ballot that is not designed to hold up to recount is No Paper Ballot.

Thermal Paper not not meet this test. Paper rolls that are not thermal will likely not meet this test.

What Republicans have gotten good at is stealing big. Stealing past margins that mandate automatic recounts. Stealing in too many ways to prove under short deadlines. Making the costs too prohibitive for recounts. The ability to do recounts is incredibly important. Andy held that paper ballots were incredibly important and under duress well.. a paper trail was better than nothing...

But when what is at risk is our Democracy, why just settle for better than nothing?
Indeed, who in their right mind could now settle for better than nothing when we see what the loss of our votes has cost us...

The loss of our Children and those of the mothers in Iraq...
The lost present of those families whose members are serving in Iraq because of *'s lies
The lost futures of those who have honorably served and yet come home damaged by war
The loss of respect for America around the world because of Shrub's pResidency
The loss of our billions of dollars to *'s corporate warmongering friends...

Time, Treasure and Talent... all lost because of the loss of our vote.

An accurately counted paper ballot in 2000 would have saved much.

[FogerRox]

11. I think Andy would have thought about what is right....

and then advocated for what he thought was right, he would have made his case and taken to the people.

Kinda like we do. AS we carry on with the "Mission", advocating for positive change, based on what we think is right. Just like Andy.

[MissWaverly]

12. Andy would say no, he was for voter verified paper ballots

not receipts, I have seen the so called receipts, they are discarded and are meaningless,
they use them here in Maryland, and they are flimsy paper and could never be used
for a recount.