}DUer - Missouri Activists Fight Back - No More E-Voting State Initiative Announced--Rocking!!! (X)

[kster]

Posted by: autorank

DUer "galloglas" is behind this in a big way. It's the first real challenge to the e-voting monster that's ruined citizen access to elections and screwed us time and again. Lets support Missouri as a national model!!!



http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00271.htm

Collins: Missouri Activists Say “Show Me The Vote”!

Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 2:46 pm
Article: Michael Collins

Major Voting Rights Initiative Announced



George Caleb Bingham’s “The County Election,” Boone County, Missouri” 1851



Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC


Kansas City, MO. A diverse group of Missouri activists made history today when they announced a 2008 ballot initiative to return their state elections to paper ballots. The country has adopted electronic voting at a break neck pace since 2000 propelled by over $6 billion in subsidies by the White House and Congress.

This announcement marks the first major resistance to the e-voting trend. If the initiative gets on the ballot and passes, Missourians will be voting on and hand counting paper ballots. Canada, Ireland, Italy, and England all vote on hand count paper ballots. The United States did as well until the rush to electronic voting rendered the traditional paper ballot all but extinct.

Phil Lindsey a Missouri activist and Director of ShowMeTheVote.Org, presented the initiative in a speech tonight at the University of Missouri, KC before a packed hall. The initiative announcement was preceded by Stealing America: Vote by Vote a film by Emmy award winner Dorothy Fadiman. A panel of election experts discussed the film and American elections in the age of e-voting..

Show Me!

Lindsey offered a stark assessment of the U.S. elections today by reviewing the short but intense history of wide spread electronic voting since 2000. He pointed out the thousands of reported failures plus key election results that were simply without explanation. He argued for the return of citizen access to and participation in elections. Under the proposal, citizen involvement in taking and counting votes represents the cure for inaccurate vote counts, suspected election fraud, and declining voter.

It is simply not possible to know who wins an election when votes are taken and counted on computerized voting machines which are not even available for public inspection.

He discussed the initiative principles, which are straight forward:


You’ve now seen a very troubling film, you’ve heard someone speak of troubling elections.. I’m going to offer you a solution Under MO law we have two options. The first is the constitutional initiative petition requiring hand counted paper ballots in the state of Missouri. The second solution is local. When you have election directors who will not listen to you, accommodate you, and entertain your wishes, you have the right to vote them out of office. Consequently we’ve written ten principles (see Appendix). Local election directors who endorse the principles are on your side. Those who don’t will face challenges in upcoming elections.


ShowMeTheVote.Org is a non partisan voting rights organization. Their goal is to build alliances around the state regardless of party affiliation or ideology. “This is not a Democrat, Republican, or Independent issue. Free and fair elections are an American issue.”

To gain ballot status in Missouri, an election initiative needs to have 140,000 valid signatures. Show Me the Vote has 28 days to submit ballot language to the state for approval and then another 14 months to gather the signatures.

Interview with Phil Lindsey

“Scoop” spoke with Mr. Lindsey after the event:

Scoop: What is the essence of your proposal?
Lindsey: Our over riding goal is to put the control of elections back in the hands of the citizens and take it away from the corporations. Hand counted paper ballots and responsive elections directors are the means to that end.

Scoop: What other groups will you approach to support this initiative?
Lindsey: We will seek out those who are most disenfranchised by the current system: minorities, the elderly, the voters who were targeted in the Voter Photo ID legislation, and other groups who are routinely shoved out of the elections.

Scoop: Why should people feel there’s a need to return to an older technology?
Lindsey: They’re damned unhappy with new voting technology, the results, and the fact they have nothing to say about the process. Voters now lack the ability to verify elections and they end up depending on the good word of officials who lack their trust. Citizens wish to take back their original Constitutional rights.

Scoop: Why did we abandon paper ballots in the first place?
Lindsey: Because we were bamboozled, sold on the fact that voting on something new, bright, and fancy would make it a better world and us a happier people. As usual it didn’t work and now we see that.

Scoop: How will you carry out and finance the initiative effort?
Lindsey: This will be an entirely grass roots movement. We will take no foundation money and donations will come with no strings attached. We will do this alone. We’re telling people your bucks stops here. We’re asking them to dig deep, long, and hard. Give what you can give and we will spend it wisely to get our democracy back.

Missouri’s Choice: Show Us the Vote

Election Day 2007 in Missouri will offer citizens of the Show Me state the chance to be the first state in the country to just say no to electronic voting. The process will be an uphill battle by the citizen groups supporting the measure. Once on the ballot, the challenge will be even greater with tens of thousands of dollars in anticipated contributions by e-voting manufacturers to fight the proposal.

Ultimately, it is the choice of the people that matters. Public opinion polls show a runaway trend against e-voting. Missouri voters may lead the nation in making that trend official and returning to a centuries old American tradition.


Appendix:


Description

Show Me The Vote is dedicated to the proposition that all elections should be:


1) open and transparent to the public, from the casting of the ballot to the final counting of ballots. Further, that the final tabulation of ballots be made and posted at the place they are cast.
2) that the sanctity of the voting franchise is an inviolable right and, as such, the control of elections must never be given over to private or corporate entities.
3) that voting is the Keystone upon which democracy rests, and where there is no accountability and transparency, there is no democracy.
4) that the choice of the people should determine the manner and method used to cast and count their votes.
5) that the manner of casting and counting of votes should be intelligible to the least sophisticated of voters. To that end, our common human senses of sight and hearing should be the method used to measure the outcome of elections.
6) that, in keeping with maximum transparency and intelligibility, voting should be carried out on hand counted paper ballots. Further, that those ballots be archived for their lifetime.
7) that those officials responsible for the day to day administration of electoral process owe their first allegiance to voters whom they serve. As such, those officials should administer, and carry out, elections in the manner chosen by the voters.
8) that all elections should observable by citizens and the press, from the time that the polls are first opened until the final tally is completed and posted.
9) that the citizens of any democratic government have the inherent right to determine, through observation, the fairness and accuracy of all elections.
10) and, to that end, we demand that the state of Missouri abandon the use of electronic or mechanical marking or counting devices in favor of hand marked and hand counted paper ballots.


So say we all:

To that end, we voters demand of Missouri, one and all,

”Show Me The Vote!”


END


©Copyright: Please feel free to reproduce and distribute this in any fashion you feel suitable with an attribution of authorship and the publisher, “Scoop” Independent News, plus a link to the article



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x305052

[robinlynne]

1. How many times may I recommend this OP?

[galloglas]

2. As many as you can get away with!

Perhaps Skinner will give Mid-America a dispensation!

Thanks, robinlynne! Keep an eye peeled for Missouri. If we can pull this off, perhaps we can help out the other 18 states with the Initiaitive Petitions.

Wow, it really feels good to take the gloves off with these guys,. the EDs, the Sos, the machine companies, etc.

Feels good to strike back. And, the last two nights we have had screenings and rallies, the public is ready to fight also!

[kster]

4. The star of the show

Thank You, galloglas you did great, Heres a :toast: to you! :yourock:

[galloglas]

8. Thanks, Kster!

BTW, the pilot of Air Force Two said that there was no one on the tarmac when he came to pick you up at O'Hare. Figured you must be at Midway instead and aborted, as the Midway "rumway" was too short.:rofl:

[mod mom]

9. Great job G, as someone who knows how difficult it is to get signatures.

:yourock:

[autorank]

16. As they say, "Vote early and often" but only once if allowed;)

Phil's taking it to the people. What a shock. There's no expert panel, no election "officials" to tell us how hard done by they are, no special interest group bull shit,,,just the people, reviewing, signing a petition, and voting. That picture above has Phil's Great, great great grandfather in it. I guessed the guy to the far left hoisting a "refreshment" but I was corrected.

This is where it's at...the states, the people, the real deal.

[galloglas]

3. Hi Kevin

Isn't that a pretty picture up there?

And, believe it or not, my GGGrandfather is one of the people in the picture (he is one of the dirt farmers in the front).

But he got to vote on paper, and I want to also!

That picture is 1851, and ten short years before my GGGfather served as top sergeant in George Caleb Bingham's nephew's Company of Enrolled Missouri Militia, Company H of the 71st EMM. Captured at Glasgow, Missouri, in October 1864.

[kster]

5. Whats going on Phil, Are you causing

problems in Missouri, Don't you know that THE PEOPLE can't count past 200. Damn it Phil, machines count elections not THE PEOPLE, Obviously Your GGGREAT grandfather didn't get the memo :sarcasm:

GO Phil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh and THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:

Kevin

[autorank]

10. Ah ha! A detail I didn't gather...

I thought the representative of the clan "galloglas" was the gentleman sitting at the table receiving
refreshmenet (far left). Maybe that was your GGGcousin. You can move the Irish out of Ireland but
you can never take the Irish out of the Irish.

Great work!!! Sorry I couldn't be there in person as planned.

[troubleinwinter]

34. Charming story, though inaccurate.

"And, believe it or not, my GGGrandfather is one of the people in the picture (he is one of the dirt farmers in the front).... But he got to vote on paper, and I want to also!"



It does not depict paper ballots, as they were not used until 1863 in MO. The slips of paper depicted are not ballots, they are capaign notes to voters with a candidate name.

The picture was painted in 1851-1852, and depicts "a polling place on the steps of the courthouse in Saline County, Missouri, in 1846" (painted 5-6 years after the event).

"Balloting, which in those days was not secret, proceeds on the courthouse porch. The process was particularly open to corruption, since it was easy to eavesdrop and thereby intimidate voters or verify if bribes had been effective." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_10_88/ai_66306835

"There was no right to a secret ballot; having been sworn in, the voter simply called out his choices to the election clerks who sit on the porch behind the judge tallying the vote. Each clerk has a pollbook in which he writes the voter's name and records his votes; multiple pollbooks were a common defense against clerical error. There are several people in the painting holding paper tickets in their hands. We know that these were not paper ballots because Missouri continued to use voice voting until 1863." http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/pictures/

Just thought you might be interested in a little true history.

[Ellipsis]

37. Thats pretty cool

And, believe it or not, my GGGrandfather is one of the people in the picture (he is one of the dirt farmers in the front).... But he got to vote on paper, and I want to also!"

and good info.

[galloglas]

41. Thanks, btmlndfrmr

It truly is remarkable.

And if "Trouble in Winter" is terribly troubled by the veracity of my claim, I think I could send a copy of the land grant given to my GGGrandfather in 1833.

Either that or his War Record, when my ancestor rode with Bingham's nephew, from 1861 until his capture in Octoberm 1864.

But I suspect he is really more "Troubled" by Missourians wanting their voting franschise back, thus the nitpricking over whether paper was used in that election, or not.

And if "Troubling Winter" is such an expert on where this election was held, or, rather what "background" was used for the painting, I would ask "Troubling" to verify the backdrop to the painting as being in which town in Saline County Seat (despite what those learned histories, and academics might say)? The backdrop gives it away.

Or, perhaps he might even check out the possibility that the only local County Seat that suits the scenery is Columbia, in Boone County, Missouri.

Bingham, like others, used the painting equivalent of "poetic license".

If "Troubling' is not satisfied by that, then perhaps I should withdrawn my claim at historical accuracy... and say instead that, if it is Saline County, indeed, that the "dirt farmer" relative of mine is actually my GGGranduncle, whose land claim was in Saline County, where he is enumerated in the 1850 census.

But, perhaps, "Troubles" doth protest too much?

Take care, btm,

see you at the Courthouse,

galloglas


PS. Of course, since both men (and their brothers) lived in Missouri until the early 1900s, they did vote on paper (since 1900 is after 1863), and I want to also!

[troubleinwinter]

43. I did not question

the "veracity" of your claim, and certainly don't care about land grants or war records. I did not interpret "backgrounds" or "backdrops", I quoted (and linked) what "what those learned histories,<sic> and academics" have written.

You stated that paper ballots were used (in either 1846 or 1851) and I thought you might be interested to know that they were not used in Missouri until 1863.

If my moniker is so "troubling" to you that you see a need to repeatedly mock it, you can just call me 'Bob' if you find it less of a distraction. The last time someone bothered to mock it similarly was on a hate site that is the opposite of liberal/progressive. I don't know why it is so entertaining.

[Ellipsis]

44. Nah,Troubleinwinter's all right... and "she" has been here longer then me.

... acerbic at times (like I'm not...right) but to the point.

I'd say shes feisty but she'd call me sexist and most likely kick my ass. :evilgrin:


Hopefully you will be able to post more details when it's appropriate.

[galloglas]

45. Thanks, btmlndfrmr,

And, yes, "more details when it's appropriate."

That will be when the Initiative has made the necessary stops through the Missouri bureaucracy, is approved in its final form by the SoS, and is approved to have signatures gathered.

Estimated time is 4 weeks to six weeks, based on Initiatives filed within the past few years.

[livvy]

6. Excellent! On to the Greatest page where it belongs. n/t

[L. Coyote]

7. The Details PLEASE. How will the hand count be verified? etc. etc. ??

While it is exciting to see this move into the initiative petition arena, I await the details.

Most importantly, how will a hand count be verified?

Will 100% of ballots be machine (op-scan) counted/verified?

What is the situation with details? Will a group of Missouri citizens determine the details?

Is there a proposed statuatory text at this time? Who wrote it?

Will signature gatherers be volunteers or paid workers?

[galloglas]

11. And the details envelope, please!

While it is exciting to see this move into the initiative petition arena, I await the details.

Understandably.

Most importantly, how will a hand count be verified? (I hope I address the questions well enough. If any is still foggy, ask for elaboration)

1) By using serially numbered ballots, identifying down to the precinct level, no ballots may be slipped in, or out, of the number assigned to the precinct.

2) The hand count of paper ballots will be done twice, at the precinct, by two different sets of counters. Two verifiers will work with the two counting teams. When the counting teams come up with the same count, they turn the count over to the verifier, and counters and verifiers sign off on the count, after the two verifiers ascertain that the two teams have reached the same total.

As an additional safety feature, each completed ballot will be scanned to create a digital image of the numbered ballot (this does not disclose the identity of the voter) and burned to a CD. The .gif or .jpg images will be transmitted by modem to the Sec of States office before the precinct closes. Thus, any voter who remembers the last three digits of his/her ballot can check for that image at the SoS office by use of the internet, to insure it was counted as cast.

This also allows the entire world to audit any precinct by looking at, and counting for themselves, the digital images of the votes cast. All ballots assigned to a precinct are scanned. The total of ballots cast, ballots spoiled, and ballots unused must equal the count of the ballots delivered to the precinct. If not, the police are called.

All counting and casting is done in full view of press, cameras, and interested onlookers, maintaining a minimal distance (about 6 to 8 feet).

If election districts wish to use optical scans, they can only do so to establish an approximate estimate that equals an exit poll. Only the paper ballot, and the hand count of such, has an official meaning. Neither digital images, nor optical scan counts, can be used to trump the hand count.

Will 100% of ballots be machine (op-scan) counted/verified?

If the election authority, with the consent of the people of their district, choose to do so. It will not be mandatory.

What is the situation with details? Will a group of Missouri citizens determine the details?

The details have largely been worked out over the past two years. There will be no "governing body" which must reach consensus on the details to be inserted in the Initiative Petition. We tried that and it was impossible to do. Consequently, we have chosen to submit the best we can come up with for the consent of the voters. Either they like it, or they do not, and will reject it.

Is there a proposed statutory text at this time? Who wrote it?

Attorneys are turning the final proposals into acceptable text. This is submitted first to the SoS, then to the A.G., who send s it our for a cost study, then comes back to the SoS who approves it for signatures at that time.

Will signature gatherers be volunteers or paid workers?

Volunteers. This is a grassroots effort, funded by the grassroots, and accomplished by the grassroots. No foundation or corporate money, with any conditions attached, will be used in the effort.

[L. Coyote]

12. This may be unconstituional already. Doomed from Day 1.

We have a right to vote in private. Numbered ballots will be legally challenged, and lose.

"The .gif or .jpg images will be transmitted by modem to the Sec of States office before the precinct closes."

Every ballot in the state becomes an accessible image file? Do you realize how much data this is?

If this isn't written to be both feasible and acceptable, it will go nowhere.

Who "exactly" is writing this initiative?

How much experience do they have writing laws?

Creating an unacceptable proposal with only hamper the effort to get HCPBs. Who's idea was this anyway?

[fooj]

13. Excellent questions.

[galloglas]

14. Can't be unconstitutional

Edit to insert bolding and correct misspellings

This is a new Missouri article to its constitution, passed by consent of the people. Ergo, it is the new Constitutional imperative in Missouri if it is not prima facie unconstitutional by Missouri law.

Unless, of course, you can make a case for it being struck down by the SCOTUS.

We have a right to vote in private. Numbered ballots will be legally challenged, and lose.

Why? You cite no evidence. The voter is still able to vote secretly. The only IDing is of all particular ballots. Where/how is that unconstitutional?

"The .gif or .jpg images will be transmitted by modem to the Sec of States office before the precinct closes."

Yep.

Every ballot in the state becomes an accessible image file? Do you realize how much data this is?

Yeah. About 200 gigs on the average. Easily purchased at Best Buy for under $500 bucks>

If this isn't written to be both feasible and acceptable, it will go nowhere.

Your opinion, and yours alone. This is a decision to be made by "We the People" of Missouri, and no one else. If it is acceptable to them, it becomes the Constitutional Law of this state, unless that Law is found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

it will go nowhere.

What are your credentials to state this? What is your basis in law, or reasoning, to state such a thing. You know what they say about opinions.

Who "exactly" is writing this initiative?

What conceivable difference does that make to you, or anyone else? If you read RSMo 115 and RSMo 116, you might get a handle on how we work here, and what the procedures are.

After you master that, come back with specifics if they are pertinent. And, they are much more pertinent if you are a Missourian. So, are you?

How much experience do they have writing laws?

Again. What conceivable difference does that make to you, or anyone else? The earliest anyone will see the exact text would be over 30 days from now, after it makes its appointed stops in Missouri (BTW, read RSMO 115 and 116, and you, too, can understand what those steps are).

BTW, how much experience do you have in writing Constitutional Law? And what are your credentials for critiquing Constitutional proposals you've not even read?

You asked for some details and I kindly obliged you, simply to spell out how some things would work. Your response is an attack and denigration of the proposal itself, and you've not had access to the text?

Kindly tell me what you base those attacks on.

Is it simply to take the end result, and try to reason backwards to imagine how Missouri gets from here to there, and all the while your criticisms are based on nothing but speculations?

Aren't you coming to this table with a load of your own preconceptions about what must, and must not, be?

Creating an unacceptable proposal with only hamper the effort to get HCPBs.

Unacceptable to whom? To you? And are you a Missourian? If not, your concerns are of no matter to us in the Show Me state.

But, if you have successful run an Initiative Petition through your own home state, please help us by giving us the advantage of your experience. We are on the lookout for all of the pertinent data we can access.

Who's idea was this anyway?

If you can tell me why that is of any significance, perhaps I will furnish an answer. But it seems to me, the only thing pertinent here is the end result, which would be hand counted paper ballots in Missouri.

If you are a Show Me citizen and have specific questions past what I hae already given you, please ask.

But unqualified judgments from someone from "out-of-state", who is taking inaccurate and unsubstantiated potshots at our Show Me desires and aspirations, seems egregiously out of place to both Missourians who wish to regain control of our electoral process, and those from other states who either wish us well, or hope to learn from wish to learn from the process which we will play out.

Tell me, Mr. Coyote, just what stake do you have in this, anyway? Do you have skin in this game?

[autorank]

15. This is a great effort.

There two important milestones for this effort. The first is the signature gathering process, the second, the election. If the people say YES then I'll trust their judgment. It's going to be a huge effort to pull this off but the good people of Missouri and the general attitude opposing the technological nightmare of the pseudo "expert" driven process we have today will merge with the outrage of all 50 states at the criminal behavior conducted by the WH and create a perfect storm - to wash away the joke that has become our electoral process.

When I was a child, I would accompany my mother to vote in California. Talk about a big ballot! The direct amendment process to the constitution produced 5-15 ballot initiatives or more every election plus the candidates. Those ballots got counted and results were announced. This is the answer to the questions about viability of paper ballots. We did it for over a century. What's the big problem?

This will be a great day for democracy when the people's will is considered.

[kiteinthewind]

17. Excellent rebuttals, galloglas!

:toast:

[L. Coyote]

20. This is a decision to be made by "We the People" of Missouri...

I ignore most of this response, and address several relevant points only.

"... This is a decision to be made by "We the People" of Missouri..."

Exactly. But, someone writes the language and proposes to place the initiative on the ballot. Then, and only then, do " 'We the People' of Missouri.." get to approve or decline the proposed idea and language offered.

However, "We the People" are not writing the language, and you are refusing to telling us who is.


"What are your credentials to state this?"

A Chief Petitioner of initiative process who understands the pitfalls (and who impacted the history of initiative processes).


Who "exactly" is writing this initiative?
"What conceivable difference does that make to you, or anyone else? "

Who is writing the language? Who is The Decider? "We the People" of Missouri have a right to know.


"...your concerns are of no matter to us ...."

Constitutionality and infeasabilty are concerns, and to off-handly dismiss them may spell doom.


"...please help us by giving us the advantage of your experience. We are on the lookout for all of the pertinent data ..."

So which is it?

[galloglas]

22. Yes, "We the People" of Missouri will decide

I ignore most of this response, and address several relevant points only.

The I, too, will "ignore most of this response, and address several relevant points only."

"... This is a decision to be made by "We the People" of Missouri..."

Exactly. But, someone writes the language and proposes to place the initiative on the ballot. Then, and only then, do " 'We the People' of Missouri.." get to approve or decline the proposed idea and language offered.

Precisely.

However, "We the People" are not writing the language, and you are refusing to telling us who is.

I ask again. What difference does it make to you?

Only the language, when approved by the proper Missouri authorities, and placed on the ballot, will matter. The voters of this state (BTW, you refuse, again, I assume, to answer whether you are ar Missouri resident?) will decide whether they wish to vote for approval, or disapproval. of the language proposed in the Constitutional Initiative.

The language will be the language. What possible difference can it be to you, or the voters of Missouri, for that matter, whether the words were put down by Benjamin Franklin or Benjamin Bunny?


"What are your credentials to state this?"

A Chief Petitioner of initiative process who understands the pitfalls (and who impacted the history of initiative processes).

So, for the historical record, please enumerate which past Missouri Initiative Petitions you have authored? Perhaps, then, we could take you seriously.

It has been anticipated that this Initiative will be attacked with full fury by all machine-heads and vested machine manufacturers, and their K street toadies, and their lackeys in Congress. The less they know, and the later they know, the less we have to concern ourselves with them.

You made an initial post for details, and you were provided with them. Had you been a friend to the Initiative petition, you would have PMed me about anything further.

At the least, you would not have launched an attack, Prof. J, upon something you had not yet seen. Yet you did. I do not claim that you are one of those whom we have anticipated attacks from, yet your replies do their work for them, no? They need not attack while others, whatever their motives, or whomever they are, do so for them. Correct?

Why this fervent, demanding interest in something which you have no obvious business being in?

If you do have business, state it. If you have help, offer it. If not, wait for the fullness of time to pass and even you, an apparent out-of-state kibitzer, Will see the petition when it is published in the Missouri Register.

Who "exactly" is writing this initiative?
"What conceivable difference does that make to you, or anyone else? "

Who is writing the language?

Since I see no reason to vet this with a disembodied and hostile voice from cyberspace, I will not. Had you been a friend of the petition, you would not have presented yourself in the way you did.

Being no friend to the petition, your only reason to ask such a question would be to mount an attack.

If you were so qualified as to do a better job than those who are about the task now, you would have done so already.

But you have not, have you? Why don't you vet your credentials here?


Who is The Decider?

Anyone who wishes to mount a petition in Missouri may so. Why do you proceed to do just that? It is one of the presumed plans of attack by the machineheads, to divide and confuse those who really wish HCPBs, so why don't you just pre-empt them and use your status as a Missouri voter to do just that?

"We the People" of Missouri have a right to know.

The people of Missouri have a right to VOTE, yea or nay, on the petition. No entity putting forth a petition is obligated to disclose from whence their ideas, or words, come. In Missouri, the proof of Petition Puddings is in the tasting.


"...your concerns are of no matter to us ...."

Precisely. Why bother ourselves with the attacks of Outlanders?

Constitutionality and infeasabilty are concerns, and to off-handly dismiss them may spell doom.

Had you bothered to familiarize yourself with RSMo 115 and 116, you would not be raising the question of Constitutionality. And, as an Outlander, certainly not with the Missouri Constitution.


"...please help us by giving us the advantage of your experience. We are on the lookout for all of the pertinent data ..."

So which is it?


You've given no evidence of any experience, or expertise, in Missouri Initiative. Nor any other state, for that matter. If you had, you would have received a friendly reception when you would have emailed, or PMed.

So far, you have attacked what you have not seen. Pompously questioned that which has no direct effect on you. And shown not even a modicum of respect for what was an announcement only.

If you have such a great regard for the law that we Missourians will ive under, where is your prior input? What have you done for HCPB Initiative in this state? Or any others?

Again, I assume you are not a machine vendor's apparatchik. Yet, I see no other reason for an Outlander to go on the attack for a proposed State Initiative, one which might benefit, by example, more state's than this.

So, you not being a vendor's Cat's Paw, why do you not explain yourself, rather than demanding explanations of me?

[fooj]

21. Can't anyone simply ASK a legitimate question?

What the hell is the matter with you people? Don't WE ALL have "skin in this game"? If this is JUST about Missouri, don't we have an appropriate forum to discuss Missouri business?

Your tone is offensive. Is this the United States of Missouri? Just because people don't live in MO, it doesn't mean they aren't interested in election integrity. You behave as though only a dozen or so people in this country give a damn. That's simply not true. I've been observing that anytime ANYONE on DU disagrees with a particular point of view they are maligned, ridiculed or demeaned. WTF is that all about? Credibility is EARNED. There are many people who truly care about election reform and your response is basically GO POUND SAND! It's ALWAYS you're with us or against us. WHO DOES THAT SOUND LIKE?

[galloglas]

23. Legitimacy doesn't seem to be your long suit!

What the hell is the matter with you people?

We're very comfortable here in Missouri? What's your problem?

Don't WE ALL have "skin in this game"?

I don't see any of yours in it. If you do have some, prove it!

If this is JUST about Missouri, don't we have an appropriate forum to discuss Missouri business?

It has been posted in the Missouri forum. It also involves Election Reform, consequently, it is also posted here.

Your tone is offensive.

If mine is offensive, I would need input from others at DU-ERD to characterize yours. It is, IMHO, beyond the beyonds. I am at a loss for words.

Is this the United States of Missouri? Just because people don't live in MO, it doesn't mean they aren't interested in election integrity.

And if they are, it would seem that the people of Missouri deciding to exercise their Constitutionally given power of Petition Initiative, would be the cause of a Universal rejoicing. Whether we win or lose, we have decided to fight the good fight.

Given that, it automatically calls into suspicion anyone on the attack, no?


You behave as though only a dozen or so people in this country give a damn. That's simply not true.

And where did I say that?

I've been observing that anytime ANYONE on DU disagrees with a particular point of view they are maligned, ridiculed or demeaned. WTF is that all about?

That seems a little paranoid. Particularly as I haven't given a point of view. I simply posted an announcement.

Credibility is EARNED. There are many people who truly care about election reform and your response is basically GO POUND SAND!

I responded only to an Outlander who demanded, after attacking the Petition movement, that I vet our credentials to them: a hostile, faceless, cyber voice. My answer is, "No thanks. It doesn't serve my interests, or those of my fellow Missourians.

It's ALWAYS you're with us or against us. WHO DOES THAT SOUND LIKE?

It sounds like you, Fooj.

I just made an announcement. Pure and simple. Your reply is over the edge.

[fooj]

24. Honestly. Your projections are tiresome.

It's all about rational and reasonable debate. PARANOID? That's priceless. Take a moment from your "pit bull" attacks and read your responses to SEVERAL here on this thread. Your accusations are unfounded. "OUTLANDER"??? Do you have any facts to PROVE that outlandish accusation or is it just that someone actually had the temerity to pose questions YOU were uncomfortable answering. Talk about "over the top"...

Seriously. I hope all goes well in Missouri. Do you have the 140,000 signatures necessary to get this on the ballot? Will this serve the residents of Missouri in safeguarding their vote during the 2008 General Election? If you view these as "inappropriate" questions then so be it.

Given that, it automatically calls into suspicion anyone on the attack, no?

Wow. Thank you for answering your own question.

I don't see any of yours in it. If you do have some, prove it!

Didn't you claim on a previous post that you don't have to PROVE anything? That's quite a double-standard. BTW- I'm an American. The integrity of our voting DOES matter to me. That's the "skin" I have in all of this. I simply want fair and legitimate elections. Isn't that what you are interested in? Then why all of the namecalling and character smears? It makes no sense to me why an authentic activist would behave in this manner. Anyone with a legitimate platform debates their position methodically and logically. It's commonly referred to as the power of persuasion. Instead of claiming that someone is an "Outlander" or playing the perpetual victim, you might try behaving in a respectful and thoughtful manner by attempting to answer the questions posed. Is there really any need for defensive attacks? Don't you believe in rational, LEGITIMATE debate/communication? That's all I was asking for. That's all anyone should ask for. If you can't provide that...
THEN SO BE IT.

[galloglas]

25. This is the last communication

Instead of claiming that someone is an "Outlander".

This a Missouri specific Initiative.

I have asked both you and Coyote (the only two attacking the Initiative) if you are Missourians.

Neither of you answered, consequently, you are not Missourians, correct? Would you prefer "Foreigners" to the phrase "Outlanders"?

It is a term to note that you are not going to be affected by the vote, or the Initiative. For all that is concerned, you might as well be Swiss.


or playing the perpetual victim, you might try behaving in a respectful and thoughtful manner by attempting to answer the questions posed.

I was asked questions by Coyote. I answered them. Then the Initiative, and myself, were attacked (with no basis). I am not obligated to answers your questions, or Coyote's.

I posted an announcement regarding Missouri. End of story.

Any questions I answer after that are at my discretion alone.

And, from you and Coyote, that ends now. I am putting you on ignore. Anyone wondering why need only read the thread.

Is there really any need for defensive attacks?

Absolutely. When one makes an announcement, and is subject to gratuitous assualts upon self, and the subject of the announcement, self-defense is all that is left to someone being attacked.

Don't you believe in rational, LEGITIMATE debate/communication?

When one makes an ANNOUNCEMENT, there is no need for debate. You can read it or not, as you choose. I am not, however, subject to your cross-examination for making that announcement.

I'll let others judge for themselves the motives of Coyote and yourself in trying to grill someone about an announcement.

That at's all I was asking for. That's all anyone should ask for. If you can't provide that...
THEN SO BE IT.

SO BE IT! Your words. You are are ignore for being rude, arrogant and presumptuous.

[troubleinwinter]

35. This is ridiculous.

"It has been posted in the Missouri forum"

There is no discussion there, just a link, plus the claim:

"...even New Zealand is excited about what we <sic> about to do."

The link contains nothing about NZ being "excited".

Because autorank posted the article on a NZ website, it translates into NZ being "excited"? Do you have a link to anything to indicate so?

Seems you don't regard New Zealanders to be "Outlanders", but consider Americans to be.

[kiteinthewind]

26. I find it interesting that you find galloglas' tone offensive, but not the tone of coyote?

Missouri has a specific process that must be adhered to when doing a ballot petition. My guess is that, due to the huge amounts of money that the corporate voting machine vendors have in the game, that there is suspicion when someone DEMANDS to know details when they are clearly not in Missouri or involved in helping promote the initiative. I suspect that when the language IS completed and processed that it will be available for anyone, even those outside of the state, to view. I will direct you to the end of galloglas' first reply to Coyote's demands, which should give you some reassurance if you are concerned that interests other than 'we the people' could possibly influence the project=
galloglas: "This is a grassroots effort, funded by the grassroots, and accomplished by the grassroots. No foundation or corporate money, with any conditions attached, will be used in the effort."

[fooj]

29. Good luck to all of you.

You people have all lost your minds.

[StChuck]

42. And what have we Missourians lost our minds about?

Is it because we Missourians are putting forth an initiative petition for HCPBs? I call that citizen empowerment at work, not mind loss. Is it that the person who is spearheading this effort has given some basic information about the petition, but elects not to give a fuller response because s/he doesn't know the motive behind further inquiry? I call that wisdom, not mind loss. Resorting to name calling indicates weakness, fooj.

[fooj]

48. I will not allow you to define who I am.

As long as I've been a member here at DU (15,000+ posts), I have respected the perspectives and ideas of many on these boards. I admire my fellow DUers determination, dedication and passion for truth and justice. They inspire me. They give me hope. That's why I'm here. I'm here to contribute what I can and to be a part of the change so many of us are desperately working towards. We search for factual information/data to substantiate any claims we make. Many of us have worked tirelessly to protect the integrity and credibility of this site so that the community (citizens of this country) as a whole can depend on us for reliable, dependable information. Well-researched information. That's right. It's a COMMUNITY effort. We interact. We agree. We disagree. We debate. We inform. We encourage. We challenge. We are here for each other. That's how the majority of us at DU behave. We all have one thing in common. We all want CHANGE. POSITIVE CHANGE. We love our country. It's that simple.

You don't know anything about me. You WILL NEVER define who I am.

If it wasn't so annoying and insulting, I might find your post amusing. WHY PERPETUATE CHAOS AND CONFLICT? One thing is for certain. You'll probably find a few members who revel in paranoid fantasy's regarding "motives". Try not to let their persistent, delusional projections get you down. I guess it's bound to happen on an open board, eh? Then again, it does make one wonder why... nevermind.

"gratuitous assaults" "rude, arrogant, presumptuous" "Outlander"

I'm in full agreement with you re: your statement "Resorting to name calling indicates weakness". Yes. You are correct, HOWEVER, YOU HAVE MISTAKEN ME FOR OTHER POSTERS ON THIS THREAD. The words in bold are NOT MY WORDS. Take a GOOD, HONEST look at responses to posts on this thread and you'll be hard-pressed to miss all of the manipulations, distortions and unfounded accusations. Spin, spin, spin...

Is it because we Missourians are putting forth an initiative petition for HCPBs?

There are MANY election reform advocates here at DU. Some have been successful in passing election reform legislation in their respective states. I am proud of their accomplishments and am honored to know such dedicated and devoted patriots. And just to set the record straight (YET AGAIN), I never said that "Missourians" had lost their minds. That was YOUR PROJECTION of what I said. Funny how these small details can be so easily distorted.


Finally, I'll repeat what I've stated upthread...
I hope things work out for the residents of Missouri. I hope you are able to come together as a community and work things out re: election reform. Just a friendly reminder...check the facts, clarify and verify.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. ah, frustration

Sometimes it's a mystery why online communications can get so chippy.

I see this one pretty much the same way you do. In my life, we take it for granted that anyone you run into, you are likely to agree about some things and disagree about others, so we don't generally spend a lot of time indignantly asking each other, 'What could your motive be for asking that question?' and so forth. I think probably most DUers have the same attitude, but the ones who don't can have a big impact on the tone. And I find myself getting sucked into the spiral of humorlessness.

[L. Coyote]

30. Obviously, helpful questions are not needed.

I am not willing to participate in discourse that devolves to personal attacks, and will not reply to such.

This thread is all I need to know. The questions have been answered, albeit in your own fascion.

[troubleinwinter]

18. Welcome to the 1800s!

The secret ballot was instituted in this country in the 1880s specifically to fight rampant vote-selling.

The idea of numbered ballots invites and enables vote-selling and coercion. It is why our ballots are NOT numbered.

I think the Austrian businessman who set up a website in 2000 offering to buy and sell American votes would be thrilled with this idea. ---Just register with the site, vote for the candidate that offered the highest pay-out for votes, e-mail your ballot ID digits, and upon verification of your correct vote, get a return e-mail with a printable gift certificate to your choice of fine local restaurants & retailers!
Good deal for the campaigns, too... "Get 10,000 votes for the low, low price of $100,000! Less than the cost of just one TV ad!! Don't waste money on glossy mailers that voters throw into the trash, get guaranteed, proven votes by BUYING them!"

"The total of ballots cast, ballots spoiled, and ballots unused must equal the count of the ballots delivered to the precinct. If not, the police are called."

Will security guards need to be placed in polling places to assure that no one absconds with a ballot? Will voters need to be searched for ballots before leaving their polling place? If a ballot is discovered missing, what are the police to do, interrogate every voter who signed in?

"Even with conventional paper ballots, even though it presents only minimal hazards, voters are not supposed to leave the polls with an intact ballot, but in practice this happens all the time. You just can't stop them. Indeed this happens so frequently that Denise Lamb, the former head of NASED, used this in our debates exchanges as her (illogical) "reason" why paper ballots were bad compared to electronic voting." http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/September.2006/0057.html

There is already difficulty getting enough poll workers in MO:

October 04, 2004
JEFFERSON CITY - With less than one month remaining before Election Day, local officials say they are having difficulty staffing Missouri's polling places and fear many positions will go unfilled.
.....
"At this point we are probably short by close to 1000 people," said David Welch, the director of St. Louis County's Board of Elections. "That is about 20 percent of our total."
.....
Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren said she has the same problem.
....
Another problem is finding enough representatives from both parties to serve as judges.

http://www.mdn.org/2004/STORIES/POLLWORK.HTM

"You might know how you are going to vote next month, but there officials don't know who will be there to take your ballot.
.....
Across the state, many local officials are struggling to find people to work polling places on election day.
......
Officials say part of the problem might be connected to the fact that poll workers have to face a very long election day. Working from morning set up to turning in the ballots requires about 14 to 15 hours of a worker's time.

http://www.mdn.org/2004/STORIES/POLLS.HTM

"...at the precinct, by two different sets of counters. Two verifiers will work with the two counting teams."

How many counters and verifiers are to be stationed at each polling place? Presumably each polling place would need a minimum of 6 people as two "sets" of counters and two verifiers. With 3595 polling places, this indicates a need for a minimum of additional 21,570 workers for the count. Missouri's Secretary of State estimates the present (2004) number of poll workers at 21,000.

"The details have largely been worked out over the past two years."

What solution has been worked out to double the number of workers, though the existing system is short of workers?

"each completed ballot will be scanned to create a digital image of the numbered ballot ... and burned to a CD. The .gif or .jpg images will be transmitted by modem to the Sec of States office before the precinct closes."

Missouri has an average number of 1,166 registered voters per polling place. How long does it take to scan 1,000 ballots? I really don't know, do you? At 30 seconds per ballot, it would take more than 8 hours. There would need to be a worker dedicated to that task (trained in using the scanner, burning to CD, and transmitting by modem, etc.) plus, I assume, a watcher? Yet another 7,200 workers?

"The details have largely been worked out over the past two years." Excellent. I look forward to understanding the solutions to some of the issues. We need more than legal wording, we need to know that there will not be chaos in our elections, right?

[kster]

19. They would have to make 122 million calls

they better get started, CHOP CHOP.

[Ellipsis]

36. Good points all.

Manpower is the issue.

As to the others there are ways to address them.

On the serialization here's a thought.

http://www.maxmax.com/aUVBlueInvisibleInks.htm This may not be the best example of this but it certainly seems to be a viable concept to keep anonymity.

As to the scanning, a simple scanner with an ADF (automatic document feeder) batch scanning... more like five seconds per ballot... to use and save just a couple of mouse clicks.

[troubleinwinter]

46. I'm not sure

that I understand the use of the ink in this scenario, but it looks like fun stuff!

Scanning isn't the most important issue here, but it should probably be remembered that ballots are not generally one page, but often ten or so pages.

Yes, "manpower" is a vitally important issue that is worthy of discussion, given the existing shortage of poll workers. Unfortunately, it never seems to get discussed. I have posed the question perhaps six times in various threads in relation to hand counts, but never with any response. At all. Ever.

One would think that folks with a genuine interest in HCPB would be eager to discuss the problem and possible solutions to this issue, not only in regard to their own local efforts, but to try to find workable solutions that other activists could implement in their own states.

You will note that no responses were given to my post raising the concern but yours, acknowledging the importance of the issue. My concern has mostly brought accusation of "having a horse in the race", being "suspect", having "panties bunched up", "picking apart", being a "tag team", having a "nerve hit", being a "nay sayer". Previous attempts have brought accusations of "having an agenda", being "a machine-head" and being on a "machine company payroll". It is difficult to have a discussion about any legitimate concerns and attempt to find solutions over this sort of diversionary, deafening din.

"Acerbic", though, I'll own and admit.

[Ellipsis]

47. Invisible ink for the numbering/stamping of ballots.

If you did it manually you could use a bate stamper... one of these http://www.shoplet.com/office/db/GBC9802060.html

I'd like to think you could print the ballots in-house at the precinct (a standardized ballot) and numbered with something like "Intella pdf bates" http://www.intellipdf.com/bates_stamp.htm or similar type solution, cover the numbers with a removable label, shuffle and distribute. I am sure there's a practical way to do it while insuring the ability to vote in secret.

On scanning at 20 pages per minute thats a low end scanner under 600 bucks with a duty cycle that could handle 1000 pages in a day. You can do 100 to 200 pages per minute if you have the need and the price goe's up accordingly.

My two cents on hand counting: The debate always seems to disintegrate when people talk about 54 ballot issues and inability to manually count efficiently and effectively the complex ballot. My perspective is a two or three part ballot. 1st part: President Senator and Congressman on one ballot manually counted. As far as the complexity of local issues and referendums and the rest, let them Opscan em. If there's corruption because of local apathy or a disinterested public it will be confined to a smaller geo., about local issues.

But the ability to count President ... Senator...and congressman ...on one page manually that's simple and doable and it would be nice to see Kuccinich's bill 6200 amended accordingly and in place before the 2008 election.

People are fatigued and frustrated and pissed here because the issue has been debated for six years with little movement and the solutions discussed over and over with no result at least not shared in public on this forum. The picture for hand counting has been painted and there is a way to do it. That's one of the reasons I'm curious about the OP's solution because I think it will incorporate discussions with an intelligent solution( just a gut feeling). My concern is it won't be implemented in the time line needed. And from what you said and I believe you is it won't be put to referendum until the 2008 ballot ...thats not good...but I'm thinking you can always have an expedited special referendum if the need for it is seen... but optimism clouds my perspective.

As to what certain people say and attempts to disrupt because we have hot buttons FUCK EM. Let me say that again FUCK THEM. I don't debate much here because I'm always behind in the discussion. My perspective comes over time. Others are adept at it whos passion and commitment drive them to exhaustion... some just love to win no matter what the cost ... some chime in t to point out the errors. But all of you guys lay it out there. and because of it there's a balance with an intelligent picture to draw from. People who read these posts on a regular basis get who's who. People who come along and take a couple of free shots and then move on just don't get it. Ignore them Because they bring nothing to the table except disruption and they are not worth acknowledgment even for that. People here who throw ideas up should expect them to be sliced and diced, scrutinized and examined under the scope. But I have learned over time here and in life how one asks a question and makes a point may provide answers more readily.

The bottom line is it ain't a popularity contest (and it strikes me your content by this) and while you may not get the responses your looking for you make your points ...whether acknowledged or not in cyber white space... they are digested.

And finally to you personally... I felt a little bad about calling you acerbic and went back to amend the post to lighten it more but the the editing time had expired. I'm glad you responded (i think), in the way it was meant which was with some endearment.


On closing FUCK THEM.

...and god bless Andy though I knew him little.

[galloglas]

49. Question for You, btmlndfrmr

I've been meaning to get to this sooner, as you make several good points and it raises some questions, but (as you can well imagine) there are timetables to meet, people to do, places to meet.



If you did it manually you could use a bate stamper... one of these http://www.shoplet.com/office/db/GBC9802060.html

I'd like to think you could print the ballots in-house at the precinct (a standardized ballot) and numbered with something like "Intella pdf bates" http://www.intellipdf.com/bates_stamp.htm or similar type solution, cover the numbers with a removable label, shuffle and distribute. I am sure there's a practical way to do it while insuring the ability to vote in secret.

I visited both these sites and found them interesting. The "invisible ink" thing was particularly so. But, I think the "precinct stamping" will not fit in the Initiative (for reasons below) but might be a solution for county and local elections.

The first question I have is this:

a) Given that this is a State Initiative Petition wherein, if enacted, it is the obligation of the state to carry out the new Constitutional requirements, do you see any reason that the entire state could not have its ballots printed centrally by the SoS (the Chief Election Officer in MIssouri), as

1) all primary elections are held at least three months prior to the state's general elections, and,

2)all independent candidates must file for any office at least ninety days prior to the general election, thus,

3)giving the Secretary of State the data to print all ballots, in a common format, with serially numbered ballots down to precinct level.

This would provide uniformity of searching by using serially numbered ballots to separate out give contests in given areas. This would also prevent the "particular race was difficult to see because of 'ballot design' issues" we've encountered in Florida races, among others

On scanning at 20 pages per minute thats a low end scanner under 600 bucks with a duty cycle that could handle 1000 pages in a day. You can do 100 to 200 pages per minute if you have the need and the price goes up accordingly.

Precisely. Ideally, the SoS would implement the ballots to be scanned, by the voter's initiating action, and verifying the scanned image, immediately prior to depositing their ballot into a clear ballot box.

By bundling the ballots into packets of 100 (or more), and having the voter pull a ballot, at random, from a packet, it would prevent the identification, by poll workers, of any voter with any particular number

My two cents on hand counting: The debate always seems to disintegrate when people talk about 54 ballot issues and inability to manually count efficiently and effectively the complex ballot.

Again, a good point. The serially numbered ballots could as easily come in "parts", each bearing the same serial number, as in one long, complicated ballot.

My perspective is a two or three part ballot. 1st part: President Senator and Congressman on one ballot manually counted.

Right. All federal elections combined present only a maximum of four races (Pres., VP, Sen., Rep). How tough is that?

As far as the complexity of local issues and referendums and the rest, let them Opscan em. If there's corruption because of local apathy or a disinterested public it will be confined to a smaller geo., about local issues.

Just so. Or let them OpScan for an "exit count", and let the hand count take precedence legally, if not temporally.

But the ability to count President ... Senator...and congressman ...on one page manually that's simple and doable and it would be nice to see Kuccinich's bill 6200 amended accordingly and in place before the 2008 election.

Right. All federal elections combined present only a maximum of four races (Pres., VP, Sen., Rep). How tough is that?


People are fatigued and frustrated and pissed here because the issue has been debated for six years with little movement and the solutions discussed over and over with no result at least not shared in public on this forum. The picture for hand counting has been painted and there is a way to do it. That's one of the reasons I'm curious about the OP's solution because I think it will incorporate discussions with an intelligent solution( just a gut feeling).

Hopefully

My concern is it won't be implemented in the time line needed. And from what you said and I believe you is it won't be put to referendum until the 2008 ballot ...thats not good...

It is up to the (GOP) Governor to decide which ballot to put it on. If he sees it advantageous to put it on the primary (August '08), as they did with the "gay marriage" issue, they will do so. If not, it would be November '08

but I'm thinking you can always have an expedited special referendum if the need for it is seen... but optimism clouds my perspective.

This would be possible if the Legislature were to intervene. It is GOP controlled. But, depending on how many signatures are garnered on the Initiative Petition, there could be considerable political pressure brought to bear upon the Legislature, and the Governor, to schedule the vote earlier.

But there is no pre-emptive right by the Initiative Petitioners to have it done. Still, a revived HR 6200 might be helpful.

As to what certain people say and attempts to disrupt because we have hot buttons FUCK EM. Let me say that again FUCK THEM. I don't debate much here because I'm always behind in the discussion. My perspective comes over time. Others are adept at it who's passion and commitment drive them to exhaustion... some just love to win no matter what the cost ... some chime in t to point out the errors. But all of you guys lay it out there. and because of it there's a balance with an intelligent picture to draw from.

If one takes their time to gather the information, one definitely will see both sides

People who read these posts on a regular basis get who's who. People who come along and take a couple of free shots and then move on just don't get it. Ignore them Because they bring nothing to the table except disruption and they are not worth acknowledgment even for that.

Truly said.

People here who throw ideas up should expect them to be sliced and diced, scrutinized and examined under the scope. But I have learned over time here and in life how one asks a question and makes a point may provide answers more readily.

Yes. This Initiative is much like federal legislation, though.

The Congressional proposals are seen only when they are introduced, in whole form (pre-amending) after vetting by whatever factions are chosen to vet them.

That is done simply to keep vested counter-interests from ginning up public opinion to attack the legislation on some minor, or misinterpreted point, prior to the unveiling of the "whole product".

I hope I did not do Missouri an injustice by laying "the basics" on the table.

The serial numbering was instantly attacked as "unconstitutional" under the mistaken assumption that serially numbered ballots could not be produced without identifying the vote, thus eliminating the secret ballot.

I think that we both have proven the point that identifying ballots is not tantamount to identifying the voter who casts them.

[Ellipsis]

50. Some opinions

First...Let's start with the Big BINGO.

"This would also prevent the "particular race was difficult to see because of 'ballot design' issues" we've encountered in Florida races, among others."

Anyone with access to a computer is now a designer. :sarcasm:

THE BIG MISTAKE was to walk away from utilizing a typographer. Find yourself the best damn "old dog" typographer(s) and sensible designer(s) get them on board and STANDARDIZE a DIGITAL BALLOT able to be dispersed by PDF. Make the ballot design plug and play, all the variables standardized from referendum to county clerk... down to the frickin micron.


...in reference to a State Initiative Petition.

Having the SOS take on the responsibility of ballot for all races ... sure I suppose. the actually printing not so much. Think of distribution issues.

Perhaps.... the precinct, county or responsible party in charge of organizing the local ballot issues submits their variables to the SOS or a central location with proper authority, over-site and expertise... They in turn create PDFs (which can be encrypted) and distributed back to the locality for approval. The locality signs off and the PDF is distibuted. Who prints them matters little it's serialized.

Segue to serialization:

On volume printing: In the day you'd set type... Now you "burn a plate" or "set a plate" (in most cases). The point is you have one master which you make thousands or hundreds of thousands of impressions of the same image. Serialization typically is a secondary step which and requires unique equipment. Unless of course you have an ancient foot-pump Heidelberg lying around with a mechanical counter that advances one click with every impression. (I had client in the day that kept one around just so he could win a print bid every two years (They hooked an electric motor up to the foot-pump) The point is putting a unique identifier on a volume print job is complex.

Do you get a magazine sent to your house or receive mass mailings? It will either be a jet printed address... or a label (when using a label you just added a 3rd step to apply it) Every time you add another step you add complexity which can create a problem, potentially add risk or screw up a deadline. Add to that the fulfillment of getting millions of ballots to multiple locations with potentially different information for each local all uniquely serialized ....Big, Big headache.

By printing locally a "stepped and repeated" pdf ballot and using an a Adobe Acrobat plug-in bate stamping solution... you avoid extra steps because it happens digitally and is applied to the digital document. Printing the document at the precinct (or a local printer) makes sense in many ways... For starters you don't burn up thousands of gallons of fuel or pay a trucker (no offense) moving tons of paper across the state, you don't run out of ballots (you want to insure this by having redundancy in your equipment) you only print what you need, (Print them up a hundred or a thousand at a time whatever but standardize everything) and printing costs are a lot cheaper.

Having the precinct choose it's own serial number is not a bad thing... remember you can incorporate letters not just numbers, so a serial with a few letters in the front can be the descriptor for the local. Having the precinct pick a random serial sequence on or just before election day would only enhance security one would think. Actual printing could be done on standard office equipment (provided it meets the standard) potentially all ready in place . It is the file that is precious not the printer...


"If one takes their time to gather the information, one definitely will see both sides"

Yup.


"The serial numbering was instantly attacked as "unconstitutional" under the mistaken assumption that serially numbered ballots could not be produced without identifying the vote, thus eliminating the secret ballot."

Agreed... The voter MUST be allowed to vote in secret.


"This would be possible if the Legislature were to intervene. It is GOP controlled. But, depending on how many signatures are garnered on the Initiative Petition, there could be considerable political pressure brought to bear upon the Legislature, and the Governor, to schedule the vote earlier."

Common sense is not a partisan issue... They would only make it one if they don't support it and jeopardize their jobs in the process ...heh.


"Hopefully"

Hopeful.

[troubleinwinter]

28. Article statement: "Election Day 2007 in Missouri" is incorrect.

If it gets onto the ballot, it won't be voted on until the Nov. 2008 election.

[kiteinthewind]

31. My goodness, what a tag team we have going here!!

Usual suspects and all. Makes me wonder why the panties are all in a bunch!! Hit a nerve? An interest? A horse in the race? Get this straight-If you want to support the initiative, then get on board. If your only purpose is to pick it apart or naysay, then go start your own damn thread about how those Missouri people are soooo f**king mean (waaahh)! We certainly don't need THAT kind of 'help'.
:eyes:

[troubleinwinter]

32. Do you have any thoughts

on a solution to needing perhaps 50,000 poll workers, as opposed to the present 21,000?

It is a question I have asked in relation to hand-counts for some time, having read of the shortage of poll workers across the nation.

I have stated many times that I don't oppose hand-counts, I oppose chaos. We have an obligation to look at problems and see if there are solutions. What if we gave an election and nobody showed up to count? Do you support conscripting workers? Or do you have other ideas?

Asking questions is "suspect"? How so? Asking legitimate questions means "panties in a bunch"? Yes, I do have "an interest": successful, transparent, verifiable, legitimate, honest elections. "My horse in this race" is that as an American, Missouri's elections matter to me as did Ohio's and Florida's. And every state. Legitimate elections in every state are of vital importance to every American. If my concern about successful implementation of verifiable elections in the country makes me "suspect" to you, it would appear that you have no interest in working with others in the movement, but in fostering divisiveness.

Maybe I will (or won't) support the initiative. I haven't seen it. There is a resistance from supporters to have a discussion about it or how it can be successfully implemented. Apparently, as an "Outlander", any support from me wouldn't be wanted or valued anyway. Or is it that blind support is accepted, but not questions from citizens with an interest in election integrity?

The article states that it would be voted "Election 2007". Pointing out the error that gives the false impression that it could be implemented by election 2008 is not "picking it apart", it is truth.

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. in effect you've answered your question about "tone"

Some posters are focused on content. Some posters are fixated on speculations about other people's motives. Folks do tend to notice the difference.

"If you want to support the initiative, then get on board."

It's interesting that some people express support for an initiative without knowing its content, but I don't see how it reflects against anyone who wants to know the content first. Hey, whatever.

[Ellipsis]

38. Sometimes its best to be "tone deaf"

In the need to articulate (type) content... directness is often misconstrued. Good bedside manners is a trait of politicians.
Being blunt isn't a bad thing and after putting in hundreds of hours on a project "with few atta boys" one may predictably be a little short on patience to be polite.

As an academic (if you teach) As a metphor I would bet you seldom give A's I also bet you pull the most from your students.

Perhaps this effort will serve to be a model for others. It should be scrutinized and improved certainly not dismissed. IMO this is a good thread regardless of tone.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. well, we'll see

I agree that we have to expect and tolerate some impatience -- I certainly try to tolerate my own (without letting it run altogether roughshod). I'm all for scrutinizing, not simply giving 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down.' And there is some good stuff in this thread, so maybe that makes it a good thread.

[Ellipsis]

40. *smile*

I was just making my point to you not at you... heh. I am my own best example.

I have read many posts over many months by most on this thread... some pretty good go rounds too. It's a healthy thread... a "better" thread then many given the topic.

More details?

Yes... please OP. (A whitepaper perhaps?)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

51. some observations

It has been clear from other posts that comments or recommendations on this planned referendum are not welcome.

So I won't make comments on the plan, or make any recommendations.

Some observations.


1. Lindsey is actually taking a viewable measurable effort to try to change status quo.

2. Lindsey says is seeking donations, lots of them.

"Lindsey: This will be an entirely grass roots movement. We will take no foundation money and donations will come with no strings attached. We will do this alone. We’re telling people your bucks stops here. We’re asking them to dig deep, long, and hard. Give what you can give and we will spend it wisely to get our democracy back."

More observations:

-I don't know how donations will be accounted for, it isn't said.

-I don't know if it matters whether the money comes from foundations or not - and in fact, how would anyone know where the donations come from or how much there is?

-Some organizations take in huge sums of money mostly from individuals.

Anyway, I have managed to make a post without suggesting changes to the plan or saying how it should or shouldn't be done.

[Ellipsis]

52. I for one would like you opinion actually... and appreciate your observations

You did extensive work in your state over many years in playing a role... as far as Opscans verses DRE's if I remember correctly.

One of the Carolinas wasn't it?

[galloglas]

53. I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours !!

Quotes and Comments from Joyce McCloy, and my tardy reply.

It has been clear from other posts that comments or recommendations on this planned referendum are not welcome.

So I won't make comments on the plan, or make any recommendations.

Joyce: Sincere comments or questions would not have been out of order, nor unwelcome.

But unprovoked attacks (like that from J. Jacobs "aka" L. Coyote), declaring that what we proposed was, de facto, "unconstitutional", and damaging to efforts in all other states, was neither helpful, correct nor logical.

Likewise to have demands for the Initiative language, prior to it even being finalized, was "like unto Trollish".

I mean, I suppose Hitler would have asked for the plans to the Normandy Invasion if he had thought Eisenhower would have rolled over for him.

Suffice it to say that, after the language is 1) finalized, it is 2) submitted to the SoS, who 3) submits it to the AG, who 4) has the language vetted, and then 5) pingpongs it to the SoS and back, until both are satisfied, and then 6) submits it to the State Auditor for a "financial impact" statement, which is attached to the Initiative upon the ballot, then it is 7) returned to the SoS who OKs it for signatures.

After all of that happens, it is then allowed for anyone (like your friends at ES&S) to attack it on any grounds, whatsoever, at the Cole County Circuit Court, in Jefferson City, Missouri, for a period of ten days.

Now, unless you assume that there is no one on Earth who would oppose a HCPB Initiative, why would I want to show the exact legislative language to anyone prior to that 10 day period?

Why give Hitler 10 days to see where, how, and with whom, you plan to invade his Fascist Continent? After all, Hitler was given fair warning, by Churchill, in 1941, that the time was going to come.

Likewise, with the HCPB Initiative Petition to change the very Constitution of the State of Missouri, forewarning has been given. Do you really think someone would send the battle plan to the opposing side (who obviously monitors this list more closely than the true ER people can)?

Also, someone who is now known to me as "Ignored", had a beef because I asked if they had "any skin in this game". But they don't, do they?

To my knowledge, at this writing, there are no active plans to pass either Initiative Petitions or Referenda, in any state other than Missouri (I've heard inferences, "plans", considerations, etc., being afoot, of course. But not one single, solitary forward step!) One almost has to wonder if these are nothing but "red herrings".

But, at the minimum, I want to see someone else, other than Missourians, with a vested interest in this matter before deferring to their opinions (which I would gladly do, if I saw any movement other than by lips or pen).

That said, I have one other comment. Some on this thread have been very helpful to us in the Show Me state, with suggestions and tweaks, either on or off list.

With that, a tip of my hat to btmlndfrmr, who was most helpful with some very insightful comments which will make my ten days in Cole County much less harrowing.


Some observations.


1. Lindsey is actually taking a viewable measurable effort to try to change status quo.

It is a right granted to me, and other Missourians, under our Constitution. We are lucky enough to have it, thanks to some farsighted forefathers, and fully intend to take advantage of it

2. Lindsey says (he) is seeking donations, lots of them.

For it will take a lot of them. Contributions of both money and time And I have been particularly heartened as the common people of Missouri line up and offer their time!

"Lindsey: This will be an entirely grass roots movement. We will take no foundation money (with no attached) and donations will come with no strings attached. We will do this alone. We’re telling people your bucks stops here. We’re asking them to dig deep, long, and hard. Give what you can give and we will spend it wisely to get our democracy back."

More observations:

-I don't know how donations will be accounted for, it isn't said.

Well, I haven't asked for an accounting of how you have been spending your money in NC, either. But, I believe you have acknowledged taking contributions, either monetarily, or in kind, from Foundations. Specifically, Verified Voting? Or was it someone else?

So, I'll tell you what.

We, ShowMetheVote!, have filed itself as a 501(c)3 corporation. Consequently, we will have to file annual reports and taxes. In addition, we have to name a successor 501(c)3 to be the recipient of any funds remaining if we ever dissolve.

Would you like to agree to post your financials here at DU at the end of 2007, if we post ours? I'll await your confirmation.

-I don't know if it matters whether the money comes from foundations or not - and in fact, how would anyone know where the donations come from or how much there is?

File as a 501 yourself and find out! Or are you avoiding that? And the Foundation monies?


-Some organizations take in huge sums of money mostly from individuals.

What don't you elaborate? And tell us how NC Verified Voting does theirs. 501? Individuals, corporations, foundations? Stage Coach Robberies? (Never mind... It's an old Missouri joke)

Anyway, I have managed to make a post without suggesting changes to the plan or saying how it should or shouldn't be done.

"without suggesting changes to the plan or saying how it should or shouldn't be done". But, it seems, doing your best to sow the seeds of doubt. What axe are you grinding here, Joyce?

[ChrisdemW]

54. yo, go MO

not impressed with north carolina optical scan machines. It ate my vote in 06. Hand counts all the way babe. my wife looked up the following:

people for american way 3 year donations $50 million last year was $29m
common cause 3 year donations tot. $30 million last year was $13m
for state org only voting issue only
calif voting foundation 3 year donations $1.2 million last year $306k year before $541k

so by my figuring the above groups cashed in with over $81 million in the last three years and they fight for voting machines. why do you care about pocket change in missouri to fight for paper ballots? looks like you are only aksing questions about money when someone doesnt want the machines.

[autorank]

55. Ths Missouri referendum petition/ballot intiative is the best thing we have going right now.

It's the only piece of political action that turns the voting process and counting process over to the people. It's done in the light of day and what better state to start than the "show me state."

galloglas, You deserve the support of all interested in a real but fundamentally profound shift in the way things are done. No bits and bytes, no "experts" with double talk that voters can't understand, and lots of openness.

How hard is it? Not very. California has always had long ballots. They hand counted them for years and had the results in by 11:00 pm for the news. Other states did this as well. How did they do it? With good planning, logistics, and enough people.

This is a winner and deserves our full support!!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. fact check: "California hand counted them for years..."

Well, maybe somewhere in California "hand counted (their ballots) for years and had the results in by 11:00 pm for the news," but voting machines were used as early as 1904 -- not widely at that time, to be sure. There's a whole little book on-line that one can read about the changes in election technology used in California:

http://josephhall.org/arnold_ca_vs_hist.pdf

Let's not kid ourselves.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

57. No, people didn't pay us for our work and what I DID get out of this

First of all, I complimented you for actually taking action on something, as compared to those
who just chant mantras and do nothing else.

Second, I am no friend to any vendor, we have a very strict law in our state that says what vendors can or can't do, and what the civil and criminal penalties are.

Third, I haven't ever solicited or accepted donations. When someone has offered to donate to my organization, I have always asked them to instead donate to one of the national organizations that helped us.

Fourth, The only thing I personally have received for my work is an award by the ACLU "for a lifetime of contributions to civil liberties in North Carolina. February 25, 2006." and a beautiful plaque from members of my group. (Aside from the reward of getting a good law passed.)

Fifth, our legal help came pro bono from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who even obtained our local legal counsel to work with them on our cases.

Sixth, we had free help (action alerts, advice etc) from Common Cause NC, Verified Voting, Voters Unite and Vote Trust.

I believe we in North Carolina were successful because our work was all volunteer,
completely un-funded. Even the computer scientists didn't charge us.

Citizens knew they had to get really involved.

[galloglas]

58. You acknowledge getting this, though ??

Third, I haven't ever solicited or accepted donations. When someone has offered to donate to my organization, I have always asked them to instead donate to one of the national organizations that helped us.

Joyce, this is my point.

If you have no legal status, just a moniker, how does anyone account for that money (the question you put to me). And when "national organizations help" you, what are those conditions?

There are organizations you name below that we would not accept money from because they advance a different, and contrary, agenda.

Fourth, The only thing I personally have received for my work is an award by the ACLU "for a lifetime of contributions to civil liberties in North Carolina. February 25, 2006." and a beautiful plaque from members of my group. (Aside from the reward of getting a good law passed.)

That is fine. I have great respect for the ACLU.

But, is your legal structure a 501(c)(3)? What are your accounting methods? I mean, if you have need to have (say) printing done, are you not reimbursed? Does it all come from your pocket?

A corporate 501(c)(3) structure makes you, and others, accountable, as well as protected.

So, a question? What if someone sues NC Verified Voting? Is that you? You and some others? An attorney would wish to know, and would find out, for sure.

Fifth, our legal help came pro bono from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who even obtained our local legal counsel to work with them on our cases.

EFF is a corporate structure, no? How is NC Verified Voting referred to in their legal documents? Who signs for NCVV? In what capacity?

And what, if any, conditions were attached to their agreement to help you?

Sixth, we had free help (action alerts, advice etc) from Common Cause NC, Verified Voting, Voters Unite and Vote Trust.

Any money change hands? If so, what were the conditions, restrictions?


Again, Joyce, I have offered to post our end of the year information, if you will post yours. Or, are you reluctant to disclose the same information which asked of me after we announced our intent to procede with the Initiative?

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. how does she account for the money she doesn't accept?!

That's your "point"?

:shrug:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

60. no one gives us any money

My organization is a grassroots organization.
People volunteer to do what they feel best suited to do.
Some people volunteer ideas, some volunteer time.

-We are not a 501 C anything,
-there is NO paypal button on my website,
-I don't even have a pay pal or Amazon account.
-I have not received any money and have turned down donations.



A license is not required in order to be an activist.

I do not take in funds, donations, or any material goods for my work on voting issues.
Period.

-Verified Voting has set up action alerts for us.

-Common Cause NC handled setting up the Computer Ate My Vote Day in Raleigh NC, I just
suggested speakers and provided information.

-EFF represented me in court.

There were no conditions applied to me, just had to have a legitimate case.

Everything we do is out of pocket.

Much of my work is:

research - done via the internet, includes FOIAS and simple email requests, searching for news articles.

website - costs me about $45 a year, plus $5.00 per year for domain name.

email list serve - free

Op/Ed pieces - cost me only my time and energy, newspapers print for free, value - priceless

swat team canvassing - distributing flyers in neighborhoods of lawmakers

blogging

press releases

It all came out of our own pockets

-We didnt have to pay for help from computer scientists, they were pro bono.
-We didn't have to pay for facilities for panel discussions, we were asked to provide speakers, we did.
-We didn't have to pay for materials used at lobbying days, volunteers purchased the materials and put them together in professional looking packets.

If you provide good information and leadership, you can do it.
If you don't like the national groups that helped us, you can still get help from other groups.
Your cause is good, so just believe me that if you get the word out, if people are inspired, people will help you.

I enjoy this work.

[galloglas]

63. Congratulations, Joyce!

I'll take what you say as Gospel, then.

We have found it more workable and logical to use a 501, but that is our choice. You do different work than we do, different structure, different aims, so you have chosen a different method.

But, what I hear you saying is that you all are doing this yourselves, relying on your own resources, and depending on volunteer activists. So, I not only approve, but congratulate you. As you must have discovered already, as I have, it takes much of your life and much of your disposable income to do these things.

Obviously, what we doing is about raising our sights a bit higher. We are going to try to take back the mechanism of both the voting method and the oversight of same.

Instead of relying on the good will and honesty of all election directors, county clerks, employees, and vendors, we have decided to rely upon ourselves to oversee these functionaries, by revising the Missouri Constitution to make it so.

So, let's forget differences about whether OpScans are appropriate, whether we can remove them or not, whether we should be asking, or telling, election authorities what we want. Let just wish each other good luck!

For us in Missouri, we are concerned that if we ever "dance to the Devil's tune", then we will end up paying that same bearded Fiddler. That is why we will accept nothing which will compromise our goals or priciples, or alter our normal course of action.

And, from what you have said, you are also refusing to dance to the Devil's Tune. So all I can say is, "Good on you!". That and "Be Careful!", as we should all understand that the agents of the opposition are bountiful... and, if they do their job well, they are damned hard to identify.

That said, I'll post the ten propositions that ShowMetheVote! considers central to the democratic process, and lead to the behavior we expect of our election officials. And, not finding our election officials to be generally compliant with those expectations, why we have decided to pursue of Constitutional right to alter those conditions.

With that, Good Luck to North Carolina!

Show Me The Vote is dedicated to the proposition that all elections should be:

1) open and transparent to the public, from the casting of the ballot to the final counting of ballots. Further, that the final tabulation of ballots be made and posted at the place they are cast.

2) that the sanctity of the voting franchise is an inviolable right and, as such, the control of elections must never be given over to private or corporate entities.

3) that voting is the Keystone upon which democracy rests, and where there is no accountability and transparency, there is no democracy.

4) that the choice of the people should determine the manner and method used to cast and count their votes.

5) that the manner of casting and counting of votes should be intelligible to the least sophisticated of voters. To that end, our common human senses of sight and hearing should be the method used to measure the outcome of elections.

6) that, in keeping with maximum transparency and intelligibilty, voting should be carried out on hand counted paper ballots. Further, that those ballots be archived for their lifetime.

7) that those officials responsible for the day to day administration of electoral process owe their first allegiance to voters whom they serve. As such, those officials should administer, and carry out, elections in the manner chosen by the voters.

8) that all elections should observable by citizens and the press, from the time that the polls are first opened until the final tally is completed and posted.

9) that the citizens of any democratic government have the inherent right to determine, through observation, the fairness and accuracy of all elections.

10) and, to that end, we demand that the state of Missouri abandon the use of electronic or mechanical marking or counting devices in favor of hand marked and hand counted paper ballots.

So say we all:

To that end, we voters demand of Missouri, one and all,

"Show Me The Vote !"

[troubleinwinter]

65. "organization" name?

How can I obtain (or see posted) 1023 form and Form letter 1045 as required by law?

What is your 501(c)(3) organization name?

What is the mailing address?

Who makes up the Board of Directors?

What is the EIN number for the organization (to confirm the existence of a purported tax-exempt org. with the IRS)?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

66. $50.00 a year not that much to spend

You said:

"As you must have discovered already, as I have, it takes much of your life and much of your disposable income to do these things."

I hardly think that $45 per year webhosting and $5.00 year domain registration is a severe drain on
my income. I spend more than that on my daily 2 cups of coffee a day.


As for my time, this has been a calling for me.

Instead of funding, we did lots of writing and hands on work, lots of us.
True grassroots, 100%.

[galloglas]

68. If you can do all that for $50 bucks

then more power to you.

I spend that much per month on gasoline and Long Distance (all out of my pocket), so if you can save money great!

We in Missouri also do this "as a calling", but the costs we incur are closer to tithing. So, if you can keep costs down, so much the better!

You are on your road, we are on ours, so perhaps we should suspend comparisons in the interest of comity?

I am willing if you are.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

69. Sure, after all, I didn't bring up the comparison in the first place

This thread was started about 30 days ago, and then suddenly it was revived,
with a message by you.

In your message, you accused me of being hypocritical about my (non-existant) funding,
Additionally, you tried to smear me inferring that I was buddies with a voting machine company.

If you hadn't brought up the comparison, I wouldn't have had to show folks that
they don't need to pay to get election reform.

True reform goes much farther than clicking on a pay pal button or an email action alert.

[kster]

70. Galloglas, you don't have to answer to PUNKS!! This says it all

Show Me The Vote is dedicated to the proposition that all elections should be:

1) open and transparent to the public, from the casting of the ballot to the final counting of ballots. Further, that the final tabulation of ballots be made and posted at the place they are cast.

2) that the sanctity of the voting franchise is an inviolable right and, as such, the control of elections must never be given over to private or corporate entities.

3) that voting is the Keystone upon which democracy rests, and where there is no accountability and transparency, there is no democracy.

4) that the choice of the people should determine the manner and method used to cast and count their votes.

5) that the manner of casting and counting of votes should be intelligible to the least sophisticated of voters. To that end, our common human senses of sight and hearing should be the method used to measure the outcome of elections.

6) that, in keeping with maximum transparency and intelligibilty, voting should be carried out on hand counted paper ballots. Further, that those ballots be archived for their lifetime.

7) that those officials responsible for the day to day administration of electoral process owe their first allegiance to voters whom they serve. As such, those officials should administer, and carry out, elections in the manner chosen by the voters.

8) that all elections should observable by citizens and the press, from the time that the polls are first opened until the final tally is completed and posted.

9) that the citizens of any democratic government have the inherent right to determine, through observation, the fairness and accuracy of all elections.

10) and, to that end, we demand that the state of Missouri abandon the use of electronic or mechanical marking or counting devices in favor of hand marked and hand counted paper ballots.

So say we all:

To that end, we voters demand of Missouri, one and all,

"Show Me The Vote !"G

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

62. EFF represented me as a Voter with standing

Since I don't have a corporation, since we don't accept funding, since we are not a 501 C 3 nor are we a 501 C4, EFF represented me as a voter, personally.


All that EFF required of me was the information needed in order to make the complaint.

Like links to NC's law, news articles showing that Diebold got permission to
escape the law, that sort of thing.

http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/20051117_Diebold_v_NC_Motion.pdf

All I had to do was be an active voter.

Had I not been registered to vote, then EFF probably couldn't have gotten me standing in court.

People in our state really really wanted this law to pass, so they did whatever had to be done, usually at the drop of a hat.

[troubleinwinter]

64. It. Does. Not. Work. This. Way.

YOU claim a tax-exempt organization 501(c)(3). A 501(c)(3) soliciting money from the public is required by law to provide certain documents to the public.

I await the posting of your 1023 form and Form letter 1045.

What is your 501(c)(3) organization name? What is the mailing address? Who makes up the Board of Directors? What is the EIN number for the organization (to confirm the existence of a purported tax-exempt org. with the IRS).

[troubleinwinter]

61. "I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours !!" is not how it works in real life.

(Lindsey: ) "We, ShowMetheVote!, have filed itself as a 501(c)3 corporation."

Perhaps you can translate that for us. "We" cannot "file itself" as a 501(c)(3). Perahps you mean that an application for 501(c)(3) has been filed? Or it has been approved?

A 501(c)(3) must make form 1023 application available to the public. Kindly post the document in its entirety, or post an address where a public request can be sent.

One cannot pose as a 501(c)(3) without Form letter 1045, a favorable 501(c)(3) determination letter with an Advance Ruling on the applicant's public charity status. Please post this item.

If you select not to post these items, please give a mailing and email address for the organization so that I can make a formal request for copies as provided by IRS law.

[troubleinwinter]

67. I don't understand your claim...

"We, ShowMetheVote!, have filed itself as a 501(c)3 corporation.", in light of the Internal Revenue Service article relating to non-profit organizations:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html

Can you please explain the meaning of "We, ShowMetheVote!, have filed itself as a 501(c)3 corporation."?

I don't know about Missouri, but I know that in some states (and IRS, I'd think), falsely claiming non-profit status while soliciting or accepting donations carries fines and jail time.

The "organization's" website states no purpose or mission aside from promoting the initiative. Clarification would be wise, I think.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

71. i LIKE THE INITIATIVE

I like the initiative, this could possibly work.

Kindra Muntz did similar for VVPB in Sarasota County,
did successful petition drive.

Look her up.

She had her volunteers wear t-shirts that asked people
to sign the petition, then sent them out to events.

They got more than enough signatures, and everyone paid
for their own t-shirt.

I do applaud you for doing this.

[troubleinwinter]

72. I MIGHT like it too...

but I haven't had an opportunity to read the text of it.

I'd also be interested in knowing how the hand-counting is expected to work, how many workers are envisioned, how the workers will be recruited, etc.

[galloglas]

73. Thank you very much!

We have a web site going up soon which will serve to keep everyone up to date on the Initiative.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

74. here's to Galloglas, putting ideas into action

This is an example of someone who didn't sit around and just vent,
he developed a plan and strategy.

No one in this country will have hand counted paper ballots by trying to
kill federal legislation that bans paperless voting.

But someone, maybe Galloglas, might get HCPB by fighting FOR something,
by providing a solution, a plan, and strategy.

I can respect that!

[kster]

75. Go galloglas, show these PUNKS what you are made of

they haven't realized that their game IS OVER, WE can not be convinced that we shouLd not be able, to see the OUR votes BEING COUNTED, and it BUGS THE HELL OUT OF THEM!!!

[Cookie wookie]

76. I didn't see this thread until this morning.

Commendations to you, Galagos, for this action--it's impressive and exciting to see! I look forward to hearing reports of your progress and seeing the legislation, and wish you Missourians every possible success.

If the movement is successful, this could be used as a model for other states/activists. At the very least, we could all learn from your experience.

Hope you don't get bogged down by the financial aspects. That some of us activists don't go that direction (my experience is with working with GA groups that don't fundraise -- everyone just pitches in to pay for expenses, like getting copying done, paying for open records requests, website hosting, etc.)-- that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with asking for and collecting donations to pay for the work. To me that just means more work tracking and reporting the money to keep everyone happy.

One note about the numbered ballots. In GA absentee ballots are numbered and tracked (spoiled, cast, etc.) This is essential when using paper in order to keep from having the kind of problems that election officials have legitimately reported from the past history of using paper ballots in elections.

Yes, anonymity is a challenge but administrative procedures required by law can mitigate those problems. The challenge at the polls would be to make sure that when voters check in, the numbered ballots are not distributed in any order that identifies voters with their ballots.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

77. I bumped this OLD thread for a reason

I notice that the most, if not all of the HCPB Cheerleading
Squad takes no action, only re-action.

The only action HCPB has is to attack federal legislation that would
make it easier for them to get HCPB.

Galloglas is the rare exception.

The rest, you know those who chant
"Hand Counted Paper Ballots Now, Nothing Else blah blah blah"
are doing nothing at all, NOTHING.

So I just wanted to bump up this old thread to show
that it takes a positive step, not a negative step - to get anywhere.

And HR 811 gives everyone a better chance, because it FORCES
paper back into the equation.