Under-Reported: New Holt Bill Says Election Outcomes Could Be Confirmed With Hand Counts

[Wilms]

Election Integrity: Fact & Friction

Under-Reported: New Holt Bill Says Election Outcomes Could Be Confirmed With Hand Counts

by Howard Stanislevic

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

After months of haggling with Congressman Rush Holt's office about some of the ambiguous language in both H.R.811 and the new voluntary bill, H.R.5036, I happened to notice this verbiage that somehow made its way into the new bill (emphasis added):

(1) IN GENERAL- A hand count conducted in accordance with this section is a count of all of the paper ballots on which votes were cast in the election (including paper ballot printouts verifiable by the voter at the time the vote is cast), including votes cast on an early, absentee, emergency, and provisional basis, which is conducted by hand to determine the winner of the election and is conducted without using electronic equipment or software.

The text of the bill can be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-5036

As far as I know, this is the first acknowledgment in any federal legislation that hand counts may actually be conducted to determine the TRUE WINNER of an election. And under this bill, Uncle Sam is supposed to pay for it.

This is a paradigm shift. Some of us have been fighting for language like this for over a year in connection with Holt's so-called election audits. Even the section that allows alternative sampling methods to be used does not say specifically that they should be used to determine who the winner of an election really is. That sort of thing (Congress actually judging the elections of its members, as required by the Constitution) never seemed to be on the table.

snip

http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2008/01/under-reported-new-holt-bill-says.html

[BradBlog]

1. Perhaps a quibble, but...

While admission that hand counting can determine "TRUE WINNER" of an election, Holt remains wrong in that counting "paper ballot printouts verifiable by the voter at the time the vote is cast", as mentioned above, does not ensure that such a hand count would indeed determine the "TRUE WINNER".

As he well knows (thus his use of the word "verifiable" as opposed to "verified") such paper trails cannot be known to truly reflect the intent of the voter.

Just thought that should be pointed out here. Again.

[Wilms]

2. So true.

And hardly a quibble.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Bill Bored]

4. Well, the bill ALSO pays for 2% hand counts and VVPAT printers. So what?

The point is it pays for 100% HCPB, so if it passes, all you have to do is convince your local and state election officials to do that. So convince them!

[Wilms]

8. Hang on, Bill. I think you got your head caught in the subway doors.

:evilgrin:

I think Mr. Friedman is trying to point out that counting VV(sic)PAT is a bit suspect in that only so many voters actually review it.

HCPB is great. But what about HCVV(sic)PAT? :shrug:

[Bill Bored]

10. So, are you saying the bill should NOT pay for hand counts of VVPATs? nt

[Wilms]

12. I realize it's a bit noisy but I think you heard me already.

[L. Coyote]

6. Excellent point. A Black Box interface between voter and paper is not verifiable

by anyone except by the voter.

[Bill Bored]

7. So we shouldn't support the bill because it pays for things we don't want...

...even though it pays for what a lot of folks on this forum say they do want?

Or what?

We could of course just rely on exit polls. (Yeah, that'll work.)

[kster]

3. Looks like Custer/Holts last stand,

we know, and there is nothing that (Holt) can say or do about it.

We will be Hand Counting ALL the Paper Ballots.

It is now time for Holt to take himself and his buddies and GET OUT OF DODGE!!

K&R

[Bill Bored]

5. See post #4. nt

[kster]

9. I don't think so Bill,

the crooks want a computer count of the Paper Ballots, many others and I want a Hand Count of ALL the Paper Ballots at the polling place, there is absolutely no reason that in America we CAN'T DO BOTH (PERIOD)

[Bill Bored]

11. See post #10. nt

[kster]

13. See this

http://hcpbnow.org/