If we want to win: Avoid these Black Box Voting "Weasel Words"

As we approach a win on the voter-verified paper ballot, you will see numerous attempts to give in, grudgingly, on something that sounds like that but isn't really.

Let's get it right. This means gently correcting reporters (send them e-mails to correct their usage of the language) and disciplining ourselves to use the words that can't be hijacked away from us.

This is a recap of RedEagle's suggestions. Bear in mind that she is very closely involved with activism on the legislative side of things, and she's seeing how the "other side" is trying to do end runs around the voter-verified paper ballot issue.

1) It's a ballot, not a "receipt"
2) It's a ballot, not a "trail"
3) It's got to be verified, not "verifiable"
4) It's a paper ballot, not an "audit trail"

Here's how they are using language to attempt end-runs around trustworthy voting:

Calling it a receipt: This leads to laws (yes, they already have them in some states) that the voter-verified paper ballot is NOT the legal record of the vote; instead, they say the computer record is the legal record, so if they don't match, they want us to use the computer bits and bytes instead.

Also: This lends itself to the visual image of voters slipping some tiny thing into their pocket and leaving the polling area with it, one of the talking points used by the other side.

Also: This lends itself to the idea of taking it out of the polling place and "selling it," another talking point from the other side.

It is a BALLOT. It must be the legal record of our vote, because it is what we ourselves have authorized.

Calling it a "trail" -- I am still going through and correcting these references in the book. Little did we know they'd try using this language to end-run the purpose of the voter-verified paper ballot. Calling it a "trail" lends itself to things like saying internal machine records that can be printed can be used, or can be twisted into sidelining this "trail" into a position of little relevance and allowing it to be used only in unusual circumstances.

Calling it "verifiable" (meaning, maybe it doesn't get verified)-- This is the way Dr. David Dill has been saying it -- No, we want to VERIFY it, we want to make sure every time we cast a vote we have verified it. "Verifiable" hijacks the system this way -- it lends itself to the ridiculous "VoteHere" solution whereby the machine prints a coded unreadable receipt that the voter can take and look up on the Internet. There are many problems with this method; it is dealt with more in the book.

Calling it an "audit trail" -- this lends itself to getting rid of the paper ballot that any citizen can look at and understand, and encourages solutions that only computer cryptographers can evaluate. We are not interested in a cryptographic "audit trail" that We, the People, cannot read.

Thus, we must train our keyboards, pens and tongues: "VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOT" --- no exceptions.

(Sorry we have to get into parsing the language like this. They are making us do this with their constant weaseling around the issue).

I fear this post may not get enough discussion -- sounds a bit boring, in fact, but I'm hoping you can keep it kicked for just a while to help give a heads up.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.com
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
http://www.BBVreport.org

:kick:

Gotcha.

And you're right...they've taken parsing to unimaginable destinations, so we've got to do the same.

bookmarking this...

:toast:

I will be sure to bookmark this thread for future reference and to push the issue when corrections are warranted.

I've noticed that Republicans really hammer home their 'words" until they become mantras. I think one of the first things they must do with every policy arguement in which they engage is pick the words they're going to use to get their message and ideas accross, and they they absoultely hammer the message home relentlessly with the assistance of the media.

The Democrats have to get a lot more savy in this respect.

Starting with Gingrich, the right has seen the importance of using words to demonize the democrats (starting with calling us the "democrat party," which just has an ugly sound). As I said in another thread, we should start hammering the word "weakened" with regard to what Bush has done to this country.

the huge importance of words and phrases and how they resonate in media is paramount. We just learned that in Californai not having a buzz phrase and depending on voters to see our logic.

Any company that does business with government contractors knows these are exactly the words they use. But then to find out they want to use these words to avoid the legal responsilbilties to us, the citizens is reprehensible!

What do we write to our representatives to get them to understand exactly what you are talking about?!

This misadministration seems to go all out for "buzz words" from the corporate sector . . all these and now, as a yahoo headline read something like this from this morning (which is now missing - or at least I can't find it again) "Bush to start PR campaign on Iraq".

Since when has our government had to have PR and ad campaigns - if the chimp would hold true press conferences as he should, they wouldn't need all this crap!

No need to apologize, Bev. As you point out, these niggly details are what can make or break this, and if we want to get and keep control of the terms of the debate we have to understand the potential pitfalls of alternate descriptions.

.

:kick:

at least to me.

It's the very heart of the matter. VVPB are the very LEAST we need in order to safeguard our vote with computerized voting systems. VVPB alone will not STOP computerized vote fraud or even programming errors and computer glitches, but they at least give us a safe method of determining the voter's true intent apart from the machines themselves.

If we add on to VVPB a robust automatic, ramdom audit -- probably at least 5 - 10% -- of each precinct's votes, we can help discourage computerized vote fraud. Some people want 100% count of the paper ballots, and that WOULD put a crimp in any computerized vote fraudster's plans.

As we all know, elections officials tell us that "paper means vote fraud." Tell THEM that they ain't seen nothin' yet as to the vote fraud possible without paper. They're concerned about a precinct or two or even a whole county at a time, but we're concerned about state-wide and nation-wide vote rigging, with no way to PROVE it without a voter-verified paper BALLOT.

Eloriel

But even if it is, it's important.

:kick:

Eloriel

but those other words are good tools in explaining the importance of why we need 'VOTER VERIFIED PAPER BALLOTs' after all we can't 'verify' if it ain't 'verifiable'

:hi:

peace

In-deedly-do

call it a paper audit trail....

Thanks and a big :kick:

swarm on over to:
http://www.blackboxvoting.com
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
http://www.BBVreport.org

Sign up for the second civil war. Get your daily ammo and targeting instructions via e-mail by contacting bev@blackboxvoting.com !

The second civil war won't be on TV, it'll be on the Internet!
:kick:

...at the California Secretary of State's meeting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=511934

Sequoia has changed the internal representation of each vote in their new machines. Each vote is now stored as text -- for example a candidate's name. In the old machines votes were stored as numbers. Sequoia implied this created a "ballot image" and therefore the new machines produced a more reliable "audit trail."

This seemed to cause some confusion among members of the panel.

But the truth is we are still talking about electronic bits which means we can add "ballot image" to your "weasel word" list.

...The legally valid ballot must be an actual physical object, most commonly a piece of paper that the voter can look at, verify that it's correct, and place in an official ballot box. The computer record is allowed to provise a quick tally of the votes cast, but if push comes to shove (i.e., a recount, an autiting discrepency, etc.), it's the physical object that everyone can check and keep an eye on that counts.

.....burned to a CD-R at the time the 'ballot' is accepted? :shrug:

NO! Because it still gives no guarantee that what was burned to the CD at the time is the same as what was displayed on the screen! :evilgrin:

A CD-R would IMHO be a much better way of digitally storing the votes in addition to Voter Verified Paper Ballots in as much as it would be impossible to change them once burned in CD-R format! A serial number and checksum could be printed at the time the CD is finalized to help ensure that the CD's aren't substituted when being transferred between the precincts and the County Central Count computers. :)

improve the security of voting, but as you said it should never replace Voter Verified Paper Ballots, just supplement them.

Joy Juice

:kick:

It isn't that Bev missed this. It's that it's becoming apparent from the machines that are now being presented in just the last two weeks in my state, and kind of endorsed by our paper hating officials, we need to add a #5 to the list.

5. The voter-verified paper ballot must be verified by the voter, at the time of voting, before casting the ballot; and such verification must be visual, of the physical ballot, WITHOUT an interface, such as a machine/program unit; and must be printed in english and or english/foreign language. The only exception are the visually disabled, who must have such assistance and should have such assistance.

Watch the recent proliferation of voter-verified ballot systems that do not let the voter make actual, personal, verification of the ballot and/or that do not leave that ballot at the polling place in a ballot box so they can be used for recounts and auditing. I think we are turning the tide here but the opposition is trying, with any means they can, to keep people from actually READING THE BALLOT THEMSELVES, or having that ballot available for RECOUNTS AND AUDITS.

DON'T accept less! Watch for this.

And if they make an argument about the disabled, remind them that voter-verified paper ballots also protect the visually diabled from disenfranchisement- because sighted voters will be reading those ballots, any machine errors are going to get caught. Without those ballots, everyone, including the blind, are at risk.

The blind get an audio review, or a pen to scan the ballot for audio review, or the review comes from the feed to the PRINTER. And they DON'T get any more than that with the other systems.

Printing a ballot does not mean the blind have to have it read by someone else. This is the most garbage argument of all. No law mandates that.

You cannot disenfranchise the entire populace from their right to an honest, accountable vote based on one sub set of the population. That's like mandating that everyone cannot use a seat belts because, say, 1% of the population cannot wear them for physical reasons. You cannot put the other 99% at risk.

Voter-verified paper ballots are votings seat belts. Don't leave your polling place without them securely deposited in a ballot box.

...and not just because Bev mentioned me.

Kick!

It's still important!

Kick!