Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Republicans agree to need for paper trail

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
jdog Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:52 AM
Original message
Republicans agree to need for paper trail
Kind of interesting that at this link I found a statement of Larimer County Republican Party Resolutions - 2004 which included the following:


http://www.lcrp.org/Resolutions-MajSuppport-2004.pdf#search='larimer%20county%20voting'


<snip>

RESOLUTION #38 – VOTING
Whereas

Congress recently passed the “Help America Vote Act”, and states and counties
across the country are buying electronic voting machines; and these electronic
voting machines often do not produce a verifiable, permanent record of the votes
cast:
Therefore let it be
resolved …
That the Congress amend the “Help America Vote Act” to require that all new
systems are completely open and verifiable by any interested third parties,
produce a permanent and verifiable record of the voting, but reject the notion
that it must physically be paper and paper that the voter can sight verify.
5
RESOLUTION #39 – VOTING
Whereas

Trustworthy elections are basic to a democratic republic and require that each vote
be anonymous, secure, verifiable, and counted as intended by the voter; paperless
voting machines make proper recording and counting of votes impossible to verify;
a receipt paper on a paperless voting machine would not solve these problems
because the votes printed on the receipt can be different from the votes stored in the
machine; and accurate re-counting requires that the votes on the original paper
ballots be examined and counted, and that the results from a previous count are not
known to the people doing the recounting:
Therefore let be
resolved …
That we support procedures that allow voters to hand mark or machine mark
their votes onto full-ballot-text paper ballots, to check their votes before they
cast them, to know that the votes on the paper ballot are counted, and to have
access to proof that every ballot is accounted for and every vote correctly
understood and counted.

<snip>

Maybe I’m wrong, but doesn’t this indicate that there are at least some republicans out there who agree with our position that the lack of a paper trail makes it impossible to be certain the elections are “trustworthy” (their word)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
itzamirakul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. I guess they are realizing that eventually...
the shoe will be on the other foot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. At the risk of being labelled an "Exactly Man" I have to say
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 11:28 AM by slackmaster
Exactly.

:toast:

FWIW my recovering Republican mom agrees: We don't want paperless voting any more than we would want a paperless bathroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
itzamirakul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. I love your Mom and wish her
continued good health!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't trust any of them
They are so afraid of Bush they will McCain in a minute.

Every time I think of that hug with Bush I puke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Boredtodeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
3. In Georgia, the republicans introduced VVPB legislation
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 10:56 AM by Boredtodeath
and passed it in the republican controlled senate. It was the Democratically controlled house which killed the bill.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/sum/sb500.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!
What is up with that? Why would Dems commit suicide like that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keepthemhonest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. well we all know Zell Miller
might as well be republican. So if the other Dems in georgia are anything like him then there you go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
5. This part totally confuses me:
"...but reject the notion that it must physically be paper and paper that the voter can sight verify."

What the...? :wtf:

Isn't that exactly the opposite of their resolution to "support procedures that allow voters to hand mark or machine mark their votes onto full-ballot-text paper ballots, to check their votes before they cast them, to know that the votes on the paper ballot are counted, and to have access to proof that every ballot is accounted for and every vote correctly understood and counted."?

:crazy:

Does anyone understand this?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdog Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. I didn't understand that part either.
And the rest of the document really is pretty... well, just disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genieroze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Doublespeak? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msgadget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. ABSOLUTELY NOT,
especially since this entire document, which I've printed out and read, is a Republican manifesto, a wish list for 2004. It's against abortion, the separation of church and state, gay marriage, the UN (or 'UNESCO'), funding for Planned Parenthood, etc. and for a flat tax, the war on terror, etc. It mentions HAVA and verifiable voting yet no one from Larimer County Republican Party (the source of this manifesto) has stood up and protested the very lack of the same in November 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
8. I am pretty sure that HAVA requires this anyway. The regs just didn't go
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 11:28 AM by Wordie
into effect in time for this election, and are scheduled for 2006.

Here is some of what HAVA says:

<snip>

HAVA Summary/Recommendations

"Help America Vote Act of 2002"
Summary and Potential Issues/Recommendations
Produced by the National Association of Secretaries of State

TITLE III – FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

1. Voting System Standards – Requirements - Section 301 referenced

* The voting system shall permit the voter to verify whom they voted for and make any changes to their vote – in a private and independent manner – before the ballot is cast and counted.

* The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity. The system shall provide the voter with the opportunity to change the ballot before the permanent paper record is produced. This paper record must be available as the official record for a recount.

* All states and jurisdictions must meet these voting system standard requirements by January 1, 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msgadget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. It's what was proposed way long time ago and not enacted in time,
and, if any Republican, particularly any Republican responsible for that manifesto really believed in HAVA, progressives wouldn't be the only ones still hollering about it. The document in its entirety discredits the inclusion of HAVA, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdog Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. So is there a document like this nationally
for the Republican party? Anyone know? It would be interesting to see their position on a paper trail in that document.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I edited my post with the additional national law standards from HAVA.
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 11:33 AM by Wordie
I think it may be useful to analyze the HAVA standards and propose ways in which they can be tightened. As I understand it, it's still up to the states to interpret the standards, and that's where we will have problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdog Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Ughhhh, never mind.
I just went to the RNC web site to see if I could find any info, but it made me ill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msgadget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. Here's HAVA
http://www.fec.gov/hava/law_ext.txt. I scrolled through it and maybe you can find something that spells out the need for verifiable voting but I didn't see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Flaming Red Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
14. Who owns the VV companies? I like hand counts, myself.
Edited on Fri Dec-10-04 11:29 AM by The Flaming Red Head
Paper ballots with hand counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
19. Not a paper trail but rather
Please refrain from stating you want a paper trail as no election law allow for such. Instead, the correct statement should be we all want PAPER BALLOTS!!! Not papers trails..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdog Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Ok, so I need some more info here.
I went to meeting chaired by the Colo. SOS yesterday (we did get on record our concerns about 2004 results).

At the meeting they were demonstrating and considering an electronic voting machine (similar to that used in Nevada)that provided a paper record enclosed in glass to the left of the screen. This allowed for the voter to verify that vote then confirm it. We brought up the fact that this would also require random auditing to make certain the numbers of the votes conformed with the totals of the machines. The auditing could take place either manually or using a bar code reader (not supplied by the voting machine company).

Are you telling me that the machine they are considering could not even be used because of the law? Can you give me a link to that info?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdog Donating Member (569 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. 4dsc, am I misunderstanding this part of HAVA?
SEC. 301. <<NOTE: 42 USC 15481.>> VOTING SYSTEMS STANDARDS.

(2) Audit capacity.-- (A) In general.--The voting system shall produce a record with an audit capacity for such system. (B) Manual audit capacity.-- (i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system. (ii) The voting system shall provide the voter with an opportunity to change the ballot or correct any error before the permanent paper record is produced. (iii) The paper record produced under subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official record for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pepper32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-10-04 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
22. Hmm, NOW they want a paper trail
Well, at this point I just want a PAPER BALLOT, get rid of the machines. If LIEBOLD is involved in future elections they can't be trusted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC