Thursday, October 23, 2008
Open Letter to the Media from the Media
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND DISTRIBUTION TO ALL MEDIA
Current Signatories 2 November 11pm (PT): Dave Berman - Mark Crispin Miller - Alastair Thompson - Peter B. Collins - Michael Collins - Ernest Partridge - Bernard Weiner - Rob Kall - David Swanson - Rady Ananda - Lynn Landes - Dan Ashby - Linda Milazzo - Jan Baumgartner - Cheryl Biren-Wright - Amanda Lang - Joanne Lukacher - Andi Novick - Paul Lehto - Mark A. Adams - Catherine Austin Fitts - John Gideon - Ellen Theisen - Bev Harris - John Chuckman - Bernie Ellis - Steve Freeman - John Russell - Jason Leopold - David L. Griscom, PhD - David Earnhardt - Carolyn Zaremba - Ron Baiman, PhD - Donna Norton - Josh Mitteldorf, PhD - Kathy Dopp - Allene E. Swienckowski - Lisa Finerty - Dave Stancliff - Sam Smith - Danny Schechter - Eric Holland
Dear Media Colleagues,
You are receiving this message because you are known to American progressives as a truth-teller. In this presidential campaign, despite the typical horse-race coverage, we also see the overall corporate media narrative influenced by daily debunking efforts from candidates' rapid response teams, the blogosphere, and the reality-based coverage and reporting that you provide.
We need to take this to the next level.
There are three very simple basic facts about the way US federal elections are conducted now, and we think they lead to an inescapable conclusion that must be addressed.
See if you agree:
1. We have secret corporate vote counting computers counting more than 95% of the votes cast in the United States;
2. The absence of paper ballots, and in some cases state's law, prevents meaningful re-counts throughout much of the country;
3. These electronic voting machines frequently produce results impossible in a legitimate election, such as John Kerry's negative 25 million votes in Youngstown, OH (Nov. 2004), or Palm Beach County's 12,000 votes in excess of the number of voters (Aug. 2008).
To us this suggests the conclusion that federal election results are unprovable, even though the media reports them as fact.
Can you draw any other conclusion?
It will surprise nobody this November when the outcome is a spoiled mess, riddled with controversy. In fact, we can already say the results--based on the conditions--are guaranteed to be inconclusive, unknowable and unprovable.
We must challenge our industry to refuse to report as fact what can't be proven and hasn't been independently verified, particularly when the only source of the information is the government itself.
The reality is that the media should be the greatest advocates of hand counting paper ballots because this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording the reported results the greatest credibility.
Transparent coverage of a transparent counting process would create a basis for confidence in the reported results where none currently exists.
As we all know, there is a vibrant community of engaged citizens across the US who collectively self-identify as the "election integrity community." They are asking us truth-tellers to challenge our industry, essentially reframing the debate.
Many of them have appeared on our shows and in our columns over the past few years, and they are eager to be sources for us now. But they are also counting on us to take this message forward and we don't see how we can be truth-tellers without doing that.
Please join us in this concerted effort to use truth-telling yet again to change the corporate media narrative of this presidential campaign.
Respectfully yours,
Dave Berman, WeDoNotConsent.blogspot.com; Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt, CA
Mark Crispin Miller, Author, www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com
Alastair Thompson, Co-Editor/General Manager, www.Scoop.co.nz
Michael Collins, "The Money Party," usacoupscoop.co.nz/?tag=michael-collins;electionfraudnews.com/MichaelCollins.htm
Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers www.crisispapers.org/
Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers www.crisispapers.org/
Rob Kall, Executive Editor & Publisher, www.OpEdNews.com
David Swanson, Co-Founder, www.AfterDowningStreet.org
Joan Brunwasser, Election Integrity Editor, www.OpEdNews.com
Rady Ananda, Senior Editor, www.OpEdNews.com
Lynn Landes, freelance journalist, www.thelandesreport.com
Tom Courbat, Founder, SAVE R VOTE, www.savervote.com
Dan Ashby, Co-Founder and Director, www.ElectionDefenseAlliance.org
Linda Milazzo, OpedNews Senior Editor; HuffingtonPost blogger, www.OpEdNews.com
Jan Baumgartner, Managing Editor, www.OpEdNews.com
Cheryl Biren-Wright, Managing Editor, www.OpEdNews.com
Amanda Lang, OEN Managing Editor, www.opednews.com
Joanne Lukacher, Communications Director, Election Transparency Coalition, www.re-mediaetc.org
Andi Novick, Legal Counsel, Election Transparency Coalition, www.re-mediaetc.org
Valerie Lane, Chair, SAVElections Monterey County
Paul R Lehto, Juris Doctor, Author of Election Law Encyclopedia articles
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA founder of http://www.ProjectVoteCount.com
Catherine Austin Fitts, Scoop “Mapping The Real Deal” Columnist, solari.com
John Gideon, Co-Executive Director, VotersUnite.Org
Ellen Theisen, Co-Executive Director, VotersUnite.Org
Bev Harris, founder and director,Black Box Voting (Web site http://www.blackboxvoting.org)
John Chuckman, Columnist & Cartoonist More Websites: Postcards, Trading Cards, Places
Bernie Ellis Organizer, Gathering To Save Our Democracy (Tennessee) and Convener, National Election Reform Conference Nashville, TN April, 2005 - http://www.votesafetn.org
Steve Freeman, author, academic and founder of ElectionIntegrity
John Russell (FL-5) D - www.johnrussellforcongress.com
Jason Leopold, investigative journalist, author - TPR: The Public Record
David L. Griscom, Ph.D., impactglassman.blogspot.com; Co-Founder, AUDITAZ; Member Coordinating Committee, Election Defense Alliance.
David Earnhardt, filmmaker, "UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections"
Carolyn Zaremba, Socialist Equality Party
Ron Baiman, PhD, Economist/Statistician, Vice President National Election Data Archive/U.S. Count Votes
Donna Norton, Member Elect, Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee; Member, Progressive Democrats of America, Sonoma County
Josh Mitteldorf, PhD, statistician for Election Integrity and Election Defense Alliance
Kathy Dopp, MS Mathematics, Executive Director, US Count Votes
Allene E. Swienckowski, author http://www.whenmeangirlsgrowup.com
Lisa Finerty, Chair, Democrats Abroad - Rome Chapter
Dave Stancliff, freelance journalist
Sam Smith, The Progressive Review
Danny Schechter, http://www.mediachannel.org
Eric Holland, MA Media Arts, Emerson 2002; Editor 1938music.com
SEND THIS EMAIL TO THE MEDIA
LAST WDNC UPDATE: 11/2/08 11pm PT
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/open-letter-to-media-from-media.html
Labels: election integrity movement, hand-counting paper ballots, open letter, Scoop, truth-tellers, unprovable
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Peter B. Collins, Dave Berman to Discuss Unprovable Federal Election Results - 10/23 5pm PT
Listen live through PeterBCollins.com Thursday at 5pm PT as I'll be on this great talk radio show to discuss whether the accuracy of federal election results can be proven.
For a long time I have argued federal election results are inherently inconclusive, unknowable and unprovable - based entirely on the conditions under which "elections" are conducted. There is simply no basis for confidence in the reported results, that is, no reason to believe them.
As I hinted last Friday, when I wrote about the Nation's John Nichols coming around to describing the 2000 and 2004 elections as "inconclusive," during tomorrow's interview we will begin to hear a louder chorus taking up this message and calling out the media.
Why should we be expected to believe reported election results that media have not and can not independently verify, which can't even be proven, and which come from only one source - the very government whose grip on power is at stake?
In fact, for as long as I've written the We Do Not Consent blog there have been others making this point. In the back of my book, We Do Not Consent, (free .pdf), there are testimonials that have permanently appeared in the sidebar of the blog as follows:"This is an important collection of essays with a strong unitary theme: if you can't prove that you were elected, we can't take you seriously as elected officials. Simple, logical, comprehensive. 'Management' (aka, the 'powers that be') needs to get the message. 'The machines' are not legitimizers, they're an artful dodge and a path to deception. We've had enough...and we most certainly DO NOT consent."
Over the years, these points have been made in countless ways. Tomorrow we will unveil perhaps the most impactful expression yet. In the meantime, here's another that I submitted last week as a letter to the editor of the North Coast Journal. I'm posting it now because their new issue came out today without it.
— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media
and...
"If in the future we have vital elections, the "no basis for confidence" formulation that GuvWurld is popularizing will have been a historically important development. This is true because by implicitly insisting on verification and checks and balances instead of faith or trust in elections officials or machines as a basis for legitimacy, it encourages healthy transparent elections. It's also rare that a political formulation approaches scientific certainty, but this formulation is backed up by scientific principles that teach that if you can't repeat something (such as an election) and verify it by independent means, it doesn't exist within the realm of what science will accept as established or proven truth."
— Paul Lehto, Juris DoctorDear Editor:
Thank you for the even-handed run down of state and local ballot issues (Oct. 9). Perhaps you could also devote a little space to both sides of a national question: are federal election results provable?
One side says: we have secret corporate vote counting computers in more than 95% of the country; about 30% of the country doesn't even use paper ballots to allow a serious re-count; and these electronic voting machines frequently produce results impossible in a legitimate election, such as John Kerry's negative 25 million votes in Youngstown, OH (Nov. 2004), or Palm Beach County's 12,000 votes in excess of the number of voters (Aug. 2008).
These self-described "election integrity advocates" say there is no way to prove federal election results. They further allege that media is abandoning its most basic principles by publishing election results as fact, when the information has not and can not be independently verified. Worse still, they say, is that media reports of election results rely on only one source--the government--even though the government can not prove the reported results.
Opponents argue federal election results are provable because. Just because.
While this is fairly convincing, the Journal could do a genuine public service in affording more space for elaboration of this point of view. The Journal could also encourage the media industry at large to advocate for hand counting paper ballots, reasoning that this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording the reported results the greatest credibility, and demonstrating that the reported results have been proven to the satisfaction of the thousands of ordinary Americans who would be involved in counting ballots.
Dave Berman
Eureka, CA
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/10/peter-b-collins-dave-berman-to-discuss.html
Labels: hand-counting paper ballots, inconclusive, John Nichols, Michael Collins, North Coast Journal, Paul Lehto, Peter B. Collins, Scoop, The Nation, unprovable
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The Real Election Math
Paperless electronic voting +
Corporate vote counting guarded as proprietary secrets +
Nonsensical results such as negative vote totals =
"Election" results are UNPROVABLE.
Tell the media not to report as fact what can't even be proven and what hasn't been independently verified. The media should be the greatest advocates of hand counting paper ballots because this method of counting allows media greatest access to observing and documenting the process, affording their reporting the greatest credibility. Transparent coverage of a transparent counting process would create a basis for confidence in the reported results where none currently exists.
Listen to this .mp3:
http://tinyurl.com/3sppbd
I'm cross-posting this widely and encourage you to do the same.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/09/real-election-math.html
Labels: hand-counting paper ballots, media reform, paperless electronic voting, proprietary secrets, secret vote counting, unprovable
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Activists chanted for voter confidence
I've got a lot of stray threads to pull together here so let's start with this great quote from the Eureka Reporter's coverage of Saturday's Peace March in Eureka, CA:
Hundreds gather to march in peace rally
By ASHLEY BAILEY, The Eureka Reporter
Published: Mar 15 2008, 11:57 PM · Updated: Mar 16 2008, 12:00 AM
Category: Local News
Topic: Community
Hundreds of Humboldt County residents united in a peace march from the Eureka Municipal Auditorium to the Old Town Gazebo on Saturday.
It wasn't just about being against the Iraq War or being against the military's recruitment of minors — nothing seemed to be off limits.
Activists chanted for voter confidence, increased public monitoring of police, and promoting peace and ending violence. (emphasis added)
MORE:http://eurekareporter.com/article/080315-hundreds-gather-to-march-in-peace-rally
You take the good with the bad sometimes. The Reporter's e-paper from Monday March 10 (published only online, see page A2) contained a barely edited version of the Vets For Peace Chapter 56 press release announcing their support for hand-counting paper ballots. The edits attributed factual statements to me, rather than sourcing the basis for considering the claims factual, thus making the facts appear to be matters of opinion. This is a known pet peeve of mine.
So, I submitted a letter to the editor about this, which spawned quite an e-mail exchange with Reporter Managing Editor Glenn Franco Simmons. Typically he requests such exchanges be kept off the record (out of the blogosphere), though this time he did not. I won't post all that now, but perhaps later. I'm told to expect the letter in the paper, and will post that here at WDNC once it has been published.
At the Peace March on Saturday, I shared a moment on stage with John Mulloy from VFP-56. I believe this was what inspired the "chanting" for voter confidence. Mulloy has a cameo in the WDNC Photo Gallery from the March, tucked into the top right corner of the photo of the VCC table at the Gazebo. Here's one where he's the star:
At the Peace March we got a little over 100 people signed up for the willing hand-counter list that now hovers around 350. A VCC e-mail newsletter went out to the newly expanded subscriber list, encouraging letters to the editor, and also the introduction of hand-counting as a campaign issue in the three County Supervisor races on the June ballot.
One last note about the March. I posted a photo of Peter Aronson, captioned with a reference to his tremendous dedication to the topic of depleted uranium. I have since added to the GuvWurld News Archive a January 10 interview (.mp3) Aronson did on the Peter B. Collins show. The dude knows his stuff!
There is a lot of new content over at GuvWurld. In particular, I have been posting a lot of grim economic news, primarily because there isn't any other kind right now. I also want to direct your attention to a recording (.mp3) from last Thursday night. It begins with my presentation to the Humboldt Republican Party, followed by Humboldt Registrar Carolyn Crnich making a presentation of comparable length, and then about 20 minutes of discussion (43:33 total).
To summarize, citing from the VCC Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, I ran through historical problems with Diebold locally and around the country. I also brought in two new reports: the NH Primary recount study I've previously mentioned by the We The People Foundation; and last week's release from the University of CT, in which the Department of Computer Science announces more and new ways to tamper with memory cards (the same ones used here in Humboldt), including what they described as a "time-bomb" attack.
I spoke about efforts to build support for hand-counting paper ballots, but I didn't have time to get into a lot of detail about our work around forecasting cost, time and labor needs. Despite my preparation, I didn't at all get to preemptively address concerns about the Humboldt Transparency Project, which I knew the Registrar was there to promote. Fortunately, I did speak to this briefly during the discussion.
Perhaps most worthy of note, the Registrar misstated an important aspect of the VCC's position on how hand-counting would be done here in Humboldt. As stated in the VCC's Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, and in direct communication with the Registrar on multiple occasions, the VCC advocates fresh voters be brought in to count, relieving the poll workers who have been working since before dawn. The Registrar went out of her way to suggest that hand-counting is not favorable because tired people have already worked a long day that would be even longer.
There's a bit more to say about this but I'll hold it back for the day down the line when I'll publish the follow-up letter I sent thanking Patricia Welch, Humboldt Republican Party Chairman, for enabling me to share information with the group.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/03/activists-chanted-for-voter-confidence.html
Labels: "time bomb", Carolyn Crnich, Diebold, Eureka Reporter, hand-counting paper ballots, Humboldt Republicans, John Mulloy, NH Primary, OpEdNews.com, Peace March, Report on Election Conditions, VCC
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Press Releasee: VCC Documents Problems In Humboldt's February Primary
PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Bob Olofson, 707-444-8764 rwolofson@sbcglobal.net
Election Watchdog Repeats Call For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
March 10, 2008 -- During the recent 'Super Tuesday' primary election, the Humboldt Voter Confidence Committee sent observers to selected precinct polling places. While the election process was mostly free off technical and human glitches, the following problems were noted:
Several Accu-vote ballot scanners at different polling places jammed. Two were repaired within a few minutes with no further problems noted on those machines. A different scanner was reported by a poll worker at 12:30pm as having jammed about 10 times at that point in the day, while another poll worker referred to the same machine as jamming once every 2 - 3 ballots.
One poll observer reported that two different 'e-slate' voting machines showed a ballot count of two on the readout, while the printer tape said zero ballots, and the poll workers said that no one had voted on the machine. There were also two voting machines returned to election headquarters without having been first closed out per operating instructions.
Several instances were observed of paperwork being put in the wrong bag, one instance of an official seal being left unsecured (which could theoretically be used to re-seal the container after tampering with ballots inside,) and several instances of minor problems and delays in setting up or closing down equipment.
In the main vote counting room at County election headquarters (where the paper ballots are scanned and tabulated) between approximately 8:15pm and 10:50pm, the doors were left open and the room and access hallway unattended for periods of several minutes at a time.
A machine from a McKinleyville precinct was left overnight at the precinct rather than being returned to election headquarters.
All data from the e-slate voting machines was tabulated by an employee of the contractor that supplied the equipment, on a laptop brought by the employee.
There was apparently no specific time frame for the 'hash test' on the memory cards of the Accu-vote scanners. (This test is to assure that the secret proprietary code supplied by the vendors of the scanners has not been tampered with since it left the custody of the County elections office. The longer the hash test is delayed, the greater the possibility that a hacker could successfully re-program the card and then erase any signs of tampering with it.)
The VCC again acknowledge the dedication and competence of the County election office staff and the poll workers.
The VCC again called for an end to the use of all optical scanners (for counting paper ballots) and paperless voting machines, and a return to the more verifiable, transparent and secure practice of hand counting all paper ballots. The public are invited to obtain more information on election integrity issues at www.voterconfidencecommittee.org.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/03/press-releasee-vcc-documents-problems.html
Labels: accu-vote, Bob Olofson, Diebold, eSlate, hand-counting paper ballots, press release, Voter Confidence Committee
Saturday, March 08, 2008
VFP-56 PRESS RELEASE: Supporting hand-count paper ballots; "No justice in secret vote counting"
PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts: Jim Sorter, (707) 826-1781; and Dave Berman (707) 845-3749
Peace Group Says No Justice, No Peace, and No Justice With Secret Vote Counting
(March 8, 2008) -- Veterans For Peace Chapter 56 has adopted a resolution (below) calling for Humboldt County to abandon its Diebold optical scanners in favor of hand-counting paper ballots beginning with the June 2008 primary election. VFP-56 joins the Voter Confidence Committee (VCC), Redwood ACLU, and Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC) in an emerging coalition that also boasts more than 250 individual community members who have signed on to indicate their willingness to hand-count paper ballots on election night once the County makes the change.
"We have a saying that goes 'No Justice, No Peace; Know Justice, Know Peace,'" said VFP-56 Secretary Jim Sorter. "There is no justice in secret vote counting."
VFP-56 support of election reform goes back as far as 2004, when the earliest versions of what became the Voter Confidence Resolution were being circulated. The Arcata City Council later adopted that resolution in July 2005.
"We are repeating and amplifying our past calls for election reform," said Sorter, "by joining with these other groups in calling for hand-counting all the paper ballots."
The VFP-56 resolution for hand-counting is nearly identical to the statement adopted by the HCDCC on February 13. VCC co-founder Dave Berman brought the resolution to both groups and hopes to see this coalition displaying solidarity at the upcoming Peace March in Eureka on March 15. (Disclosure: Berman is also an associate member of VFP-56.)
"Big public events are a great time for us to get willing hand-counters signed up," said Berman, "and to help make it sink for people, as they look around the crowd, that we have a lot of people power on our side. Why is it even acceptable to be defending secret vote counting with totally discredited machines?"
Last summer California Secretary of State Debra Bowen conducted a Top To Bottom Review of voting systems used throughout the state. Her security experts were able to compromise every system tested, including Humboldt's Diebold optical scanners.
The same equipment was used to count roughly 80% of the votes in the New Hampshire primary in January. The other 20% of New Hampshire's ballots were hand-counted. According to a report by the We The People Foundation*, a statewide recount found the error rate was significantly higher where the scanners did the initial count, and that the scanners' error rate exceeded the limit allowed by federal law.
To read the VFP-56 resolution, visit www.vfp56.org.
For more information about election conditions in Humboldt County, read the free report at www.VoterConfidenceCommittee.org.
* http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/MISC/NH-Recount/FF-NH-Report-Feb-2008.pdf
Resolution In Support of Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
Adopted By Veterans For Peace Chapter 56
March 6, 2008Whereas elections in Humboldt County rely on Diebold's (now Premier) precinct-based optical scanners, and Diebold's GEMS central tabulator program to combine all precinct results; and
Whereas computer security experts have repeatedly demonstrated and documented the ability to tamper with this equipment, changing election results without leaving behind a trace of evidence; and
Whereas academic studies have repeatedly demonstrated and documented that security flaws in this equipment exist by design, and cannot be remedied with "procedural mitigations," or new security methods; and
Whereas claims of "trade secrecy" prevent citizens, the media, and even elections officials from observing the inner workings of this equipment, denying everyone the right to see their vote counted as cast; and
Whereas elections conducted under these conditions require blind trust, or faith, to accept unverifiable and inherently uncertain outcomes that provide no rational basis for confidence in the reported results; and
Whereas the County of Humboldt is free to choose not to use Diebold's equipment, and is likewise not prevented from choosing to hand-count paper ballots at poll sites on election night; and
Whereas hand-counting paper ballots provides transparency, security, and verifiable accuracy that creates a rational basis for confidence in reported results;
Therefore be it resolved, Veterans For Peace Chapter 56 hereby calls for Humboldt County to discontinue use of Diebold equipment and to introduce hand-counting of all ballots no later than the June 2008 primary election; and
Therefore be it further resolved that Veterans For Peace Chapter 56 will support educating the community about the benefits of this change, and to recruit registered voters to serve as poll workers and/or vote counters.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/03/vfp-56-press-release-supporting-hand.html
Labels: ACLU, Arcata City Council, hand-counting paper ballots, Humboldt County, Humboldt Dems, Jim Sorter, Vets For Peace, Voter Confidence Committee, Voter Confidence Resolution
Friday, March 07, 2008
Vets For Peace Chapter 56 Reiterates Call For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
Following recent announcements by the Redwood ACLU and the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC), on Thursday night Veterans For Peace Chapter 56 adopted a resolution calling for Humboldt County to switch to all hand-counted paper ballots by the June 2008 primary election. The statement, shown in full below, is nearly identical to the one adopted February 18 by the HCDCC.
There is no question we now have momentum in this, what I call the Humboldt Hand-Count Campaign. See the Voter Confidence Committee website for materials easily adapted for similar campaigns elsewhere. I know there is interest in this in other parts because I keep getting asked to do radio interviews. Here is one (.mp3) I did recently with Dan Ashby and Marj Creech of the Election Defense Alliance.
The local VFP group has repeatedly given support to VCC initiatives that I have brought them. As an associate member, I am grateful for the forum and time shared with these extraordinary people. They will have a press release out soon and I expect the resolution will make it onto their website. Meanwhile, here it is...
Resolution In Support of Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
Adopted By Veterans For Peace Chapter 56
March 6, 2008Whereas elections in Humboldt County rely on Diebold's (now Premier) precinct-based optical scanners, and Diebold's GEMS central tabulator program to combine all precinct results; and
Whereas computer security experts have repeatedly demonstrated and documented the ability to tamper with this equipment, changing election results without leaving behind a trace of evidence; and
Whereas academic studies have repeatedly demonstrated and documented that security flaws in this equipment exist by design, and cannot be remedied with "procedural mitigations," or new security methods; and
Whereas claims of "trade secrecy" prevent citizens, the media, and even elections officials from observing the inner workings of this equipment, denying everyone the right to see their vote counted as cast; and
Whereas elections conducted under these conditions require blind trust, or faith, to accept unverifiable and inherently uncertain outcomes that provide no rational basis for confidence in the reported results; and
Whereas the County of Humboldt is free to choose not to use Diebold's equipment, and is likewise not prevented from choosing to hand-count paper ballots at poll sites on election night; and
Whereas hand-counting paper ballots provides transparency, security, and verifiable accuracy that creates a rational basis for confidence in reported results;
Therefore be it resolved, Veterans For Peace Chapter 56 hereby calls for Humboldt County to discontinue use of Diebold equipment and to introduce hand-counting of all ballots no later than the June 2008 primary election; and
Therefore be it further resolved that Veterans For Peace Chapter 56 will support educating the community about the benefits of this change, and to recruit registered voters to serve as pollworkers and/or vote counters.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/03/vets-for-peace-chapter-56-reiterates.html
Labels: ACLU, Dan Ashby, Election Defense Alliance, hand-counting paper ballots, Humboldt Dems, Marj Creech, Vets For Peace, Voter Confidence Committee
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Optical Scan Error Rate Exceeds Federal Limit in NH Primary Recount
In a study published by the We The People Foundation, the NH Primary Election recount revealed error rates in machine counted votes far exceeded the error rate for hand-counted votes. Further, the machine error rate was also greatly in excess of federal limits. OpEdNews has a good summary, or go here for the full report. Principal findings:Of the 347, 905 total ballots processed during the recount 305,207 (87.7%) came from towns and cities that use machines to count the votes, and 42,619 (12.3%) came from towns that use People to count the votes.
Has there ever been a better environment from which to draw such comparative data? This is very useful information.
New Hampshire's vote counting machines violate federal accuracy standards. New Hampshire's machines experienced an error rate approximately 163 times greater than the error rate allowed under federal Election Law.
The probability that an individual's vote was accurately counted during the Primary was much greater if his vote was counted by hand than by machine.
Statewide, taking into consideration all the ballots that were included in the recount, the number of machine counts that were in error by more than 2 votes was 9.81 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 2 votes. The number of machine counts that were in error by more than 1 vote was 3.37 times greater than the number of hand counts that were off by more than 1 vote.
Coming up this Tuesday between 5-6pm PT I will be making my second appearance on the Election Defense Alliance radio show broadcast through Toginet.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/optical-scan-error-rate-exceeds-federal.html
Labels: accuracy standards, Election Defense Alliance, hand-counting paper ballots, New Hampshire, recount, Toginet, We The People Foundation
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Political Realism vs Negotiating with Our Hands (Guest Blog By Rady Ananda)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rady_ana_080212_political_realism_vs.htm February 12, 2008 Political Realism vs Negotiating with Our Hands By Rady Ananda Successful tactics from around the globe inspire adoption into the hand-count elections movement. Rejection of hopeless “realism” – that politicians aren’t considering our demand for hand counts - is but a part of the overall strategy. If citizens expect accurate election results, they must run parallel polls, observe, investigate and video the vote. Power is never given; it must be asserted. “The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected.” So said Tom Paine at the height of the Enlightenment. A century later, New York case law reveals judicial comprehension that: “Statutory regulations are enacted to secure freedom of choice and to prevent fraud, and not by technical obstructions to make the right of voting insecure and difficult.” Former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick explains that: "Democratic elections are not merely symbolic....They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, (and) definitive …” It’s probably safe to say that all election integrity advocates agree with these premises. Where we differ is in how to achieve our mutual goals. Realists Some would have us adopt the “reality” that the machines are here to stay, so let’s work within the system. “Realists” would have us discussing audits, as if that ever overturned election results. We know that courts have election officials’ backs, as numerous recent cases reveal (Florida 13, San Diego 50, and that squirrelly Squire case in Franklin County, Ohio, to name a few). Let’s talk about audits of scientifically-condemned computerized election systems for a moment. My lay-person’s read of the literature evokes this analogy: The security firm, Black Wellwater, advises you to remove the back wall to your house, and replace it with screening. After you return from vacation, the firm advises you can only inventory 10% of your goods to see if anything was stolen. Not only that, but you can’t even choose to inventory those suspect items – things you just know a thief would go for. Yet this is what election officials want us to accept. Even worse, some states only audit 1% of the results. In fact, San Diego County sued its Secretary of State whining that anything more was too cumbersome for her staff. On her staff is disgraced Cuyahoga County election official, Michael Vu, who oversaw the theft or loss of thousands of dollars in memory cards and voting machines in the May 2006 election. Yeah, I bet they don’t want a stringent audit. The beauty of hand-counts is that a self-auditing procedure is built into the count process. Oh sure, anyone is welcome to recount – but any recount worth its effort will use the same self-auditing techniques during the process. We will never have a basis for confidence in reported results when the votes are counted in secret. All machines do this – all machines must go. Distracted Other election integrity activists ignore the entire issue of how our votes are counted, as they work to confront other, less immediately-serious failures in U.S. elections. It’s like fiddling while Rome is burning, because music soothes people. No doubt: Each of these factors alone defeats democracy, and reduces U.S. elections to carnival shows that give politicians the appearance of legitimacy. I have no argument with remaking the entire U.S. election system. But if the vote counts aren’t authentic, no other change will make any meaningful difference. If we can at least get accurate vote counts, as voters intended and as democracy demands, then we have a fair shot of working out these other, more complicated, features that encompass best electoral management practices. Still others (myself included) would demand transparent vote counts, now, as the primary and crucial first step toward integrity. If politicians won’t give us what we demand – transparency – then we create it ourselves. The election integrity movement is not the only social justice movement plagued by “political realists” who would compromise our position into meaningless reform such as low-percentage audits. In Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein contrasts two separate disasters that culminated in very different outcomes based on which reality was accepted, and thus, which strategy was pursued. “Dozens of coastal villages were flattened by the wave, but unlike in Sri Lanka, many Thai settlements were successfully rebuilt within months. The difference did not come from the government. Thailand’s politicians were just as eager as those elsewhere to use the storm as an excuse to evict fishing people and hand over land tenure to large resorts. “So, in one dramatic case, the residents … ‘gathered themselves together and marched right back home, where they encircled their wrecked village with rope, in a symbolic gesture to mark their land ownership,’ explained a report by a Thai NGO… Election activists “negotiate with their hands” by polling voters outside an official polling site. Citizen-run exit polling, or parallel elections, is a concept that proves hand-counts are on the table. Political realists (deliberately?) ignore the potential energy of this grassroots movement. Today, they’re called citizen run exit polls, but the same structure exists: citizens ask voters to complete a parallel ballot (variably called an affidavit, a sworn statement, or a poll sheet) after they have finished voting in the official election. These parallel “ballots” are then transported and counted (presumably) under secure protocols, using nonpartisans or people from varied political parties. Overall, a citizen’s job is to study how elections are run, as if you are the boss, because you are. Civic engagement is democracy in practice. "Bowen's comment about software not being suitable for the way election equipment is certified is right on the mark. Understand that “electronic voting machine” includes optical scan machines as well as touch screen systems. Our Orwellian culture will try to confuse the public into believing that “electronic voting” somehow only applies to touch screens. All software driven devices are inappropriate for use in recording or counting our votes, or in replicating our signatures, or in centralizing registration on a statewide basis. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 has done the opposite. Let’s not forget that everything the Nazis did was legal, by their own laws. What the federal government has done – bureaucratically and legislatively - since the 2000 coup d’état should shock the conscience of every decent American. It does, I know – I see it across the political spectrum. "When I advocate 'democracy' as the basis for an economic development strategy, I mean political democracy as it is usually understood: elections, civil liberties and the right to organize. But beyond these essential forms of democracy, I mean something more substantive. A democratic economic development strategy is one that puts people in a position to participate in decisions about and effectively exercise political power over their economic lives. It puts people in a position where their lives are not dominated by either the market or the state." Or by privatized elections where votes are counted in secret by corporations. With that as the premise (which totally captures my attention and makes my heart flutter with hope), I can apply his thinking to hand-counted elections: "If the goal is to alter the nature of the system and make a real difference in people's lives, then we need to formulate and implement practical programs that both improve economic conditions and challenge the structure of social-political power." Hand-counted elections certainly challenge the current power structure, and being far less expensive than computers also affect local economies with the billions spent on computerized voting systems. Sally Castleman writes: “DREs and Optical Scanner equipment are more costly than any hand count system. Not only is the initial cost substantial, but other costs include ongoing testing and certification, secure storage, temperature controlled environments, maintenance, reprogramming, service, batteries, upgrading to newer models to keep up with specification requirements,” and salaries for specialized technical experts. Back to MacEwan: “Practical programs advance toward a radical transformation of society.” Hand-count fans don’t want to reform a broken system; instead, we assert radical change by demanding election night counts in full public view, with the results posted at the precinct. "A reformist reform is one which subordinates its objective to the criteria of rationality and practicability of a given system and policy." (a.k.a. 'political realism’) “Reformism rejects those objectives and demands - however deep the need for them - which are incompatible with the preservation of the system.” Hand-counts remove corporations and experts-only from counting or verifying vote totals - a government-run expert system with a vested interest in the outcome that may conflict with the public will. Indeed, given the 4/5 disapproval rating, public will directly conflicts with the will of government. Do they deserve to be trusted to count our vote? "(A non-reformist) reform is one which is conceived not in terms of what is possible within the framework of a given system and administration, but in view of what should be made possible in terms of human needs and demands." Hand-counts meet the transparent vote counting criterion of democratic elections, something all advocates of free and fair elections demand. "Democratic initiatives must: 1. Make a positive difference in people's lives. They should not demand that a sacrifice be made in the name of some greater good; they must bring something good in themselves. Their goals are defined by what should be;" Auditing an election system which is vulnerable to undiscoverable tampering is no safeguard. We do not sacrifice election integrity on the grounds that politicians have taken hand-counts off the table. Who really cares what politicians want, anyway? They work for us. "2. Challenge the existing relations of power and authority and in some way move society towards a more democratic structure. They need not overturn or destroy the existing social structures. Yet in some manner they must pose a threat to the existing social and economic structures. The essence of this threat is that these initiatives expand the realm of democracy and enhance democratic authority;" Clearly, citizen-run elections do this; as well as citizen-oversight of the count on election night. "3. Be possible in the sense that their implementation does not require a prior revolutionary, structural reorganization of society. They may set in motion a process of change that pushes society in the direction of dramatic structural reorganization - that is precisely their point. Yet, because they are particular and partial and therefore are not themselves dependent on that reorganization, they are possible." Hand-count initiatives set in motion a process of systemic change that will push “society in the direction of dramatic structural reorganization” allowing for the many other needed changes discussed on page 1: This list truly goes on, the more I read about best practices. "In a situation of manipulation, the Left is almost always tempted by a quick return to power, forgets the necessity of joining with the oppressed to forge an organization, and strays into impossible 'dialogue' with the dominant elites. It ends up being manipulated by these elites, and not infrequently itself falls into an elitist game, which it calls realism’" In Age of Consent, George Monbiot recognizes self-defeating realism: "Had those people who campaigned for national democratization in the 19th century in Europe approached their task with the same hopeless realism as the reformists campaigning for global democratization today, they would have argued that, as the authorities were not ready to consider granting the universal franchise, they should settle for a 'realistic' option instead; and their descendents today might have been left with a situation in which all those earning, say, $50,000 a year or possessing 20 acres of land were permitted to vote, but those with less remained disenfranchised. Age of Consent, pp 65-66 To imagine 10-12 voters per neighborhood counting the ballots on election night is easy. It takes 20 minutes to train people in hand counts... and just think how things might change if reported election results were authentic. I imagine Congress would be freaking out that 4/5 of the nation disapproves of it. They’d worry about their jobs and change their behavior right quick, if elections were honest. We reject the defeatist notion that hand-counted elections are off the table for 2008. The grassroots already have the political will for fundamental change; our self-appointed leaders simply need to articulate nationally what we’ve been doing locally for the past three years. “How do you wanna go out? On your feet or on your knees?” Tracy Campbell, Deliver the Vote: A history of election fraud, an American political tradition – 1742-2004. Carroll & Graf, 2005. Alan Fram, Bush, Congress Hit New Low in AP Poll, February 8, 2008 at Boston Globe. Paolo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Continuum Publishing, 1970. -- Black Box Voting Citizens’ Toolkit David Kidwell and Jason Grotto, Chicago polls go well -- despite punches, broken machines, wrong ballots and 'invisible ink', February 6, 2008 at Chicago Tribune. Julia Rosen, Latest on the Los Angeles Double Bubble Trouble, February 6, 2008 at calitics.com. Also see the CourageCampaign.org website for a picture of poor ballot design leading to the (deliberate?) disenfranchisement of 95,000 voters.
Votes counted in secret are a hallmark of tyranny, if Robert Heinlein is correct that “secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny.” Votes counted on easily hacked software-driven systems do not provide us with “definitive” outcomes, but instead are “technical obstructions to make the right of voting insecure.” They provide us with no basis for confidence in reported results.
Machine fans, or defeated hand-count fans, argue that we must be “politically realistic” in our quest for election integrity. The argument goes that politicians aren’t considering hand-counted paper ballots, so to succeed in our agreed goal of honest elections, we have to accept machines.
What they call political “reality” is merely fatal compromise.
To believe that what politicians want is the only course open to us is to deny the vast power of the will of the people. A 2006 Zogby poll determined that 92% want transparent elections. A February 2008 poll found that 78% disapproves of Congress. Clearly, corporate-sponsored Congress has no intention of doing the bidding of We the People, so whatever options Pols put on the table are necessarily suspect.
“Negotiating with your hands”
In the 2005 Katrina disaster in New Orleans, power holders successfully kept poor residents from returning to their apartments. As recently as two months ago, citizens were tasered and jailed for resisting the destruction of affordable housing. Land developers now stand to make substantial fortunes from the land grab. (Here we see Derrick Jensen’s 2nd, 4th and 5th Premises holding true.)
In the 2004 Asian tsunami, a different scenario played out. Klein writes:
“Yet what set Thailand apart was that villagers approached all government promises with intense skepticism and refused to wait patiently in camps for an official reconstruction plan. Instead, within weeks, hundreds of villagers engaged in what they called land “reinvasions.”
“They marched past the armed guards on the payroll of developers, tools in hand, and began marking off the sites where their old houses had been. In some cases, reconstruction began immediately…
“The most daring reinvasions were performed by Thailand’s indigenous fishing peoples called the Moken… After centuries of disenfranchisement, the Moken had no illusions that a benevolent state would give them a decent piece of land in exchange for the coastal properties that had been seized.
“All along the Thai coast where the tsunami hit, this kind of direct-action reconstruction is the norm. The key to their success is that ‘people negotiate for their land rights from a position of being in occupation;’ some have dubbed the practice ‘negotiating with your hands.’
Shock Doctrine, pp. 463-464.
Also see http://www.achr.net/
Starting in 2005, parallel polling has now been run in the U.S. by the grassroots of both major parties, as well as Greens and Independents. This idea generated from US think tanks, where they were deployed as early as 1986 to check election results in other nations.
Although I’ve been involved in parallel polling since 2005, including Florida’s in 2008, I have yet to see one that achieves ballot security – something we expect of our official electoral management bodies. Surely, we require a basis for confidence in reported results from whomever counts the vote. I expect chain of custody will be preserved with better training, and as more people grasp the significance of parallel polling. Meanwhile, I wholly support the spread of this action, coupled with better training.
My buddy, Troy Seman, calls parallel elections “the antidote to fraudulent elections.” Because we run these parallel polls, we know hand-counted elections are on the table. Politicians, of course, ignore the significance of parallel polling, while corporate media discounts discrepancies between pollsters and election results. This, despite that parallel polling is used to verify elections around the globe.
As this movement grows – and there is no doubt it will, given the unrelenting glitches, double bubbles, invisible ink, and wtfever, reported after every single election - and as more voters experience self-empowerment from citizen-run elections, there will come a point when even politicians will admit that hand-counting is “on the table” simply because we citizens put it there. We’re not waiting for politicians – we’re running free and fair elections ourselves.
Several other methods of “negotiating with our hands” are recommended: Be an official domestic observer, video the vote, count the signatures in polling books and compare them to official results for in-person voters, follow the voting machines on Election Day, and blog, blog, blog about all of it. Much of what you’ll discover is that the records are unauditable and chain of custody is wholly lacking, but even that is important to convey.
Other actions include filing suit, on a variety of different premises. One campaign in the works now demands a voting machine recall. Citizens in LA are demanding that the “double bubble” ballots be counted as the voter intended – despite the overused election official trick of poorly designed ballots, which in this instance, disenfranchised 95,000 voters. Voter intent is what matters – not some arbitrary design or rule or law.
Incrementalism As a Strategy in New York
Refusing to compromise the demand for hand-counted elections does not mean that an incremental approach is off the table. Attorney Andi Novick is leading the hand-count movement in New York (where machine fans far outnumber those who comprehend the utter failure and completely inappropriate use of software-driven systems in democratic elections). Her strategy is to move New Yorkers toward a full hand count of all elections by starting with hand counting just the two federal races this November (thus allowing New York to be HAVA-compliant).
She sent some research provided by a local activist who raised Avi Rubin’s article, Secretary Bowen's Clever Insight, where he said, in part:
“But software is different. The software lifecycle is dynamic… You cannot certify an electronic voting machine the way you certify a lever machine.”
Incrementalism As a Strategy in the Democracy Movement
Several writers address incrementalism as a strategy. This is not to be confused with self-defeating “realism” that Paulo Freire and George Monbiot hold in disdain. Arthur MacEwan's Neoliberalism or Democracy discusses the idea of incrementalism and reform, in slightly different terms, but making the same general point.
MacEwan suggests that this latter reform is possible without the chaos of revolutionary upheaval, given certain criteria are met. It is here where we get to incrementalism. He argues that incrementalism can be used to advance our agenda without compromising our position.
Political Realism - A Policy of Failure
Incrementally implementing hand-counted elections (first the federal races, then the local ones, for example) is wholly different from believing that hand-counts aren’t possible in the U.S. My hope is that election activists move away from this position of defeat, and insist on transparent vote counts, now, as are done the world over in emerging and in stable democracies.
Just because the last two presidential elections were stolen is no reason to accept that 2008 will be stolen. All it takes is motivating the masses into Election Day action. Given that grassroot Republicans are now on board with parallel polling, our movement for transparent elections has a real chance of success. We implement hand-counted elections by doing it ourselves – not by waiting for politicians to do it for us. This bears repeating: civic engagement is democracy in practice, or as Abbey Hoffman put it, “Democracy is something you do.”
In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire reveals how political realism defeats democratic reform:
"Every revolution could have been - indeed most certainly was - described as 'unrealistic' just a few years before it happened. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, female enfranchisement, the rise of communism, the fall of communism, the aspirations of decolonization movements all over the world were mocked by those reformists who believed the best we could hope for was to tinker with existing institutions and beg some small remission from dominant
powers.
“Had you announced in 1985 that within five years men and women with sledgehammers would be knocking down the Berlin Wall, the world would have laughed in your face. All of these movements, like our global democratic revolution, depended for their success on mass mobilization and political will. Without these components, they were impossible. With them, they were unstoppable."
There is no honorable justification to continue using these machines. They must go, and they must go now.
No compromise with political realists is necessary; negotiating with our hands – counting, observing, investigating and videoing the vote ourselves – will bring us an accurate vote count. Power is never given; it is asserted. If I can borrow a phrase from the film, The Kingdom:
Much thanks to attorney Andi Novick for the 1895 NY case law quote.
References:
Rady Ananda, Annotated Bibliography of Expert Reports on Voting Systems, Dec. 11, 2007 at GuvWurld.org.
-- Revolution in Florida: Repubs Question Elections, Too, January 30, 2008 at OpEdNews.com.
Asian Coalition for Housing Rights www.achr.net; and see Tom Kerr’s New Orleans Visit Asian Tsunami Areas, September 9-17, 2006, p. 11 for the wonderful “negotiate with their hands” quote.
Dave Berman, Voter Confidence Resolution, 2005 at GuvWurld.org.
Sally Castleman, Summary: Estimating hours and costs for hand counters, New York, December 2007, at GuvWurld.org
Nick Davies, How the Spooks Took over the News, February 11, 2008
Amy Goodman, New Orleans Police Taser, Pepper Spray Residents Seeking to Block Public Housing Demolition, Dec. 21, 2007 at DemocracyNow.org.
Bev Harris, The New Hampshire “Shame of Custody,” January 25, 2008, OpEdNews.com.
Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100. Shasta Publishers, 1953.
Derrick Jensen, Endgame (Volumes I and II). Seven Stories Press, 2006.
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Legitimacy and Force (Vol. I: Political and Moral Dimensions). Transaction Publishers, 1988.
Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Metropolitan Books, 2007.
Arthur MacEwan, Neoliberalism or Democracy? Economic Strategy, Markets and Alternatives for the 21st Century. St. Martin's Press, 1999.
George Monbiot, The Age of Consent: Manifesto for a new world order, new ed. Harper Perennial, 2004.
Andi Novick, Alarms Should Go Off Whenever the Discrepancies between “Official” Results and the Polls Can’t Be Explained, January 10, 2008 at OpEdNews.com.
Sheila Parks, On-Site Observations of the Hand-Counting of Paper Ballots and Recommendations for the General Election of 2008, July 18, 2007 at OpEdNews.com.
Brian Rothenberg, Shadows on High: Election Machine Drama, All Dam-ed Up and Nowhere to Go, February 9, 2008. Regarding “political reality” see the first and second comments posted beneath this article.
Avi Rubin, Secretary Bowen’s Clever Insight, August 7, 2007 at avi-rubin.blogspot.com.
Paddy Shaffer, OEJC Calls for Ohio Voting Systems, Machine Recall, Return and Refund, November, 2007 at electionDefenseAlliance.org
Zogby International, Americans Concerned About Election Transparency and Security, August 23, 2006.
Authors Bio: Rady Ananda is a self-employed researcher, and is trained and experienced in legal investigations, holding a BS in Natural Resources. She has been studying election integrity issues and investigating election records since November 2, 2004, contributing research, analysis and public outreach materials to the public domain. She has conducted parallel elections, signature audits and has participated in official recounts.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/political-realism-vs-negotiating-with.html
Labels: hand-counting paper ballots, Rady Ananda
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Redwood ACLU Calls For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots
For Immediate Release
Redwood ACLU Calls For Sweeping Reform Of Local Elections
At the regular monthly meeting of the Redwood Chapter, ACLU Board of Directors, local civil rights leaders adopted a comprehensive policy on local election reform after months of deliberation and consultation with other election reform advocates.
This new policy, while consistent with standing policies of the state and national American Civil Liberties Union, goes into detail in dealing with local election conditions, including most notably the proposed replacement of electronic vote-counting systems with precinct-based hand-counting of paper ballots "as the most verifiable method available" to local election officials.
"Other modern democracies around the world use hand-counted paper ballots and still achieve accurate results in a speedy and transparent manner," said Redwood ACLU boardmember Jack Munsee. "There's just no way to eliminate the justifiable mistrust we have in secret, privatized and error-prone electronic vote-counting systems, especially when a hand-counting system would keep our local dollars in Humboldt County and our local elections in the hands of the people."
Additionally, the Redwood ACLU addresses the complete failure of the unconstitutional, unworkable and unenforceable Measure T in having any meaningful effect on the power of big money to skew the electoral playing field. Instead, a "reasonable cap" on contributions is proposed, as is the case for federal elections, in order to ensure First Amendment protections while still addressing the need for campaign finance reform.
"Two years ago I proposed the real deal in campaign finance reform, which is a reasonable cap on the size of individual contributions to candidates. Instead, under Measure T we've seen only more growth in the flood of special interest dollars clogging our local elections," said Redwood ACLU vice chair Greg Allen. "I'm very grateful that my colleagues in the civil liberties community are on board with a reform which can really bring people together behind the concept of fairness."
Also addressed in the policy are issues as diverse as disabled accessibility, the need to include polling places in underserved precincts, and a vote of confidence in the new Humboldt Transparency Project, which provides independent citizen groups with the opportunity to conduct their own re-count of local elections.
"We awarded Carolyn Crnich and the Election Advisory Committee with our highest honor, the Patriot Award, last year because of their commitment to reforming local election conditions," said Redwood ACLU boardmember Maria Hershey. "We hope that this next round of reform will be received with the spirit with which it was issued, as a call to further our mutual aspirations for elections we can all believe in."
For more information, contact Redwood ACLU vice chair Greg Allen at 825-0826, or visit our website at redwoodaclu.blogspot.com.
Redwood ACLU Policy On Local Election Reform
Adopted on January 17, 2008
The local, state and national ACLU has long recognized efforts to protect fair representation in government. Following the policies of the national American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Northern California, the Redwood Chapter affirms the relationship between the rights of citizens and the opportunity to cast a meaningful and effective vote.
We appreciate the good work of Humboldt County Clerk/Recorder Carolyn Crnich and the Election Advisory Committee to increase vote-counting transparency and encourage electoral reform, which led to their 2007 Patriot Award selection in October. However, our local Board expresses deep concern with local election conditions, some of which were referred to in the recent Voter Confidence Committee report.
Therefore, the Redwood Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union calls upon election officials to consider the following reforms:
- The County must eliminate the inaccurate, secret, privatized and error-prone electronic vote-counting systems in favor of the precinct level hand-counting of paper ballots as the most verifiable method available at this time.
- The County should set as a priority the right to cast a secret ballot, in an accessible polling place, with the option but not requirement to vote by mail. All efforts must be made to ensure the secret ballot so that no ballot may be traced to or associated with any individual. Greater effort should be made to identify potential polling places and bring them into compliance with disabled access requirements.
- Voided ballots should be immediately shredded by the individual voter to avoid vote-tampering, and voters must also be provided with the traditional curtain system of voting booth to ensure voter privacy.
- Hotlines, whether by land line or by cellular or Voice Over Internet Protocol system, should be maintained between each and every polling place and the central Elections Office during elections.
- The lack of a comprehensive system of voting methods enabling the use of Ranked Choice Voting is an impediment to electoral reform and acts to compromise the ability of many groups to share in the exercise of political power as well as to reduce the diversity of representation. This denial or dilution of political representation violates the constitutional principles of political fairness and equal protection.
- The shipment of ballot boxes from local police or sheriff's stations to County Elections via transportation supervised by only one county employee does not provide sufficient security against tampering, theft or loss. Ballots should never be in the possession of only one person at a time.
- Poll workers and elections office staff must have improved training to better serve voters and reduce the incidences where voters are dissuaded or prevented from casting a ballot. Election systems must be run simply and conveniently with poll workers and staff behaving in a consistent and reliable manner. The time for training provided to poll workers should be expanded, to include more "hands on" experiential training in simulated election situations and the provision of electronic training materials workers can review outside of training sessions.
- Requirements to maintain "politically balanced" (i.e. politically diverse) precinct-level poll worker boards should be vigorously enforced, regardless of the residency of any particular active poll worker or potential poll worker; as a partial solution, enhanced recruitment efforts, particularly towards young people, may be expanded and county officials could consider more adequate compensation for poll workers.
- Poll workers and elections office staff should be specifically reminded of the legal right of any voter to observe any and all stages of the election process. However, prohibitions on "crowding" polling places with politically-motivated agents of any campaign should be better enforced to protect polling place accessibility, including the publication of guidelines for election observers.
- The pilot program initiated by Crnich and the EAC, known as the Humboldt Transparency Project, should be expeditiously implemented to allow for vote totals to be reliably and independently audited to verify accuracy. However, such verification measures should be put into place to allow for review of ballots prior to the certification of a particular election. Voting systems must be subject to rigorous verification.
- The failure of the unconstitutional, unworkable and unenforceable Measure T to curb the flood of big money in local elections must be addressed by campaign finance reforms which preserve the right of free speech while providing as level a playing field as possible. Just as in federal elections, a reasonable cap on the size of individual donations to local candidacies should be enacted.
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/redwood-aclu-calls-for-hand-counting.html
Labels: ACLU, Carolyn Crnich, Election Advisory Committee, Greg Allen, hand-counting paper ballots, Jack Munsee, Maria Hershey, Measure T, press release, Voter Confidence Committee
