Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Surging Support For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots in Humboldt

First, let's be clear that there has never been more support than there is right now for hand-counting paper ballots (HCPB) in Humboldt County. The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) has led the charge, with recent support coming from the Redwood ACLU, Democratic Central Committee and Veterans For Peace Chapter 56.

I'll be joined by members from each of these groups in a Thursday afternoon meeting with Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich. This isn't about lobbying her that day. We are seeking information that will further our ability to create tangible forecasting of time, cost and labor needed to conduct a fully hand-counted election here.

This emerging coalition will also have an opportunity to display solidarity at this Saurday's Peace March in Eureka. The VCC will be tabling at the Gazebo in Old Town, and we will have several to many people roaming the crowd in pursuit of sign-ups for our list of willing hand-counters (the VCC site also allows sign-ups).

An e-mail newsletter circulated yesterday by the VCC asked volunteers to print this page and bring it on a clipboard on Saturday to help us gather more names. In almost an afterthought, the VCC also issued this press release yesterday documenting some of the problems we observed during the February Primary. Bob Olofson took point on this one and he will be interviewed on KMUD radio later in the week.

Following the Peace March, it is conceivable we will have a sufficient number of volunteers willing to hand-count. Even at only 50% or more, the surging support suggests next week will begin another new phase of the Humboldt Hand-Count Campaign where we will begin presenting information to the County Supervisors during public comment. We will also target outreach to the current candidates for Supervisor seats up for election in June.

As if all this momentum isn't exciting enough, I have also been booked to speak to the Humboldt County Republican Central Committee on Thursday night. Read about my first date with the Republicans, speaking to them right after Hurricane Katrina. As with the Registrar, I don't perceive this so much about winning them over to supporting HCPB, and will instead focus on sharing information and building a bridge.

A few slight disappointments warrant mention here as well. The press release and position statement supporting HCPB previously posted at the Redwood ACLU blog has apparently gone missing from their site. Fortunately it has been archived here at WDNC (plus here).

The HCPB resolution adopted by the Democratic Central Committee can be found here on their site. Oddly, on March 1, the Eureka Times-Standard ran a brief mention of this in their recurring feature "Election Roundup," found on page A2 of that day's paper, but absent from the T-S website. I submitted an inquiry to editor Rich Sommerville and web editor James Faulk but received no response.

Then there is the Vets For Peace resolution which was sent to the media with a press release that the Eureka Reporter printed almost verbatim, applying edits only to make factual statements into matters of opinion. To wit:

Last summer, Berman said, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen conducted a top-to-bottom teview [sic] of voting systems used throughout the state. He said her security experts were able to compromise every system tested, including Humboldt County's Diebold optical scanners.

Berman said the same equipment was used to count approximately 80 percent of the votes in the New Hampshire primary in January.

"The other 20 percent of New Hampshire's ballots were hand-counted," the news release stated. "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."
The "article" gave the VFP and VCC websites but omitted the link that was provided for the We The People Foundation study of the NH primary. I'll mention that too when I write a letter to the editor about this. If you get that we have to confront the challenge of inherent uncertainty, I encourage you to submit your own letter to editor@eurekareporter.com. You can point to Bowen's study here and NH precinct info in the tables found here, "Berman said."

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/03/surging-support-for-hand-counting-paper.html


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 9:59 PM | Permalink
Comments (2 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Humboldt Dems Call For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots

At 8:50pm this evening, after a 45-minute discussion, the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee (HCDCC) by a vote of 7-4 adopted a resolution calling on the County of Humboldt, CA to ditch Diebold by the June Primary Election and commence hand-counting paper ballots. The resolution, shown in full below, also resolves that the HCDCC "will commit some of its resources to educating the community about the benefits of this change, and to recruit registered voters to serve as pollworkers and/or voter counters."

The resolution, which I wrote and first posted here, was submitted following my presentation on behalf of the Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) at last month's HCDCC meeting. The Communication and Education subcommittee took up the resolution a few weeks ago and unanimously approved it. From there, according to Chairman Milt Boyd, it went to the executive committee which then allowed it to the floor of this evening's meeting.

In accordance with Roberts Rules, Boyd stepped down from the Chair position in order to speak in opposition to the resolution. He called hand counting "tedious, lengthy and more expensive" than optical scanning, which he said was "effective and accurate." He claimed that Diebold's optical scanners are more accurate than scantron machines used to grade exams in high school, and as a teacher, he was certain he could not grade papers as accurately by hand as with the scantron.

The debate protocol allowed alternating speakers for and against the resolution. I think this is a topic that people really like to talk about, perhaps contrary to popular belief. I also find that there is a lot of misinformation, such as the suggestion that dead people voting is a real problem, or paper ballots are bad because the ink can run, or that in Humboldt you vote without a paper ballot.

We were at least 20 minutes into the discussion before one member pointed out that we all vote on paper ballots here in Humboldt. It was a little uncomfortable to sit through this, particularly in the few moments that devolved into cross-talk with more being said than I could absorb or write down. I was not sure if I would get to speak, but I was trying to listen carefully to what needed to be addressed. In the end, Larry Hourany requested that I be allowed to speak, but another member objected and the matter was dropped.

In one aspect of the discussion that I really liked, Richard Marks and Roger Smith both emphasized that this resolution was exactly the type of progressive leadership the Democratic Party should exhibit. "This is not radical," said Marks. "This would be a very positive thing for the Central Committee."

What was most glaringly missed in this discussion is the secrecy of vote counting. If you really want to get to the core of what has plagued our elections most, beginning with the 2000 presidential election, the crux is that we don't all agree on the outcome. Why is that? More than any other reason, it is secret vote counting.

Current elections require our blind trust, or faith, rather than providing us with a reason to believe the reported results, a rational basis for confidence.

Instead, inherent uncertainty is created, waters intentionally muddied to the point that we can't know for sure. This happens everywhere, not just with "elections." It is not an accident or unintended consequence.

Keeping citizens divided is necessary for a government to transform a society into fascism, as has happened here in what used to be the United States of America. Wedge issues such as abortion and evolution are one way to keep people divided. Censoring, stifling, and propagandizing climate change and other science is another divisive tactic and it shows how people can be divided about non-spiritual beliefs.

What we get is a rift in the perception of reality. Matters of fact become differences of opinions that can never be resolved, like paperless electronic voting and other secret vote counting systems that create unverifiable "elections," events that are not really elections but resemble them closely enough to fool most people.

When a society cannot even agree on what constitutes reality, it is very difficult to build community support and consensus for what constitutes progress. Hand-counting paper ballots is but one benchmark.

We're only closer to the goal if this resolution results in HCDCC members joining in the efforts of the VCC. We are attempting to demonstrate to the County that there is sufficient public support for the idea of hand-counting, and enough willing counters to get the job done on election night. There is a sign-up form at the VCC website, along with all sorts of resources for the Humboldt hand-count campaign. Some of this stuff could be really useful to other community groups working for hand-counting elsewhere.

And finally, a note about this blog, We Do Not Consent. It is largely an archive for my writing, but not where it is most often read. If you are reading this post on another website, or from an e-mail list, I invite you to stop by my blog. This post is exemplary of both themes I frequently cover, and my advocacy journalism approach, using the medium to report on and advance real world efforts for change. It is the only way I judge my success.

* * *
Resolution adopted by the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee
2/13/08

Whereas 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;

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, the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee 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 the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee will commit some of its resources to 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/2008/02/humboldt-dems-call-for-hand-counting.html


Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 9:32 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

It's Time We Changed the World

A couple of years ago I had the idea that the 1971 Ten Years After song "I'd Love to Change the World (But I Don't Know What To Do)" could be remade into an anthem "I'd Love to Change the World (And I Know Just What To Do)." The song plays at this link with a powerful video. All this time and I never did flesh out any actual lyrics.

A few weeks ago I mentioned the idea to Brett Kimberlin from Justice Through Music. Check out their remake of Neil Young's "Ohio," now "More Dead Cause of Ohio." Brett said he might work on some words for a remake of "I'd Love..." (no promise to keep the new subtitle) and that his band might try it in the studio in the near future. I have not yet heard the work but I understand there is something forthcoming.

At the same time I passed the idea to Brett, I also put it before Rady Ananda. She too has written new words for old songs, as displayed in this parody collection found in the GuvWurld News Archive. Rady took on the "I'd Love..." challenge and about two weeks ago at OpEdNews.com posted her new version titled "It's Time We Changed The World." It totally captures the spirit of what I had proposed. Her words appear in full at the bottom of this post.

Speaking of the GuvWurld News Archive, there were some intermittent outages on the site and in my e-mail service over the past two months. There was also no new content for several weeks. This was part of an unfortunate ordeal with web host iPowerWeb. Thumbs way down for their customer service. In the end, the site is back to its old self but with more disk space, meaning we can continue to add to the more than 5000 articles archived since April 2003. Thanks to Rady Ananda and Jane Allen for their contributions.

Some of the new additions are worth mentioning. Positive stories such as "Startup Says It Can Make Ethanol for 1 Dollar a Gallon, and Without Corn" are unfortunately outnumbered by darker economic news including "January's retail sales weakest in nearly four decades," "Layoffs coming, and in large numbers, survey finds," and "The First Bank Failure of 2008."

The real must-read of the bunch is The Progressive's March cover story, The FBI Deputizes Business, archived at GuvWurld here. AlterNet ran the story with a more shocking headline: "FBI Deputizes Private Contractors With Extraordinary Powers, Including 'Shoot to Kill'" The take-away from this is that the Manchurian Nation is operating more openly, confidently preparing for when, not if martial law is declared.

Last summer, in my Reflections on Independence, Volume 5, I wrote:

What is the most insidious ramification of the military being intentionally stretched too thin? The military is unavailable to respond to an emergency at home. That is devastating in the context of a natural disaster. But what about when martial law comes? It won't be our official military that enforces this, it will be mercenaries. Halliburton and Blackwater will be the occupiers of America, overseeing a network of domestic concentration camps already built. Our military, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, will not be here to do so. The media, of course, will portray a different reality that will instead reinforce the okayness of the concentration camps and validate the authority of the hired guns, all while our military overseas supposedly, paradoxically, fights for our freedom.
As The Progressive reveals, InfraGard is the latest brown-shirt outfit strong-arming America's descent into fascism. It is not as if we haven't been able to see this coming. In fact, in that same Reflections essay I linked to one of the unitary executive directives explaining the administration's plan for remaining in power. As I said at the time, I don't believe they will allow themselves to be held accountable, for the first time ever, should the political will ever materialize for impeachment. And with no basis for confidence in election results, it can be tough to be optimistic about getting rid of war criminals.

Yet community organizing efforts are undeniably showing encouraging signs, and I consider this the most universally basic response needed without regard to issue. Mostly I'm referring to the work with the Voter Confidence Committee on behalf of hand-counting paper ballots. Tomorrow night the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee will be considering a resolution I wrote. It looks like Vets For Peace Chapter 56 will also consider this same resolution on March 6.

Inroads are also expanding with the Humboldt County League of Women Voters. Over the weekend I teased this quote: "I didn't think I'd get so much buy-in from the whole fucking group! I was grinning from ear to ear the whole time."

That was P-A Winter-Sun telling me how well received was a proposal I helped her prepare recommending the League "study the evidence of failures and vulnerabilities in vote counting equipment currently used in Humboldt County so the League can be better informed, better able to educate the community, and better equipped to establish a position on the best method for counting."

Apparently there was consensus around this. The next step was to be a board meeting, which I believe may have already occurred. From there the topic would return to the full group. I don't know the exact disposition of this now, but I am going to follow P-A's advice and join the League. In fact, I left a message yesterday...

As previously hinted, we are also still awaiting an announcement from the Redwood Chapter of the ACLU to formalize the group's very encouraging statement on election conditions.

So to me it seems there is far more community support, or at least interest, than ever before in the VCC efforts for hand-counting paper ballots. Click here for an .mp3 of an interview I did on KMUD on 1/29, only getting to add it to the archive in the past few days. This link (.mp3) is to my interview during hour two of this past Sunday's Vote Rescue Radio. I also spoke on the air with Mike Dronkers of KHUM last Monday, just prior to the Primary, but alas there is no archive for that.

I do still have some important observations to post from the election itself, but that will be another post in the next day or so. Meanwhile, it is indeed time we changed the world...

* * *
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5804

It's Time We Changed the World
Parody of "I'd Love To Change the World" by Ten Years After
By Rady Ananda
1/26/08

Everywhere is fake elections
We should boycott, save the nation from tyranny
When Riggal counts the vote for us
Officials call it, oh should we trust their wizardry?

It's time we changed the world
and you know just what to do
Hand counts will tell the truth

Banks are stealing poor folk homes
Making billions while we all groan in misery
Grow your own food in community
with your neighbors so you can eat - on the cheap

It's time to divide the wealth
Spread it out equally
Fair shares for you and me

Y'know they want to microchip you
tag and clip you, like property.
They mean to own us and all the land.
Find the right place and take a stand.

It's time we changed the world
No one owns humanity
Give up their circuitry

Turn off your TV and settle in.
Read Naomi's "Shock Doctrine,"
History by Zinn and Nace's "Gangs"
will fill you in on their evil plan.

Come on, let's change the world
Cuz we know just what to do
Join ranks with all of you.

# # #
Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/its-time-we-changed-world.html


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 10:50 AM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Tune In: Vote Rescue Radio - Sunday 2-4pm CT

Sunday afternoon I'll be a guest on Vote Rescue Radio hosted by Karen Renick and Vickie Karp. The show begins at 2pm Central time, originating from 100.1 FM in the Austin, TX area. Listen online at We The People Radio Network. I'll be on in the second hour, primarily discussing the Voter Confidence Committee's (VCC) Humboldt hand-count campaign.

The timing is interesting because I think a lot of people are still looking back at this past Tuesday's Primaries. I refer you to BradBlog for comprehensive coverage, and this Courage Campaign (hat tip bevjoehood) calling on Dean Logan, the Registrar in charge of Los Angeles County, to hand-count every ballot cast by "Decline-to-State" voters:

In what the media is now calling "Double Bubble Trouble," 94,000 "Decline-to-State" votes in Los Angeles County -- 50% of the total DTS ballots cast -- are being rejected due to a ballot design flaw, despite the Courage Campaign's discovery of the "double bubble" problem and official notification to the Registrar prior to Election Day.
I'm not prepared to talk about that story on the radio tomorrow. And even for our own small scale poll-watching operation here in Humboldt, there were a few things worth documenting, but I haven't seen anything specific to make a lot of noise about (beyond the growing background din opposing secret vote counting).

The main thing was continued lack of cooperation from the elections department, such as when Mr. Warner, a poll-worker at Eureka's Grace Baptist Church, refused to provide VCC observer Bob Olofson with a serial number from one of the Diebold optical scanners. Olofson reports Warner was acting on instructions straight from the Election Department HQ.

Hold the phone. Just in, observer Parke Bostrom, who camped out for several hours at HQ on election night, describes some significant security lapses and a patently absurd role for David, the Hart InterCivic representative who tended to the return of the HAVA compliant e-Slate machines, all of which combined to tally but a single vote. Interesting. I can't put my finger on it at the moment but I'm pretty sure that once one vote is cast on the eSlate, some additional votes are supposed to be cast on it to preserve the anonymity of the first voter's ballot. Maybe I will be talking about Tuesday at least somewhat tomorrow after all. Pending confirmation from Bostrom, I will post excerpts of his notes here.

I have lots of other topics queued up for treatment here if only time permits. Just as a tease, tune in next time to find out who said "I didn't think I'd get so much buy-in from the whole fucking group! I was grinning from ear to ear the whole time." HCPB lovers you know this is good.

Also, check out what Karen Renick and Vickie Karp posted on OpEdNews to promote Sunday's interview:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_vickie_k_080208_dave_berman_on_voter.htm

Hello from Radio Land! VoteRescue Radio this Sunday, Feb. 10th, from 2-4pm CST, will be having another exciting show this week!

Our special guest this week will be Dave Berman. Dave has been actively involved with election integrity advocates throughout California and across the country. CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen called Dave "a stalwart [who has] educated so many people." He is a prolific author of dozens of published letters and OpEd columns, as well as hundreds of essays posted first at his GuvWurld blog and now at We Do Not Consent.

In April 2004, Dave Berman wrote what became the Voter Confidence Resolution (VCR), a statement about election conditions in America that was eventually adopted by the City Council of Arcata, CA. The Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt County (VCC) formed around support for the VCR in March 2005. The VCC is a non-partisan, grass roots, election and media watchdog group that has been a strong and consistent advocate for hand-counting paper ballots. In conjunction with a comprehensive Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, CA, the VCC pioneered a projection methodology for estimating the cost, time, and labor needs for hand-counted elections. The forecast tool has been adapted for use in other parts of the country, including an amicus brief filed in the federal lawsuit, US v NY Board of Elections.

Dave Berman (the photo link at OpEd is broken;
this is the original from VCC site)



Also returning this week is citizen videographer extraordinaire Jeannie Dean of Sarasota, Florida to fill in more details about evidence of fraud she witnessed during the Florida primary election last week, and returning guest Mike Conwell from Austin, Texas, a programmer who has investigated the purging of hundreds of legitimate voters from the rolls of Travis County.

Callers with an election story to tell about Super Fraudulent Tuesday (as in, problems with voting machines) can call in during the second hour with their (short) stories! The call-in numbers are: 1-888-202-1984, and in the Austin area, or if you have unlimited long distance, the number is 512-646-1984.

The show can be heard on the radio in the Austin area at 90.1 FM; is streaming live on www.wtprn.com (for "We the People Radio Network"), AND, can be heard OVER THE PHONE at 512/485-9010!

Hope to "see" and hear you "On the Air" on Sunday!

WE ARE WINNING--because of citizens like YOU!!
With thanks for your support,Vickie and Karen
karp@mail.com
karen@voterescue.org

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/02/tune-in-vote-rescue-radio-sunday-2-4pm.html


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 9:41 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Monday, January 07, 2008

VCC Ramping Up Outreach For HCPB Campaign

Following last Thursday's My Word column I wrote in the Eureka Times-Standard, we've had several people hit the sign-up form on the Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) home page, letting us know they are willing to hand-count paper ballots on election night, and will help us get more people signed up. I was also asked to submit an essay for the Hope Coalition Newsletter. I chose Confidence in election counting?, which I wrote for the Eureka Reporter toward the end of November.

Larry Hourany has arranged for me to make a presentation to the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committee on Wednesday night. It is not clear whether he'll be able to make a motion or if any proposal would be referred to a committee first. Naturally I'll be asking people to declare their willingness to hand-count on election night, whether signed up as an individual or in fantasyland where the group as a whole endorses it and the entire campaign changes overnight.

I've previously mentioned my recent meetings with the Redwood chapter of the ACLU. That group has been circulating a draft of a position statement it may make on election issues. The group has solicited input from the VCC and we're excited about the common ground, and also the interesting challenge of building some bridges. The VCC will be finalizing our suggestions tomorrow and meeting with the RACLU on 1/17.

John Matthews called this afternoon, he of the KSLG morning show and also producer for the KHUM Review. I was previously a guest on this show on August 30, 2007. Apparently the Review is being broadcast this Thursday from the California Welcome Center in Arcata and I have been asked to be part of a discussion about elections. I'm a little unclear on the details so I'll be checking in with Matthews again tomorrow.

By the way, I posted my Saturday commentary on the NYTimes e-voting article at DU and OpEdNews.com. It appears Nancy Tobi also posted it at the Democracy For New Hampshire website.

Tobi has a few new ones herself I'm trying to get to: Back to the Future: Democracy that Works, which is actually written for publication in Mark Crispin Miller's forthcoming book; and also NH: "First in the nation" (with corporate controlled secret vote counting), a side of the New Hampshire voting situation we hand-counted paper ballot admirers don't hear much of. They are fighting the good fight there against the same Diebold optical scanners used here in Humboldt. Tobi links to a newly posted You Tube video from Black Box Voting. It is the footage of the Hursti hack being done in Leon County, FL as well as footage of Hursti testifying to NH legislators. See it, and pass it on.

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/01/vcc-ramping-up-outreach-for-hcpb.html


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 10:35 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Advancing the HCPB Framing, Outreach and Media

Thursday's Eureka Reporter, online as of a few minutes ago, carries a solid report from Cerena Johnson on both the recent Voter Confidence Committee media advisory and press release, plus a phone interview conducted this morning. Excerpts:

The VCC is renewing the request for information following a meeting with Crnich in May and participation on the Nov. 30 Peter B. Collins radio show.

The VCC has developed a forecast tool that illustrates how hand-counting is possible, factoring in costs, time and required labor.

"The community can judge the viability of what we are proposing," VCC co-founder Dave Berman said.

Among many concerns, Berman said the main problem with the current system is that the voting machines operate in secret.

In a related matter, the VCC recently joined more than 30 election groups throughout the country in an amicus brief filed in the case of U.S. v. New York State Board of Elections, intended to enforce compliance with requirements in the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

(snip)

Berman and Crnich are scheduled to return on the Collins show, KGOE 1480 AM, Friday between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.
Much of the article details the information we requested in the letter distributed with the media advisory. The best thing about this article, without a doubt, is the extension of the key new frame: let the public judge the viability of our proposal.

Johnson called me this morning before I had a chance to call her, as I intended. I did reach out to James Faulk at the Eureka Times-Standard but he has not yet returned my call. In addition, I left a voice message for Humboldt Registrar Carolyn Crnich just to be sure she knew I was also going to be on with Peter B. on Friday, but also to make sure she knows about the amicus brief (.pdf), and most importantly, to propose that we meet prior to Friday's broadcast so I could bring her up to speed on the many changes that have been made to the hand-count forecast tool (.xls). I told her I hope we can avoid appearing adversarial.

In further outreach efforts, tomorrow I'll be attending the regular monthly board meeting of the Redwood ACLU. Their agenda includes: "consideration of the request by the Voter Confidence Committee for support of a policy to require the use of hand-counted paper ballots in Humboldt County elections." I have attended several of their recent meetings and engaged them in dialog about the VCC Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County. I have been shown a draft of a statement they are considering making with regard to a variety of election issues. However, it does not quite cover everything I would hope they might address so tomorrow's meeting is all about potential.

Finally, Dan Ashby of the Election Defense Alliance called me Tuesday afternoon to see if I could appear on the debut episode of EDA's new radio show. We made it happen and you can listen to the .mp3 archive here. Other guests on the program included Jonathan Simon, EDA attorney in the courtroom Thursday representing the NY amici, and also Mary Ann Gould, host of Voice of the Voters. This is one of many broadcasts archived on this page, which also includes a recent series hosted by Bev Harris of Black Box Voting. EDA also now has a page devoted to documents related to US v NY Board of Elections.

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/advancing-hcpb-framing-outreach-and.html

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 11:23 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Hand-Counting Paper Ballots Proposed In NY District Court

In March 2006, the US Department of Justice began legal proceedings ostensibly aimed at bringing the state of NY into compliance with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). As of today, NY is still the only state that hasn't been bullied into outsourcing its election administration to the secret counting of a private corporation. Arguments will be heard in Case No. 06-CV-0263(GLS), US v NY State Board of Elections, starting next Thursday, December 20.

Yesterday was a big day in the long arc of this story. Attorney Andrea Novick filed a Memorandum of Law of Proposed Amici Curiae, also called an amicus brief or a friend of the court brief, on behalf of 33 election integrity advocates and organizations proposing to hand-count the two federal races on the November 2008 ballot. While it was Novick who filed the brief, it will be Jonathon Simon who will be in the courtroom with the possibility of a rare and extraordinary opportunity to make oral arguments.

There are many documents related to this case and I have started collecting some of them in a new folder in the GuvWurld News Archive. In particular, there are some very impressive declarations filed to provide the credentials of those involved in crafting the brief. You can now also see the projections for 15 NY counties developed using Rady Ananda's voter turnout projections and the hand-count forecast tool I built. Our methods are detailed in our declarations and the brief. It's all in that new folder.

More documents will surely be added in the days and weeks ahead. As of this hour, I am withholding my declaration as corrections are being made. It is uncertain whether an amended declaration can be filed, but when the update is complete you can at least locate it as described above. This is so unfortunate because we all spent ridiculous amounts of time this week, only to get snagged by document version control.

Here are some of the highlights of the brief:

p.7 of the brief - crux of our "proposal":

As the United States' memorandum has made clear, HAVA recognizes the State's right to hand count paper ballots, as long as Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) are provided in every polling place, producing a paper ballot identical to the paper ballots marked by able voters. Thus, were the Court to direct a hand count of the two Federal races, the defendants would not have to choose between purchasing failed computerized systems or remaining in violation of a federal statute, thereby subjecting the State to this Court's directing an outside party to decide how New York's elections will be held in 2008.

p.11 - closing of the summary section; features some points made previously by Paul Lehto and here at WDNC:

Amici Curia respectfully urge the Court to act as the judiciary has and must when government's potential conflict of interest, in having the authority to determine the means by which it may be re-elected, would so regulate the people's elections as to thwart the full exercise of the franchise as secured by the Constitution. The right to choose our representatives means nothing if the people cannot know - not merely trust - that their will has been accurately reflected by the results of our elections. That right was not granted to the people, but rather was deemed "unalienable," by nothing less than our Declaration of Independence. Governments' role is to secure that right. There is nothing secure about voting on computerized systems which have shown themselves time and again to be readily corruptible while defying detection. We implore the Court to protect the citizens' means to observe and secure our elections so that we may see, not trust, that our consent to the outcome was respected.

page 16 - from the core of the argument, a fine distillation of a point this country should have seen about five years ago as "Do not pass go, do not collect $200":

Not only have the essential democratic safeguards been obliterated by oblique computerized processes, but all of the voting systems sold by these voting vendors have been revealed to be seriously vulnerable to attacks that can change the outcome of entire elections. As demonstrated below and in the declarations of Lukacher, Anderson, Simon and Freeman, computerized voting offers by far and away the greatest opportunity for theft this nation has ever seen. After 200 years of successive legislative efforts to protect the integrity of our elections by minimizing the opportunities for tampering, we are witnessing a complete reversal wherein the opportunities for tampering are massively multiplied, enabled solely by the introduction of computers into our electoral process. Such action is in direct conflict with our Constitution.

pages 23-24 - another part of the main argument, and another point we have tried to make here in Humboldt about how unsavory (really how unthinkable) it is now to do business with Diebold/Premier:

New York's Procurement Laws prohibit the State from entering into contracts with "non-responsible" vendors26. The voting vendors who sell America's computerized voting systems share a history of multiple infractions of "non-responsible" conduct as defined in New York's laws -- including, in addition to failed performance and unethical conduct, criminal indictments and convictions, bid rigging, computer-aided embezzlement, money laundering, tax evasion, bribery and kick-back scandals to name a few -- any one of which would render them ineligible to do business in New York.
26 http://www.wheresthepaper.org/Memo1NYSvendorsProhibited.pdf, http://www.wheresthepaper.org/UpdatedProcurementVendorIrresponsibility070822.pdf,
http://www.votersunite.org/info/IrresponsibleVendors.pdf and see Lukacher Declaration.
Two memorandums (amici's exhibits "B" and "C") containing 80 pages of documented reports of vendors disqualifying "not-responsible" conduct were submitted to the SBOE and various agencies within the Governor's office. The defendants ignored the evidence, avoiding their affirmative obligation to investigate these vendors.

The evidence of the disaster of computerized voting presented herein is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. In urging that New York become HAVA-compliant by purchasing this equipment, the United States' motion fails to mention that none of this equipment can provide a secure, reliable or accurate election result. The United States cannot justifiably compel the purchase of equipment that would disenfranchise millions by virtue of these machines' unacceptably high security vulnerabilities and documented failures.

New York should be free to abide by its rich democratic history in which the rights of citizens to oversee and monitor their elections has historically and progressively been recognized, respected and upheld as constitutionally required. This would be impossible if New York State were forced to purchase these machines, as the United States is urging this Court to direct.

pages 26-27

To satisfy the United States' motion that the State become HAVA-compliant for the federal election (since that is the only election relevant to the federal statute), the State only has to hand count the two Federal races in 2008, providing BMDs in every polling place so that disabled voters could create the same paper ballots as abled voters. Amici have gone to great lengths to assist New York by determining what would be required to hand count these two races, demonstrating as well how simple and feasible it would be for New York to return to a hand count for 2008's Federal election.

Rady Ananda and Dave Berman have analyzed the official data for each New York county and, using a forecast tool designed by Mr. Berman expressly for this purpose, have demonstrated that New [sic] will require only four citizen-counters in each polling place to be able to count the two races in less than four hours.29
29The forecast tool is based on the procedures as explained to Mr. Berman by New Hampshire's Assistant Secretary of State, Anthony Stevens. Forty-five percent of New Hampshire's polling places still hand count their ballots and, as explained in greater detail in the Tobi declaration, New Hampshire's ballots are far more complex, and their precincts larger, than New York's. [WDNC: Note that the first part of this footnote is among the points of clarification in my declaration. I did not attend Assistant Secretary Stevens' presentation or ever meet or speak with him. The forecast tool was inspired by a .pdf of Stevens' presentation on the website of Democracy For New Hampshire.]
page 29 - arguing that lever machines are HAVA compliant, and that failing to approve HCPB, all levers would still be preferable to anything electronic:

Lever machines do produce a permanent paper record. Some lever machines imprint the total number of votes cast onto a piece of paper. At the close of the election, poll workers remove the paper from the lever machine and use it to create another paper record of the tallies. Other lever machines don't produce an imprinted piece of paper with the tallies, but the poll workers perform the same function, taking the voting tallies off the lever machines and writing them down on a piece of paper, thus satisfying HAVA's requirement for a permanent paper record.

The United States' argument that the lever machine doesn't produce a permanent paper record with manual audit capacity presumably ignores the human being's role as part of the "voting system". However, just as with a hand count, a human being is very much a part of the voting system, and in the case of lever machines a human being is producing the permanent paper record required by HAVA.29
29 It is worth observing that there are voting systems which the United States considers HAVA-compliant that clearly do not "produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity" as required by the statute. Certainly no paperless DRE can be said to produce a permanent record, but the United States is not suing those states with paperless DREs to compel their compliance with HAVA. Moreover the paper produced by DREs with printers attached to them, creating so-called voter verified paper audit trails (VVPATs), have been shown unreliable for auditing purposes in that they have been known to have as high as 20% unreadability, and as corroborated in the recent reports from California, can be rigged to correspond to the electronic tally, neither equating with the machine's official tally.
* * *
I have immense respect and admiration for all the people working on this project, many of whom I haven't named and some of whom I may not even realize are on the team. I believe that everyone understands what a long shot this is but I have seen nothing but positivity toward the project. We know that regardless of the outcome of the case, in which we are neither plaintiff nor defendant, we have created a new body of work that advances the election integrity movement and will serve as a future reference countless times. In this way, I again cite confluence with the Voter Confidence Committee's Humboldt hand-count campaign. In Thursday's media advisory, we did not just request public information from the Registrar, we made a leap in our framing. Months ago, when our Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County was first released, we postured "Hand-Counting Paper Ballots Is On The Table - Let The Community Dialog Begin!" Like the District Court in NY, with enough information to demonstrate the time, cost, labor and other logistical concerns, the Humboldt community shall now be asked to judge the viability of our proposal.

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/12/hand-counting-paper-ballots-proposed-in.html


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 1:30 AM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Sunday, August 12, 2007

How To Forecast Labor, Cost and Time For Hand-Counting Paper Ballots

At the risk of being immodest, what I'm about to describe has the potential to greatly advance the hand-counted paper ballot (HCPB) movement in every community. Credit where it is due, let me first say that last November the Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) began working on the recently published Report On Election Conditions in Humboldt County, California. In the course of researching this report, I came in contact with Nancy Tobi of Democracy For New Hampshire (DNH). She is an amazing resource and an effective advocate for HCPB.

Shortly after the VCC report was first posted, DNH made a presentation that Nancy called to my attention. When I viewed it, something clicked for me. There on the pages was a step by step--SIMPLE--explanation for how many people would be needed to count ballots in a given amount of time. I copied the formula and started working with numbers representative of Humboldt. It was Ernie Stegeman who suggested making it dynamic in a spreadsheet. From there it only took me about 15 minutes.

Why is this so important?

Anybody who has ever tried to lobby local government for change knows the elected officials always want to know the cost, and in this case the other obvious questions are how long will it take to count, and how many people will be needed? As with most issues, there is a talking point meme that says hand counting will take too long or we can't get enough people. Now we have a concrete way to challenge these assumptions.

Hank Sims of The Journal got a sneak peek at the spreadsheet tool (.xls) and then published in his August 2 "Town Dandy" column:

Berman's suggestion: Ditch the machines and go to a pure hand-count of all votes cast. Initial twiddling with the numbers suggests that it wouldn't be all that time-consuming or costly -- and wouldn't you rather wait a few days and spend a little more for a trustworthy count?
On Thursday I submitted a letter to the editor of The Journal but I won't post that here just yet. I actually want to point out something I wish I had included in that letter. Even as Sims is saying basically, this is more feasible than you think, he also extends the faulty premise "wait a few days and spend a little more." Says who?

As presented by DNH, the first component of the formula is based on the amount of time allotted for counting. Different counties may allow counting until different hours of the night (11pm or midnight or whenever). Whatever this variable is set to, the needed number of counters adjusts accordingly. If the time allowed was three hours, the formula would calculate more counters needed than if five hours were allowed. The point is that there basically is no argument any more that it would take too long because the finish time could be stipulated. There is still the need to prove that enough People will step up and do the counting.

The VCC is currently expanding community outreach efforts, tabling at various times and places to interact with the public. We're promoting our report with a flier and asking people to sign up if they are willing to hand-count paper ballots on election night. I had a few interesting hours at the Eureka Co-Op on Saturday afternoon. Ernie and I collected about 30 names.

We don't have a target number yet for how many names we'd like. This is a function of wanting Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich to provide her official assumptions for the spreadsheet variables. With these numbers we would then have an official forecast that would add tangible elements to our fledgling campaign. I will report follow-ups in our attempt to get her to provide those numbers. We've been waiting a long time.

Now I know there are HCPB supporters all over the country. I hope some of these people will get their hands on the spreadsheet tool (.xls). It may be one of the best, most direct ways we have to take back our elections.

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/08/how-to-forecast-labor-cost-and-time-for.html


Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 11:10 PM | Permalink
Comments (3 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Friday, June 29, 2007

HCPBs are ON the table (Guest Blogged by Rady Ananda)

One of my most durable allies, based a world away in Columbus, OH, Rady Ananda has sent me an essay that I knew right away belongs at WDNC. Naturally I was drawn right in by her title, which builds off of words I've used in several places this week to promote the release of the Voter Confidence Committee Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, California. Note that I only learned later she has posted the same essay with a different title at OpEdNews.com.

Anyway, what I love about this essay is its ruthless honesty - its effort to move us all to act in a way that is consistent with the information we know we have. I have often said this is the way to conquer cognitive dissonance. This theme runs strongly through my fifth annual Reflections On Independence, due out early next week. For now, challenge yourself and read on...

* * *

HCPBs are ON the table
By Rady Ananda

I must be experiencing "cognitive dissonance" with our peaceful revolutionary leaders. If we agree that "government IS the problem" then why do we bother even talking to them? Why debate them, why respond to them, why acknowledge them? They cannot prove they were elected, and we can prove they do not vote in accordance with the majority of the populace (92% Zogby poll on transparent vote counting; 19% approval rating of Congress, etc.)

Since the government so clearly and consistently ignores us, why not ignore them? Isn't it premature to meet with them now, before the bulk of the people have decided how to proceed?

If we agree that secret vote counts (as conducted on machines) are anathema to democracy, and we believe in democracy, then why do we vote? Doesn't that legitimize secret vote counting?

If we agree that hand-counted paper ballots, without media reform, without an informed electorate, without viable choices on the ballot who represent the interests and concerns of the people, are irrelevant, then why do we continue to vote?

Are we not long past time to withdraw our consent? Isn't it long past time to withhold our taxes? To withhold our vote? To withhold our attention from elites?

I've been reading Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Pedagogy of Hope; Pedagogy of Freedom), George Monbiot's Age of Consent: Manifesto for a New World Order; and both volumes of Derrick Jensen's Endgame. I am desperate to find winnable strategies to implement democracy and take back our world from the rich (whose social and environmental practices look insane, to me).

Freire thinks we should start at the bottom – not the top. Engage in dialogue with the oppressed, and move forward at THEIR level of awareness. Here's how he puts it: "Leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated – and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation."

Isaiah Berlin agrees: "But to manipulate (people), to propel them toward goals which you -- the social reformers -- see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore to degrade them." Source: Two Concepts of Liberty, 1958 (thanks to Tom Feeley).

Freire characterizers our would-be revolutionary leaders who would develop the platform of change without our input and consent as merely asking us to exchange one set of oppressive rulers for another. He believes that when we use the tools of oppression – in this case manipulation thru "sloganizing" – we are oppressors. We are what we do.

Monbiot, interestingly, does not believe that localization will lead to a successful revolution. Instead, he argues that a global world parliament (similar to the World Social Forum, and to the US Social Forum in Atlanta this weekend) will be what leads us to victory. He makes a strong case. The basic premise of his argument is world government by elites is a given – whether we like it or not. Our only hope, then, is to develop a people's forum that holds global government to account.

But all agree that the oppressed must be given voice. While our revolutionary leaders are off in the halls of power debating, cajoling, discussing with elites, the oppressed continues to be ignored.

My question goes to this. How do we engage the populace? Isn't that where our strength really lies? What would get those teens at the public library to read our blogs, to post their own, to posit their own solutions, instead of playing video games on library computers?

What would make 20-somethings more interested in social justice? In fair elections? In peace and a living wage, or universal health care?

I agree with Digby that bloggers are part of a revolutionary participatory democracy. I see journalism as recording history according to elites, and bloggers as recording history according to the people. But obviously, we cannot limit ourselves to the internet – where only a small fraction participates.

Do we follow Che Guevara's (and Paulo Freire's) example and travel from town to town in dialogue with the oppressed? My experience with this is that without offering an alternative that seems reasonable to the people, they don't even want to talk about the sorry state of affairs.

Where we do agree is that before we can have a meeting of the minds between social justice activists and elites, we must first have a meeting of the minds among ourselves. If I could travel to Atlanta this weekend, I would; and I would be speaking for a living wage, hand-counted paper ballots, civil unions for the GLBT community, and peace (for starters).

I sincerely look forward to reading the reports from the US Social Forum, and hope that some of my questions are addressed.

(I published this at http://tinyurl.com/3du4tr)

* * *

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/06/hcpbs-are-on-table-guest-blogged-by.html


Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 11:43 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page

Thursday, June 28, 2007

And So Begins The HCPB Campaign

Last night I presented the Voter Confidence Committee press release announcing the release of the Report on Election Conditions in Humboldt County, California. I put that out to Humboldt media and to the Humboldt Supervisors and to the City Councils of Eureka and Arcata. The message went to several election integrity e-mail lists, and as I understand, forwarded on to several more as well. It currently has 15 recommendations (not bad) at Democratic Underground and has a top headline position at OpEdNews.com. It has only been on Daily Kos for a few minutes and experience says not to expect much response there. Sherry from the California Election Protection Network wrote me requesting permission to post it on their site but I don't see it up yet.

Now, how about some reactions in Humboldt? I don't imagine too many (if any) people here have read the whole report yet. That's OK. I just wanted to take a moment to further establish a little tone for this announcement and the introduction of this new body of work. What is now happening is the start of a campaign where we are not accepting that this can't be discussed and considered. We're starting the discussion by offering a considerable collection of facts and recommendations. Hand-counting paper ballots is on the table. Let the community dialog begin!

Permalink:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2007/06/and-so-begins-hcpb-campaign.html



Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Dave Berman - 11:06 PM | Permalink
Comments (0 So Far) | Top of Page | WDNC Main Page
As shown on
Dave's new blog,
Manifest Positivity

We Do Not Consent, Volume 1 (left) and Volume 2 (right), feature essays from Dave Berman's previous blogs, GuvWurld and We Do Not Consent, respectively. Click the covers for FREE e-book versions (.pdf). As of April 2010, paperbacks are temporarily out of print. Click here for the author's bio.

Back Page Quotes

"Give a damn about the world you live in? Give a damn about what you and I both know is one of the most shameful and destructive periods in American history? If so, do something about it. You can start by reading We Do Not Consent."

— Brad Friedman, Creator/Editor, BradBlog.com; Co-Founder, VelvetRevolution.us


"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, Attorney at Law, Everett, WA


"Dave Berman has been candid and confrontational in challenging all of us to be "ruthlessly honest" in answering his question, "What would be better?" He encourages us to build consensus definitions of "better," and to match our words with actions every day, even if we do only "the least we can do." Cumulatively and collectively, our actions will bring truth to light."

— Nezzie Wade, Sociology Professor, Humboldt State University and College of the Redwoods


"Dave Berman's work is quietly brilliant and powerfully utilitarian. His Voter Confidence Resolution provides a fine, flexible tool whereby any community can reclaim and affirm a right relation to its franchise as a community of voters."

— Elizabeth Ferrari, San Francisco, Green Party of California


"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."

— Michael Collins covers the election fraud beat for "Scoop" Independent Media


"What's special about this book (and it fits because there's nothing more fundamental to Democracy than our vote) is the raising of consciousness. Someone recognizing they have no basis for trusting elections may well ask what else is being taken for granted."

— Eddie Ajamian, Los Angeles, CA


"I urge everyone to read "We Do Not Consent", and distribute it as widely as possible."

— B Robert Franza MD, author of We the People ... Have No Clothes: A Pamphlet for every American