Re: Rebuttal to Dill's support for HR811 on oped

From: Nancy Tobi <ntobi_at_democracyfornewhampshire_dot_com>
Date: Fri Apr 27 2007 - 12:03:12 CDT

Just curious - did you read my piece as a suggestion that the Feds mandate
hand count systems? Because I did not intend it that way at all. I thought I
made it clear that if holt had two items: paper ballots and audits, it would
be fairly universally accepted, but I did not specify those paper ballots
should be mandated hand counts.

On 4/27/07, charlie strauss <> wrote:
> For me, support for HR811 comes down to tactics. Admittedly, the bill is
> atrocious in some aspects. But three years ago we'd have been thrilled with
> it. And, if you'll pardon the nerdly analogy, the Empire is preparing to
> strike back. There is growing opposition to our grassroots
> mission. Tactically it would be good to lock in some gains into law.
> Moreover, I don't think there is a true consensus on what the right bill
> is. This forum in particular, OVC, is indeed a potential flash point for
> that disagreement, since many folks would want to have laws that would force
> pure hand marked ballots that might be incompatible with the OVC system
> concept. OVC is itself a brilliant recognition that there are aspects of
> technology that expedite elections and their are aspects that threaten
> them. Nearly all day-to-day election problems are of the mundane sort where
> expedition would be beneficial. Yet we have to steer around the yawning
> chasms of threats to voter secrecy, lack of auditbility, lock-in and
> unnessacary trust of vendors, etc... OVC is among the best threading of
> these problems while retaining benefits of automation.
> Still many people make strong arguments that hand marked paper is
> sufficient. Do we really want this decided by the feds?
> Perhaps a better statement would be that, if you had to buy a system
> today, this second, from the available choices on the market. Hand marked
> paper looks like a wise choice. But That does not mean it always has to be
> that way.
> Just to demonstrate another form of disagreement. I believe that the
> manner of elections should be left to the states and the problem with HR811
> is not its lack of teeth but in fact it's over specification of
> things. Adding more nitty details about how to run elections is not what
> I'd like to see in a replacement bill. States should be self interested in
> their election integrity so it's not patently obvious that federal
> intervention at a micro management level is needed. I sense however that
> people disagree since the established powers in most states have put up a
> great stone wall that is only now starting to crumble. In NM we feel like
> things are far from perfect but Gov Richardson put them on the right track
> with a sound footing. Up until then we had little traction, and might have
> liked to see some federal intervention. But in hindsight I now believe that
> State regulation is better than federal intervention.

Nancy Tobi
Co-Founder, Democracy For New Hampshire
Chair, NH Fair Elections Committee
Legislative Coordinator, Election Defense Alliance

OVC-discuss mailing list

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon Apr 30 23:17:16 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 23:17:17 CDT