Re: HR 811 text?

From: John Burik <John_at_caseohio_dot_org>
Date: Tue Feb 06 2007 - 18:35:37 CST

I am interested in testing and secret software, but given our experience in
Ohio, I am especially concerned with the fact that the Holt bill still
produces a so-called vapor ballot. For example, while

> the individual permanent paper ballots shall be the true and correct record of
> the votes cast and shall be used as the official ballots for purposes of any
> recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in
> which the voting system is used (Section III (iii), pp. 4-5)

that means, as far as I can tell, the counts we will get on election night
and possibly even the certified count will be the machine count, that is,
not a count of the paper record.

--John Burik, Citizens╣ Alliance for Secure Elections (CASE)

On 2/6/07 7:07 PM, "Richard C. Johnson" <dick@iwwco.com> wrote:

> I am particularly interested in the mechanics of the test provisions, together
> with the payment arrangement. I accept Arthur's point of view that we should
> focus on improvements rather than rejection, and there certainly are key
> pieces that need fixing.
>
> The bill should provide a flat $5,000 fee to the vendor for a single
> government funded test procedure, with the government paying the rest of the
> cost. Thereafter, all test repetitions following errors would be paid by the
> vendor. This would allow new companies to compete, promote submitting better
> code, and eliminate the conflict of interest when vendors hire their own ITA
> directly. The bill's provisions go part way, charging the vendors and then
> spending the vendor's money on randomly selected ITAs.
>
> The source code and test results appear to be held by the EAC and then made
> public. The EAC does not have the staff to become an archive; rather, the
> bill should make an archive be the recipient of original source and compiled
> code. The archive can then make source code and test results available to
> interested parties. Again, the bill goes part way and then gets tangled.
>
> The test technology is not specified, but the bill should establish some means
> for a reasonable technology to be employed. Formal test plans, automated
> regression testing, and available test technology exists and should be used.
>
> I quite agree with Alan that unfunded mandates don't cut it. There is no
> reason why our government cannot afford a few millions from its vast budget to
> pay for the mandated features in draft of the Holt bill. The "disclosure"
> language is also beside the point; we want source code and test results (and
> tests) to be made available on demand to interested members of the public.
> And the EAC is NOT an archive.
>
> So...let's negotiate amongst ourselves changes to the bill and suggest to Mr.
> Holt that these changes would improve the draft. I will volunteer to help.
> Perhaps we can get something better accomplished. Senator Feinstein might be
> willing to help from the Senate side.
>
> -- Dick
>
> Arthur Keller <voting@kellers.org> wrote:
>> At 12:37 PM -0800 2/6/07, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>>> >On 2/6/07, Alan Dechert wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Okay, thanks, Nancy (and Ron).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I just browsed it. It stinks. Unfunded mandates, enshrinement of the
>>>> >> politically dominated, ineffective, and inept EAC, incorrect
>>>> "non-disclosed"
>>>> >> software verbiage with nothing to address hardware issues. This bill
is
>>>> >> moronic.
>>> >
>>> >I think a good chunk of the mandates are funded. Paid-for auditing,
>>> >$300 million for equipment (that may not be sufficient). I don't like
>>> >the disclosure part either, but for other reasons.
>>> >
>>> >I posted it here: http://josephhall.org/tmp/HOLT_2-5-07.pdf
>>
>> Rather than saying we want to kill the bill, I'd rather identify
>> specifically what improvements can be made to the legislation in
>> order to garner our support. Saying "no way" is not a negotiating
>> position, but just freezes us out of process. "Maybe" is a much
>> better bargaining approach.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Arthur

-- 
John Burik MEd, PCC
<jburik@fuse.net>

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:17:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST