Re: Alternate to Holt

From: Teresa Hommel <tahommel_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Mon Feb 12 2007 - 11:08:14 CST

Elections need to be locally controlled because local people are the
electorate and the observers. If elections are controlled by higher
units of government, local people will have greater and greater
difficulty getting their voices heard. For example, how many
congresspeople and staff do you think will read the many emails that we
send to repair HR 811? How many local people will be able to get anyone
on the phone to listen?

If you can't have input or success on the local level, where you have
local access to officials, you won't have greater success at higher
levels of government.

Teresa

Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:

> Hello All:
>
> So, the Holt bill has problems. I am given to understand that
> California's Senator Feinstein is also working on a bill in the
> Senate. People can provide input to her on her effort. Also, if both
> Holt's and Feinstein's bill are passing by their respective
> legislative, they will probably both end up in a conference committee
> where the differences will be ironed out. There's plenty of
> opportunity to clean up the Holt bill. Finally, let's not
> hyperventilate about Federal Standards on elections. If properly
> done, they could actually be a good thing. When you have 50 states
> with each county election official in each state (just for example,
> California has 50 counties) having differening voting standards, there
> are plenty of opportunties for adminstrative abuse. A standardized
> approach, while not perfect, could cut way down on this problem.
>
> Thanks, Edmund R. Kennedy, PE
>
> --
> 10777 Bendigo Cove
> San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>
> 858-578-8842
>
> Work for the common good.
> My profile: <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
> I blog now and then at: <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Richard C. Johnson <dick@iwwco.com>
> To: nancy.tobi@gmail.com; Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:16:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Alternate to Holt
>
> Nancy,
>
> Your suggested replacement for the Holt bill is well thought out and
> well reasoned. I would suggest that you not accept the impossibility
> of testing and retesting voting software; properly done, it does not
> have to be impossibly expensive, nor does it have to take more than
> overnight. A set of national standard tests, an automated test
> harness, and either a reformed ITA or a national test lab could do
> this job once the costs of creating the lab were met.
>
> Untested software, last minute fixes, and failures in use are all too
> familiar to people in the software business. Open Source code,
> available to the community for test, can help spot and remove a number
> of problems. Regression testing, properly done, can help keep fixes
> from making problems worse. A well designed standard set of test
> routines will go far to exposing bugs (and some chicanery) otherwise
> visited on the voter. It is a matter of helping the odds, not of
> achieving the absolute.
>
> Yet, as I an others have pointed out, we can never prove something
> works. We can only prove it does not. The test goal is to subject
> the code to substantial risk of failure under simulated use. Such
> testing is needed and, as I claim above, it does not have to be
> impossibly time consuming and expensive.
>
> -- Dick
>
> Nancy Tobi <ntobi@democracyfornewhampshire.com> wrote:
>
>
> Here is an alternative to Holt - originally submitted as request
> for amendments, but now we understand Holt will never amend their
> bill, so take it as an alternative plan.
>
> It is a reasoned, practical, fiscally responsible plan.
>
> Please take note of our proposal to reorganize the EAC in the full
> document referenced at the URL below.
>
> Attached is a summary and the Request By Voters itself can be
> found here:
> http://www.wethepatriots.org/HAVA/requestbyvoters.pdf
>
> You can sign up on www.wethepatriots.org
> <http://www.wethepatriots.org>
>
>
> Nancy
> --
>
>
> Nancy Tobi, Chair
> Democracy for New Hampshire
> DFNH Fair Elections Committee
> PO Box 717 | Concord, NH 03301
> www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com
> <http://www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OVC-discuss mailing list
>OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
>http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
>
>

_______________________________________________
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 23:17:15 2007

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