Response to Bev & Urgent Action Alert - Please Act Today

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon Jan 22 2007 - 14:39:25 CST

> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:00:12 -0600
> From: Bev Harris <bev@blackboxvoting.org>
> Subject: Re: [EILeg] 4-tiered election audit proposal
>
> Just a single question:
>
> What is the mechanism for putting the right candidate in office when the audit
> shows the wrong candidate was elected?
>
> Because I don't see any constitutional provision for that to happen.
>
> And what prevents the U.S. congress from installing the candidate before the
> audit or litigation stemming from the audit is complete (as they did in San
> Diego, which then superceded San Diego's ability to make things right)?
>
> Bev
>

Bev,

Thank you for your questions which are crucial ones which must be
addressed, and which prompted me to edit the abstract to at least
partially address them on the first page of my "Tiered Election
Audits" paper and in footnotes on the first page.
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/FourTierAudit/

Much more work is needed on these issues brought up by Bev. Nancy
Pelosi did very well in response to Holt's inquiry because her first
action as Speaker, after being sworn in herself, was to say that the
swearing in ceremony for House members would not prejudice any
on-going election contests.

URGENT NEWS: I heard this a.m. from a very reliable source that Holt
is NOT considering any tiered election audit plan (nor, I presume, is
Holt considering any requirement for minimum audit amounts).

We must contact US House representatives NOW to demand a tiered
election audit that specifies "Minimum Audit Amounts" for any range of
margins between candidates.
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/FourTierAudit/

A requirement for a minimum audit AMOUNT - requires that a 100% hand
count of 100% of vote counts whenever it is necessary to ensure
election outcome integrity, AND prevent election audits from being
scammed by having election officials aggregate ballots into a fewer
number of total vote counts which would cause any percentage-based
audits to be ineffective; and provide open season for vote fraud (as
currently).

I revised my Tiered Election Audit pdf paper this a.m. Please use
this new version which is more complete, contains items suggested by
Bev's questions, and is more organized and easier to follow.

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/FourTierAudit/

PLEASE tell your lists to demand NOW (today) that our US House
requires tiered election audits because otherwise Holt may only
consider a very inadequate 2% flat audit without even requiring
minimum audit amounts - so that even races with very large margins
would be unprotected since a fixed rate audit without any minimum
audit amounts can be easily manipulated by using fewer larger-sized
vote counts for auditing to leave vast numbers of ballots unaudited
and open to innocent error and fraud.

http://www.house.gov/
_______________________________________________
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 Tue Jan 1 14:12:46 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 14:12:51 CST