Re: Bev Harris Trashed OVC at the Houston Election Hearing

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_at_uscountvotes_dot_org>
Date: Mon Jul 04 2005 - 23:34:04 CDT

Arthur Keller wrote:

> 1. I do believe that Bev Harris has made valuable contributions in the
> fight against proprietary and insecure voting systems. I don't agree
> with her focus on an all/only paper ballot system without any
> computerized counting. But I do strongly believe that she should have
> the right to express any opinion she cares to have, as long as it is
> not libelous or slandering.


Bev's comments regarding the OVC were libelous and slanderous IMO.
Please obtain a copy of the unedited video of Bev answering the question
that one of the questioners asked her about the OVC, so you can see for

I agree that everyone has a right to their own opinions, but Bev Harris
is doing the election reform movement a huge disservice to make such an
effort in very public forums where press and the Carter/Baker commission
are involved, to convince folks not to consult with computer scientists
who are voting system experts and by publicly maligning and attacking
those activists who disagree with her in a slanderous way.

Don't believe me however, see for yourself by watching the unedited
video of the EA hearing in Houston.

IMO, the biggest problem that has exacerbated the rate of miscounted
votes have been election activists and legislators' disdain for asking
for advice from computer scientists who are voting system experts before
passing foolish legislation that "sounds" nice but exacerbates the
problems - like HAVA and the legislation passed in many states,
including here in Utah, where local election activists and the
progressive democrats publicly supported horrific legislation because it
sounded nice to them. Any experts could tell at first glance how
dangerous and ill-advised the legislation is that election activists
keep unwisely supporting.

It is folks like Bev who convince other election activists that computer
scientists should be excluded from voting equipment selection commitees
and then complain when the worst possible voting equipment is selected -
like Diebold's who has yet to ever demonstrate ANY method of counting
its flimsy paper rolls and does not even include a bid for any system to
count its paper rolls.

Anyone with half a brain would think to ask how to count Diebold's paper
rolls or ask where the bid from Diebold is for the system to count its
paper rolls, but without a computer expert on the voting equipment
selection committees, the county clerks and state election officials
seem to neglect to even ask about the basics of a voting system! Yet
Bev convinces all her followers to shun and disdain the computer experts
who would prevent such idiotic foolishness!

Give me a break!.

For Bev, who has so many followers, to publicly malign the OVC and all
computer scientists (rather than just the handful who are the problem)
and convince other election activists who follow her to shun the very
people who could help the most, is very damaging to the effort to ensure
accurate vote counts.

Unlike Bev and Lynn Landes, I have never badmouthed her or anyone who
disagrees with my solution, in a public forum (outside of this list and
a list for leaders-only of the elections movement). Lynn Landes
published my private email to her, publicly on her web site without
asking my permission and maligned Steve Freeman. BTW, Lynn Landes is now
demanding an end to any absentee ballots and no voting provisions for
the military if they're away from home.

While many people agree that absentee voting is highly open to ballot
box stuffing by relatives, etc., it should be fairly simple to secure
mail in voting to an adequate degree with proper procedures involving
signature or thumbprint verification. Don't you think?


OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sun Jul 31 23:17:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:43:09 CDT