Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 18, 2011 at 2:11pm

Victoria, I totally agree with you that the right to vote infers the right to have your vote counted and to know that your vote was counted.

In the US today, under our present electoral system and our Constitution, we do not have the right to have our votes counted, no less the right to know that our votes were counted.

If your reasoning is correct, then we don't really have the right to vote, since our electoral system does not include either of the two things you say the right to vote infers.

Since we don't really have the right to vote, just the right to cast ballots that might or might not be counted which we can't be sure were counted accurately even if they are counted at all, shouldn't our focus be on obtaining the right to vote?

But even more crucial, is the right to vote the voice in government that it was intended to be? Can our votes influence policy decisions, or do they simply delegate the power to make policy decisions to people over whom we have no power?

Bev's website, or Brad's, or yours, or many other election integrity websites would be good places for you and Lindsay to discuss the mechanics of voting. This topic is focused more on whether voting can bring about change or if the only way to bring about change is to stop voting and refuse to vote until we get a real vote in real elections where we have a real voice in government. Sham votes in sham elections where the government does not allow public opinion to influence policy decisions cannot bring about change.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 18, 2011 at 2:38pm

That depends, Mark. Is this thread about alternative systems, besides representative democracy? If so, do those alternative systems involve voting at all? If so, what system of voting do you advocate? Because a lot of Occupy people who want to drop out of the current system are advocating for Internet voting, so I think we're going end up back at the question of how votes are processed, one way or the other.

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 18, 2011 at 2:39pm

Just quickly, Victoria, and I would like to go into a more complete explanantion..the auditor system and the voter receipt in the schema I have outlined are that.

 

In fact that separation of the official tally from the audtor tally is the heart of the system.  In VoteBox . the sytem I referenced ( I haven't looked back..toobusy with my consiutional issues)  they also direct themselves to the fatal flaw in electronic votingto date that both the aufdiotr system and the official system is under the sme control/management.  Their system and mine separates that.  Mine goes further than the Vote Box system in suggesting more randomness in the proccess through many separate complete copies of the aufitor and the official system with the ones fibally used for true official and true auditor also chosen andomly in the pricess of validation through record by record reconcilitaion.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 18, 2011 at 3:19pm

That depends, Mark. Is this thread about alternative systems, besides representative democracy? If so, do those alternative systems involve voting at all? If so, what system of voting do you advocate? Because a lot of Occupy people who want to drop out of the current system are advocating for Internet voting, so I think we're going end up back at the question of how votes are processed, one way or the other.

Actually, Victoria, this thread is about rejecting representative government, working for democracy where power is vested in the hands of the people, and withholding consent from and ceasing to comply with representative government where power is vested in the hands of the government.

Democracy does involve voting, but in a democratic system the votes have to be counted and they have to be verifiable. In order for that to happen, first power has to be vested in the hands of the people, so that the people can count the votes, verify the votes, and decide how the votes are counted.

As I mentioned in previous comments, Venezuela uses electronic voting, but since the votes have to be counted, the votes are verifiable, and the people are in power and can oversee all phases of the election process, electronic voting works just as well as HCPB would. Of course neither system works if the people are not in power, cannot oversee all aspects of the election system, and the government alone can decide how the votes must be counted or if they are counted at all.

There's no point talking about whether to have tea with our cake or coffee with our cake if we don't have any cake--even more so if we also don't have any coffee or tea.

Does it really matter whether or not the votes are counted or in what way the votes are counted, if they aren't real votes, that is, they cannot decide or even influence policy, but can only indicate a preference for which government officials we'd prefer to have making policy decisions for us? If we want a democratic system of government where power is vested in the hands of the people, the first step would be to stop giving our power away to a government that doesn't listen to us. 

The real problem is that many people don't want to talk about the real issues. They may not be happy with the status quo, but they fear change, which they think could lead to chaos, so they oppose democracy because democracy would mean change. Even if they say they want a better world, having a better world would involve change and that's something they don't want to risk because it might end up as a worse world instead of a better world.

Right now, because they are so afraid that change might lead to chaos, they are willing to continue to consent to a government that has claimed the right to imprison them indefinitely without due process or even assassinate them, as being a safer option than risking change. 

I know, I know--please don't remind me. I'm supposed to be more polite and respectful to people who prefer fascism to anarchy, because they can't help it if they see things in black and white and think those are the only two choices. But there really is another option, it is called democracy or socialism (they're actually synonyms as both vest power in the hands of the people so that government operates on behalf of the people rather than on behalf of a ruling plutocracy, oligarchy, or 1%), it exists, and many people find it preferable to both tyranny and chaos. 

We don't always and in everything have to choose between two evils. There really is such a thing as good. I didn't invent it and I'm not making it up. Heck, it's even in the dictionary.  ;)

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 18, 2011 at 3:35pm

Mark -- what do you mean the votes had to be counted. Are you saying they used paper ballots run through optical scanners? Are you saying they counted those ballots by hand as well? Otherwise, how can you say with certainty the votes were counted properly? Who is programming their computers? You understand what I'm asking.

Permalink Reply by Mark E. Smith on December 18, 2011 at 4:24pm

What I meant by the votes had to be counted in Venezuela, Victoria, is that there had been no ruling by their Supreme Court that the votes didn't have to be counted. 

The votes were counted by computers, but they hadn't been rigged because it had never occurred to the two major parties that people might vote for anyone else. They'd always gotten 90% of the vote and assumed that they always would. Their oligarchy was like ours, two major parties representing the 1%, so no matter who won, the 1% always won.

I think the difference might have been (I'm only guessing) that their ruling parties not only represented, but actually were the ruling class. Since the ruling class didn't imagine that the peasants wouldn't continue to succumb to the usual bullying, vote-buying, and violence when needed, or that a peasant might win an election, they hadn't rigged the voting machines, thinking that they'd always gotten 90% of the vote and there wasn't any likelihood that would ever change. Even if a peasant got on the ballot, who'd vote for a peasant?

Once Chavez was in power, his government controlled the voting machines and had an incentive to ensure that they remained honest because most Venezuelans were poor so most were unlikely to vote for oligarchs once they'd actually elected one of their own.

The voting machines aren't necessary, because it does end up with a paper ballot, the receipt that each voter gets showing how they voted, which can be hand counted if there is ever a dispute about the results. But the people who programmed them never had any orders or incentive to manipulate the vote, either before or after the revolution, so the machines never got rigged. And if they ever do, a HCPB recount is available.

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 18, 2011 at 11:27am

Lindsay, I only gave you links to my website, so I'm not sure what "all" of the links are that you looked at. On my website there is "The Evidence" page that links to literally hundreds of webpages dealing with this issue, and to numerous computer experts working in the field. I also recommended you connect with Bev Harris at Black Box Voting, or at least join her Facebook page, to discuss the details of e-voting systems. 

I still recommend that you talk directly with experts in the field.

I also agree with Mark's response to you below. Part of the problem has been that there is no authority who will act upon evidence of fraud. The entire structure of our system will have to be changed in order for there to be real oversight of an electronic voting system. Right now there is corruption at all levels and literally no one to turn to if fraud is suspected or proven. Any legal action requires tremendous resources on the part of the voter that most of us just don't have.

Again, paper ballots counted in public allow for the witnessing of the count the first time, and attempted fraud is limited in its scope, preventable, and if discovered, fixable because you have a hard physical ballot that can easily be recounted.

Can you explain to me what is wrong with a system like that? There are many ways to design ballots. There are laws we could pass to make voting easier -- like making it a national holiday. Why can't we just keep it simple?

And again, your system takes the control of the vote count outside the purview of citizens and puts it into the hands of "experts" who will assure the rest of us that all is well. Can you understand why this doesn't sit well with me? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 18, 2011 at 3:01pm

oops..main reply ended up above..I didn't see the reply option..but two further thoughts, again quickly,

 

Vote Box as ai recall uses encryption as part of security...out of my expertise but could be more efficient ( while still having totally separate and posisbly differently encrypted auditor and official systems)  That might reduce or eliiate the need for several copies of each system the final being randomly determined as part of the validation process.

Also in terms of hands on tghe system could print out for the election officials a receipt for each voter and core info eg exact time of the vote and part but not all of the uniquely generated voter confrmation number.  The election officials can then compare by hand that the system contains one vote for each documented voter they verified.  ( on my island they check my name off a pre printed list before allowing me to vote).  That would add a level of "paper ballot human eye on the process" that I think you and Bev Harris and others see in paper ballots without having to  have all paper ballots.

 

One final word.."my system" was generated on the spot out of thin air in a reply to you..totally off the cuff just as an example of systems techniques that can very adequately address what you seek to achieve in a tamper proof electiral process.  On further review I do se support for these ideas and application in other sysyem.  I would think they would be better references than my totally off the cuff sysytem but of coyrse whatver I have posted is yours to use as you please..we seek the same end, 

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 18, 2011 at 3:17pm

Lindsay, you've ended up where we all end up. A receipt. In other words, a paper ballot, that can be counted by hand.

Now please explain, if we end up with the need for a physical ballot, why we need to use computers at all?

We have just made the full loop that the entire election integrity community has traveled about ten million times in the past few decades.

The "voter verified paper trail" people who supported the Rush Holt bill were in support of using computers and having them spit out that receipt (which only works in the precinct and certainly not at home voting on the Internet).

The hand-counted folks said, this is only gives a false sense of security because an accurate receipt doesn't mean all the tallies of votes were accurate!

Finally many of the "trail" people defected reluctantly from their camp -- and that includes Bev Harris and Brad Freidman -- and agreed you just have to count the fucking ballots.

That's the history of this situation, and I encourage you to test your ideas among not just the e-voting or Internet voting proponents, but the entire election integrity movement.

Permalink Reply by Lindsay Newland Bowker on December 18, 2011 at 3:37pm

I am sure you and your fellow workers to insurae a valid vote are already tarcking norways efforts on e--voting but  fo those who don't know about it here is a link :

http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/krd/press/press-releases/2011/norw...

last to you marlk and last here,absolutely,last  a print out for use by local elected official is not at all the same as the paper ballot ssyem you are advocating.  What I suggested as a list for local election officials gives them no actual access tothe votes cast, just a claibartion between who they checked in and what was recorded in their computer at the point of external and totally automated tamper proof vote validation.

 

The last.  the last 

Permalink Reply by Victoria Collier on December 18, 2011 at 3:44pm

Ok Linsday, I don't want to keep you from what you have to do. But unless I missed the post, I don't think you ever did respond to my repeated question about your position the voter's right to see their vote counted. I would have appreciated a direct response on that. Pardon me if I  missed it, there are too many posts here.

Permalink Reply by Gisele Theriault on December 14, 2011 at 12:54pm

I am really enjoying reading this thread and I have so many things I would like to say but like Victoria I could spend all day here and I do have other things to do. I have been given much food for thought. Don't stop following the thread Victoria. I do believe we are making progress. We just need to slow it down so we can get other stuff done too.It's almost unbearable not to spend the day posting but I just have to stop myself.

I objected to the attitude being taken towards Mark because it is counter to the philosophy of Occupy and is counter-productive. We have grown so accustomed to the oppositional and mutually disrespectful approach that it is really difficult not to fall into negative patterns of behavior. Mark, in another post you said something to the effect of "If X doesn't happen what are you going to do? Hold your breath". That wasn't constructive. I know you didn't mean it offensively, and it's just a figure of speech, and Victoria didn't respond to it, but it was unnecessary and disrespectful. Obviously Victoria does not intend to hold her breath and to say so is mocking her. I'm not judging you, I do it too. I inadvertently say things and cause offense when it was not my intent because I feel so passionately and I am trying to convey the strength of my conviction and I get frustrated when people don't see that I have the answer.

I really have to do a lot of stuff but I am going to keep thinking about everything being said because I am learning from it and I do want to respond but some contemplation can only help. I will say that consensus decision-making and direct democracy are two entirely different concepts. Consensus decision-making can occur under a representative system. A system of direct democracy doesn't mean it will operate under a consensus building philosophy. A representative system doesn't have to include political parties.

I don't agree that not-voting could gain sufficient support to work. I don't agree that electing Occupy candidates will work. I do believe that both positions have value and move us forward towards a more just society. That is what we really need to remember. We are all on the same side. Divide and conquer is a major tactic of the ruling-class. Most politicians are not the ruling-class, they are purchased by the ruling-class. The 1% is not the ruling-class, they are the house slaves.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• 20
• …
• 58
• Next ›
• Page