“PAPERLESS ELECTRONIC ELECTION UPHELD BY GERMAN SUPREME COURT.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/PAPERLESS-EL...

Two losers in an election to the Bundestag applied to that body for “a scrutiny of the election.” They argued, inter alia, that the high-tech process was undemocratic. The Bundestag denied their claim. Then they appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court. After a careful review of the issues, the High Court upheld the election. I suggest that the legal arguments in this decision pave the way for Internet voting in Germany, and by implication, the US and the world.

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
InternetVoting@gmail.com

Fortunately we don't NEED high tech systems for voting. Hand-counted paper ballot systems (HCPB) do the job very well, provided reasonable efforts are made to ensure that the entire election process is out in the open, properly monitored by representatives of competing political organizations. If there is not such transparency, then disaster is likely regardless of the level of technology. Actually, cheating is much easier for high technology systems. HCPB is also less costly than e-voting.

More detailed support for Buchan's arguments can be found at
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/man...

Stephen Unger

We have been “HOPING” for far too long, and if we don't start “DEMANDING,” we will never make any progress!

2. have voter mark a paper ballot

3. bring all ballots to respective ward/precinct for check-in and count

4. count all ballots by hand or machine (CLOSING count)

5. after closing reports an sealing machines ( if used) do a VERIFICATION count
of all position of all ballots by manual hand count.

6 have an resonable RECOUNT process.

Machine count process and hand count process are bothe error prone.

Thanks and Good Luck
Frank Henry
Tel: 928-649-0249
e-mail: fmhenry4@netzero.com

As long as hand counts are allowed by, and not impeded by, the bill that is the best that can be hoped for at this stage.

My own objections to the bill, for one, do not require that HCPB be mandated

Mr. Lehto, you imply that your experience spearheading laudable changes in California state law have informed you with the knowledge that similar changes on the Federal level will be as ineffective as they were in California. But it seems to me there is a very big difference and it appears premature to suppose the results would be equally disappointing. For example, the national and international newsworthiness of a clash with Federal law would be much greater. And perhaps the US Congresspersons whose names will be associated with the Holt bill will be able to influence the process more effectively than state politicians could.

But even if Holt proves as inadequate as your California reforms it seems to me likely that passing it and letting it fail will be the fastest way to prove that to a sufficient number of citizens.

Finally, I don't see what is wrong with telling our national representatives exactly what is wrong with the Holt bill at the same time we urge them to support it, so they will be clearly aware that it is only a step on the way to a solution similar to Germany's even in the minds of many Holt supporters.

But even given that excuse it's painfully obvious that Holt is still up to his old tricks, saying one thing and doing the opposite:

Holt's primary concerns have *always* been in centralizing control of elections at the federal level (which will really work out well the next time a Karl Rove gains access to power.) and to service the corporations.

An example, just one, but it's the one Kathy Dopp was on about:

Holt's misled proponents:
“BALLOT SECRECY!!!!!!!!!”

The “discussion draft”:

===

(III) The voting system shall not preserve the voter-verified paper ballots in any manner that makes it possible, at any
time after the ballot has been cast, to associate a voter with the record of the voter's vote without the voter's consent.

===

This is exactly the OPPOSITE of ballot secrecy.

The text “… without the voter’s consent.” means tracking the voter with their vote is not only possible, it is allowed.

This is a violation of just *how* many state laws?

If the voter can be connected with their ballot after it is cast then the voter can be compelled to identify their vote… whether voluntarily or not.

Which of course renders the voter vulnerable to coercion and vote-buying.

This impossible condition will be changed of course… and in the changes something else toxic will be slipped in. Again. The “1 step forward 2 steps back” mutability of Holt's perenial “election reform” bill is legendary by now.

But the fatally flawed basis of the bill and the way it shifts powers from the states to the federal government and breaks the “balance of powers” model our system was founded on will never be addressed. And Holt offers nothing but a corporate power grab in return.

And the power it gives corporations at the expense of the public right to oversee their own elections is always there in his bill in one form or another.

People, we've been through this before.

And it's time you accepted that it's deliberate.

As a corporate-centered “New Democrat” Holt is apparently interested in the public good only so far as it furthers centralized control of elections and corporate interests.

It's same ol' same ol': with the new “reforms” as window dressing to distract and split the EI community… again… while Holt tries to “fix” the balance of powers system and also give the corporations as much as he thinks he can get away with.

Everything else is populist window dressing.

People, we need to talk.

the zapkitty