Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [RLC-Action] Re: Encourage Senator Hagel to run for President!

Expand Messages
  • Adam J. Bernay
    I personally have no problem compromising the secret ballot. I also have no problem with people being allowed to buy votes. because I don t think it would
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 8, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      I personally have no problem “compromising the secret ballot.”  I also have no problem with people being allowed to buy votes… because I don’t think it would happen.  Who in their right mind would pay that kind of money to win an election?  And if they have that kind of money, they probably know things that would be good for a legislator or executive to know anyway.

       

      But I just don’t see it happening.  How much would people charge?  Let’s say an individual vote costs $20.  Other than small local races, you are talking HUGE SUMS!  Who would do that?

       

      I do believe in paper trails, but it should be both one in the backup ballot box and one to the voter.  If I have a right to my medical records, surely I have a right to my ballot.

       


      From: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com [mailto: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Robbie Honerkamp
      Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:45 PM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Encourage Senator Hagel to run for President!

       

      DGHarrison wrote:

      >
      > No, I don't think it is a good idea to give voters a paper receipt that
      > shows how they voted. The secret ballot would be compromised. And even
      > if no one ever did threaten violence to influence the outcome of an
      > election, what good would the paper receipt be to a recount? Not only
      > would it be impossible to track down all the individual voters, many
      > will have discarded, lost, or accidentally destroyed their receipts. On
      > top of that, the "chain of custody," so to speak, will have been
      broken.
      > Who could ever trust the veracity of any subsequent recount?

      I don't think anyone is seriously advocating giving voters a receipt
      they can take with them, for the reasons you mentioned (buying votes,
      chain of custody issues). The push for a paper trail is all about
      keeping an official paper copy of each vote. As I understand it, the way
      this works on most machines that support this feature is there is a
      small receipt printer that prints out the voter's ballot. The paper is
      scrolled underneath a clear cover so that the voter can see their ballot
      but cannot access it. If the voter agrees with what is on the printout,
      they press a button on the voting machine screen, the electronic ballot
      is cast, and the paper ballot is rolled up.

      Paper trails are very important- so important, I would argue that it
      should be illegal to implement electronic voting machines without a
      paper trail that can be audited to verify the accuracy of an individual
      machine.

      Robbie

    • Bob White
      The goal is a secret, secure and verifiable vote. Paper may have a place in this, but let it not be so insecure that goons in, for example, Kings County
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 8, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        The goal is a secret, secure and verifiable vote.  Paper may have a place in this, but let it not be so insecure that goons in, for example, Kings County Washington can "find" a missing ballot box to win an election.

        It's bad enough that some states don't require id to be presented at the polling place prior to voting (and none require purple stains on the thumb afterward).

        What if the receipt merely returned an id number uniquely identifying the vote cast.  The voter could then bring this receipt to a controlled place (e.g. voter reg office) after the election and re-read the choices he had made.

        It's not clear to me what good this would be as it would be a bad idea to allow someone to change the recorded vote.  The time to verify one's vote is before casting it -- and the touchscreen machines (at least in Fla) do that.  But it would be reassuring if one's recorded vote could be verified later on, proving that one's vote was recorded properly even though that wouldn't prove that it was added to the official tally.


        Robbie Honerkamp <robbie@...> wrote:
        DGHarrison wrote:
        >
        > No, I don't think it is a good idea to give voters a paper receipt that
        > shows how they voted. The secret ballot would be compromised. And even
        > if no one ever did threaten violence to influence the outcome of an
        > election, what good would the paper receipt be to a recount? Not only
        > would it be impossible to track down all the individual voters, many
        > will have discarded, lost, or accidentally destroyed their receipts. On
        > top of that, the "chain of custody," so to speak, will have been broken.
        > Who could ever trust the veracity of any subsequent recount?

        I don't think anyone is seriously advocating giving voters a receipt
        they can take with them, for the reasons you mentioned (buying votes,
        chain of custody issues). The push for a paper trail is all about
        keeping an official paper copy of each vote. As I understand it, the way
        this works on most machines that support this feature is there is a
        small receipt printer that prints out the voter's ballot. The paper is
        scrolled underneath a clear cover so that the voter can see their ballot
        but cannot access it. If the voter agrees with what is on the printout,
        they press a button on the voting machine screen, the electronic ballot
        is cast, and the paper ballot is rolled up.

        Paper trails are very important- so important, I would argue that it
        should be illegal to implement electronic voting machines without a
        paper trail that can be audited to verify the accuracy of an individual
        machine.

        Robbie



        --Bob White-- home:727-490-7363, cell:727-463-6061
        Polina  Nastya my blog:  http://milkchaser.blogspot.com/

        "Where you used to be, there is a hole in the world, which I find myself constantly walking around in the daytime, and falling into at night. I miss you like hell.
        - Edna St. Vincent Millay
        "

      • George Blumel
        With all of those voting problems add the multi-languages. I thought it was a requirement for citizenship that you had to read English. So, is the Spanish on
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
           
              With all of those voting problems add the multi-languages. I thought it was a requirement for citizenship that you had to read English. So, is the Spanish on our ballots for the illegals? 
           
              A good book to read on this subject: Stealing Elections -How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy by John Fund (Encounter Books, San Francisco).
           
                                                                                                                              -Geo.
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Bob White
          Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:38 PM
          Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Secure, Verifiable Ballots

          The goal is a secret, secure and verifiable vote.  Paper may have a place in this, but let it not be so insecure that goons in, for example, Kings County Washington can "find" a missing ballot box to win an election.

          It's bad enough that some states don't require id to be presented at the polling place prior to voting (and none require purple stains on the thumb afterward).

          What if the receipt merely returned an id number uniquely identifying the vote cast.  The voter could then bring this receipt to a controlled place (e.g. voter reg office) after the election and re-read the choices he had made.

          It's not clear to me what good this would be as it would be a bad idea to allow someone to change the recorded vote.  The time to verify one's vote is before casting it -- and the touchscreen machines (at least in Fla) do that.  But it would be reassuring if one's recorded vote could be verified later on, proving that one's vote was recorded properly even though that wouldn't prove that it was added to the official tally.


          Robbie Honerkamp <robbie@shorty. com> wrote:

          DGHarrison wrote:
          >
          > No, I don't think it is a good idea to give voters a paper receipt that
          > shows how they voted. The secret ballot would be compromised. And even
          > if no one ever did threaten violence to influence the outcome of an
          > election, what good would the paper receipt be to a recount? Not only
          > would it be impossible to track down all the individual voters, many
          > will have discarded, lost, or accidentally destroyed their receipts. On
          > top of that, the "chain of custody," so to speak, will have been broken.
          > Who could ever trust the veracity of any subsequent recount?

          I don't think anyone is seriously advocating giving voters a receipt
          they can take with them, for the reasons you mentioned (buying votes,
          chain of custody issues). The push for a paper trail is all about
          keeping an official paper copy of each vote. As I understand it, the way
          this works on most machines that support this feature is there is a
          small receipt printer that prints out the voter's ballot. The paper is
          scrolled underneath a clear cover so that the voter can see their ballot
          but cannot access it. If the voter agrees with what is on the printout,
          they press a button on the voting machine screen, the electronic ballot
          is cast, and the paper ballot is rolled up.

          Paper trails are very important- so important, I would argue that it
          should be illegal to implement electronic voting machines without a
          paper trail that can be audited to verify the accuracy of an individual
          machine.

          Robbie



          --Bob White-- home:727-490- 7363, cell:727-463- 6061
          Polina  Nastya my blog:  http://milkchaser. blogspot. com/

          "Where you used to be, there is a hole in the world, which I find myself constantly walking around in the daytime, and falling into at night. I miss you like hell.
          - Edna St. Vincent Millay
          "

        • Chuck Moulton
          ... Not necessarily. Encryption allows the best of both worlds. Here is one technique (there are many others):
          Message 4 of 24 , Jan 8, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            > No, I don't think it is a good idea to give voters a paper
            > receipt that shows how they voted. The secret ballot would be
            > compromised.

            Not necessarily. Encryption allows the best of both worlds.

            Here is one technique (there are many others):
            http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/voting/papers/Chaum-SecretBallotReceiptsTrueVoterVerifiableElections.pdf

            Sorry, it seems like action lists always degenerate into discussion
            lists without strict moderation.

            -Chuck Moulton
          • DGHarrison
            I personally have no problem compromising the secret ballot. I also have no problem with people being allowed to buy votes... because I don t think it would
            Message 5 of 24 , Jan 8, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              I personally have no problem “compromising the secret ballot.”  I also have no problem with people being allowed to buy votes… because I don’t think it would happen.  Who in their right mind would pay that kind of money to win an election?  And if they have that kind of money, they probably know things that would be good for a legislator or executive to know anyway.

              But I just don’t see it happening.  How much would people charge?  Let’s say an individual vote costs $20.  Other than small local races, you are talking HUGE SUMS!  Who would do that?

              I do believe in paper trails, but it should be both one in the backup ballot box and one to the voter.  If I have a right to my medical records, surely I have a right to my ballot. -- Adam

              A good point. The vote of the typical voter is purchased indirectly, with political promises amounting to billions of dollars rather than with cash, and it would cost a fortune to buy the votes of the average American directly. But then again, we've already heard that the Democrats have obtained the homeless and soup kitchen vote with bribes of cigarettes. Such votes might not cost them that much after all, and a receipt would allow them to monitor and control their vote buying scheme. I guess I'm just a cynic.

              Okay. That's my last comment on this issue. The moderator will soon suggest that we take it to another discussion board.

              Doug Harrison
              Minnesota


              --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---

            • rickgaber
              ... SecretBallotReceiptsTrueVoterVerifiableElections.pdf I m not persuaded that precluding the danger of the selling of votes is worth such a
              Message 6 of 24 , Jan 9, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In RLC-Action message 1562, "Chuck Moulton" <chuck@...> wrote:
                >
                > Here is one technique (there are many others):
                > http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/voting/papers/Chaum-
                SecretBallotReceiptsTrueVoterVerifiableElections.pdf

                I'm not persuaded that precluding the "danger" of the "selling of
                votes" is worth such a highly-complicated, intensely high-tech
                system. Here's a MUCH, much
                simpler one:
                http://FreedomKeys.com/gabersystem.htm
              • Ray Holtorf
                I seem to remember Thommy Thompson as being ideal when Bush snapped him up for HHS. Does anyone know his pre-Bush administration record? There was also Tom
                Message 7 of 24 , Jan 9, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I seem to remember Thommy Thompson as being ideal when
                  Bush snapped him up
                  for HHS. Does anyone know his pre-Bush administration
                  record? There was
                  also Tom Ridge, and a Governor from Michigan. I recall
                  each had excellent
                  libertarian-ish qualities, and then all were snapped
                  up and placed in big
                  government departments in the Bush administration. At
                  first I thought it
                  was a sign those departments would be reigned in - now
                  it seems an effort
                  to remove them from the race.

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "George Blumel" <gblumel@...>
                  To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: Jason Burkins
                  Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:15:55 -0500
                  Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Encourage Senator Hagel to
                  run for President!

                  > We ARE in serious trouble. In this dearth of
                  candidates that we have, Newt
                  > is the best of a bad lot. So far. At least he knows
                  all the issues and is
                  > clear where he stands. I'm hoping for that Knight on
                  the white horse.
                  > Mark Sanford is a good man. Who else is even
                  remotely possible out there?
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: Jason Burkins
                  > To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
                  > Cc: Jason Burkins
                  > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:27 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Encourage Senator Hagel to
                  run for President!
                  >
                  > If Newt is the best we can do, we're in serious
                  trouble.
                  >
                  > Time for somebody new. Gingrich is too tainted in
                  the public eye.
                  >
                  > Jason Burkins
                  > jason@burkins. net
                  > Libertas Consulting
                  >
                  > On Jan 7, 2007, at 10:14 PM, David Briggman wrote:
                  >
                  > I think Newt's about the best this party can hope
                  for.
                  >
                  > Unless Ron Paul steps up, which is doubtful, I'll
                  llikely work for Newt.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On 1/7/07, Bob White <oxanastapol-rlc@...>
                  wrote:
                  > The best thing about Hagel running for President
                  would be that he would
                  > make the others look better by comparison.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                • Adrian Augustine
                  Well I don t want to bash our former Governor, hes far better than our current Democratic one, but here s my analysis... a) the bad news Tommy never really was
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jan 9, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Well I don't want to bash our former Governor, hes far better than our current Democratic one, but here's my analysis...

                    a) the bad news
                    Tommy never really was a fiscal conservative on spending issues. Many Republicans secretly blame him for the large deficits his GOP successor inherited when the recession hit. After heading up HHS Tommy has also displayed some nanny state tendencies that are troubling.

                    b) neutral to positve
                    He was really good on tax cuts, but then again every GOP governor in the 90s was considering the overflowing tax revenue that was streaming in from the economy.

                    c) the good news
                    He was a pioneer when it came to reforming welfare and implementing school choice before it got traction in other states and at the federal level. Tommy never was much of a social conservative in the evangelical sense. For the lack of a better term I'll describe him as a secular traditionalist.

                    While Tommy may not be that impressive of a speaker, he is a really good retail politician. I don't know how his small town Wisconsin charm(population of Elroy, WI: 1,758) will work in other states but Iowa and New Hampshire seem like pretty good testing grounds.

                    Anyway, I think Tommy is like most GOP candidates for the nomination, some good, some bad...nothing perfect.

                    Adrian Augustine
                    Wisconsin

                    Ray Holtorf <rayholtorf@...> wrote:
                    I seem to remember Thommy Thompson as being ideal when
                    Bush snapped him up
                    for HHS. Does anyone know his pre-Bush administration
                    record? There was
                    also Tom Ridge, and a Governor from Michigan. I recall
                    each had excellent
                    libertarian- ish qualities, and then all were snapped
                    up and placed in big
                    government departments in the Bush administration. At
                    first I thought it
                    was a sign those departments would be reigned in - now
                    it seems an effort
                    to remove them from the race.

                    .


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.