What would you suggest as an alternative - out-sourcing the process to a
private firm?

I think I can point out a structural defect without offering a magic wand, but
solutions are not difficult nor expensive, and indeed are already in place in
some US locations.

I cannot reach your level of paranoia over the administration
of the electoral process.

There is no need to name-call. What I described was a violation of public right
to observe.

I believe most screw ups are just that - screw ups.

It doesn't matter if the count is correct, incorrect, deliberate or accidental.
The issue is public right to authenticate its own public elections.  If the
public is not allowed to do this, power transfers from the public to the
government (or to outsourced vendors selected by the government).

As a political consultant, I deal with Registrars of Voters all over
California frequently. There are varying degrees of competence and
variations in how they interpret some of the laws covering elections. But I
believe the vast majority are honest.

But that is irrelevant. The transfer of power (from the public to the government
or its vendor agent) occurs with the act of authorizing key processes to take
place in secret. It is that act -- allowing concealment -- that removes power
from the public, rather than the act of tampering itself.

I can tell you also that I
and most other top level political consultants pour over results in our
campaigns with a virtual magnifying glass. I believe we would spot any
discrepancies in very short order.

How clairvoyant. That's reassuring, but this is also not responsive to the issue
of public right to authenticate its own elections. The public has not
transfered its right to you, or to any political consultant, nor is it possible
to transfer other people's rights, to political consultants (how non-biased and
refreshingly non-partisan!) or to any other entity.

In short, I don't think there is a
perfect system or process for conducting elections. It is the responsibility
of all of us who engage in the process to be constantly on guard and in
quest of a better way to do things.

No election will be perfect. You can't eliminate crime by passing laws. But the
issue is making sure our right to self-government is intact. I do realize that
some believe there is no longer a right to self-governance (I've talked to
them; some technologists are quite fine with the idea that the public should
turn over controls to them, that the election "can be verified FOR the public"
by a small group of insiders).

But that is not liberty.

It seems that your concern is that you do not see the mechanics for how
the public could see and authenticate the four components (who can vote - the
voter list; who did vote - the participating voter list; chain of custody and
the count). I can provide you with specific examples where, by using home rule,
locations have adjusted procedures to restore the public ability to exercise its
rights in all four areas regard. It costs very little; there are several ways to
do it. Listing all the ways would make this a very long e-mail.

But this starts with recognition for the Right to Know and the Right to
Self-Govern. If you're willing to dispense with those rights I have no
suggestion for you, other than to review the principles on which this country
was founded.

Bev Harris
Founder - Black Box Voting
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

* * * * *

Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right
to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to
know. We insist on remaining informed so that we may retain control over the
instruments of government we have created.



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law