is much, much worse. S223 which is the law in North Carolina is not as strong as I would have liked it, but it was the best bill we could put together (and it sent Diebold screaming into the night). I do not believe you are going to get a better bill than 550. It establishes a minimum enforcement floor, not a ceiling, and most importantly requires code disclosure and a voter verified paper record. It also states unequivocally that paper trumps electronic counts. If the two counts differ, paper is what is counted.
If you think you are going to get a better bill, you are dreaming. The fact that we have gotten this far is nothing short of miraculous.
There is nothing in the bill which forbids states from requiring more stringent oversight.
People can carp all they want about the 2% mandatory random audit, but it is a MINIMUM, not a MAXIMUM. It is tons better than no audit at all. Claims that the requirement will make it easy "to cheat" are irresponsible and without merit.
Clueless Bev with her "inside game versus outside game" nonsense is making our job harder and proves once again that she is more interested in what keeps her name in the limelight, not what is good for voters.
Bev goes on lecture us that this is not about a paper trail it is about banning secrecy.
(8) PROHIBITION OF USE OF UNDISCLOSED SOFTWARE IN VOTING SYSTEMS.—No voting system shall at any time contain or use any undisclosed software. Any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code, object code, and executable representation of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code, object code, and executable representation available for inspection upon request to any person.
Where's the secrecy? They have to disclose the code to the PUBLIC.
Bev later claims "This bill can act to put a LID on our ability to count 100 percent of the ballots.". Now how does it do that?
(d) ADDITIONAL AUDITS IF CAUSE SHOWN.—If the Commission finds that any of the hand counts conducted under this section show cause for concern about the accuracy of the results of an election in a State or in a jurisdiction within the State, the Commission may conduct hand counts under this section at such additional precincts (or equivalent locations) within the State or jurisdiction as the Commission considers appropriate to resolve any concerns and ensure the accuracy of the results.
Again, the commission openly says it has the authority to count as many ballots as it pleases, but it does not preclude the county or state from conducting its own audit.
I will write up a point by point rebuttal of Bev's spurious objections later, but Dr. Mercuri summed it up best in her note to Bev:
Your opposition statement to Rush Holt' bill is completely deluded. I'm fairly convinced that you've never read his bill, based on the numerous erroneous remarks that you made. You really need to spend some time with it.
