FairVote partnership with DeGregorio Internet Voting Company
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Joyce McCloy
Nov 9, 2009, 9:40:58 PM11/9/09
to Election Integrity
From Everyone Counts' website (I did a screen shot, these embarassing
things tend to disappear)
Fairvote in partnership with Everyone Counts and The Center for Voting
and Democracy (Fairvote) have entered into an agreement to promote
proportional representation in the United States.
http://www.everyonecounts.com/index.php/news/14/121/Partnership-with-Fairvote
If anyone believes that FairVote cares about transparency in
elections, just look at this partnership. Despicable. Don't be
fooled, don't be used. The e-voting integrity movement is a powerful
movement and some seek to use our momentum to promote their agendas.
Instant runoff voting is not additive, it is not precinct summable!
Its too hard to count even with voting machines and it can never be
transparent to the average voter. Instant runoff voting is a black box
to voters and it is also a literacy test.
And here we see that FairVote has their lips on the behind of Everyone
Counts.
Do we have to learn the hard way? Internet voting is dangerous!
We should all be banding together to fight internet voting now.
That means not giving power to organizations that pretend to be on our
side but are actively working with internet voting companies in any
form or shape.
You can't be a voter advocate and be a partner with a company whose
financial interests run contrary to voters rights and needs.
The paper ballot movement has been so succesful that someone had to
find a easier way to rig elections, and the internet is that way.
things tend to disappear)
Fairvote in partnership with Everyone Counts and The Center for Voting
and Democracy (Fairvote) have entered into an agreement to promote
proportional representation in the United States.
http://www.everyonecounts.com/index.php/news/14/121/Partnership-with-Fairvote
If anyone believes that FairVote cares about transparency in
elections, just look at this partnership. Despicable. Don't be
fooled, don't be used. The e-voting integrity movement is a powerful
movement and some seek to use our momentum to promote their agendas.
Instant runoff voting is not additive, it is not precinct summable!
Its too hard to count even with voting machines and it can never be
transparent to the average voter. Instant runoff voting is a black box
to voters and it is also a literacy test.
And here we see that FairVote has their lips on the behind of Everyone
Counts.
Do we have to learn the hard way? Internet voting is dangerous!
We should all be banding together to fight internet voting now.
That means not giving power to organizations that pretend to be on our
side but are actively working with internet voting companies in any
form or shape.
You can't be a voter advocate and be a partner with a company whose
financial interests run contrary to voters rights and needs.
The paper ballot movement has been so succesful that someone had to
find a easier way to rig elections, and the internet is that way.
Mark Adams
Nov 9, 2009, 11:52:09 PM11/9/09
to ncv...@gmail.com, Election Integrity, List PeopleCount
Joyce,
I agree with you. Internet voting is just another attempt to justify "counting" votes in secret, and IRV is another attempt to distract people from the main issue while also adding more justification for "counting" votes on computers.
Just so everyone knows, Paul Lehto and I have offered to debate anyone on whether or not counting votes in secret is Constitutional. It looked like an internet voting proponent was going to take me up on the offer, but I haven't heard back from him in a couple of weeks.
In case anyone needs a reminder about why counting the votes matters or wonders why the government passes laws that virtually everyone opposes, like the bank bailout, check out Why Does the Government Ignore Our Wishes? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/09/11/why-does-the-government-ignore-our-wishes/ and don’t miss my 18 minute speech.
If you take a look, you'll learn that our most valuable rights to control our government have been stolen, and as a result, horrible abuses are occurring. It is time to demand that these rights are restored. Spread the news.
Carpe diem,
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:40:58 -0800
> Subject: [ei] FairVote partnership with DeGregorio Internet Voting Company
> From: ncv...@gmail.com
> To: Election...@googlegroups.com
I agree with you. Internet voting is just another attempt to justify "counting" votes in secret, and IRV is another attempt to distract people from the main issue while also adding more justification for "counting" votes on computers.
Just so everyone knows, Paul Lehto and I have offered to debate anyone on whether or not counting votes in secret is Constitutional. It looked like an internet voting proponent was going to take me up on the offer, but I haven't heard back from him in a couple of weeks.
In case anyone needs a reminder about why counting the votes matters or wonders why the government passes laws that virtually everyone opposes, like the bank bailout, check out Why Does the Government Ignore Our Wishes? at http://dailycensored.com/2009/09/11/why-does-the-government-ignore-our-wishes/ and don’t miss my 18 minute speech.
If you take a look, you'll learn that our most valuable rights to control our government have been stolen, and as a result, horrible abuses are occurring. It is time to demand that these rights are restored. Spread the news.
Carpe diem,
Mark A. Adams JD/MBA
> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:40:58 -0800
> Subject: [ei] FairVote partnership with DeGregorio Internet Voting Company
> From: ncv...@gmail.com
> To: Election...@googlegroups.com
> --
> To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
>
> Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
>
> If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
> To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
>
> Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
>
> If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
Rob Richie
Nov 10, 2009, 8:09:24 AM11/10/09
to Election Integrity
I'm sure the list doesn't want to hear a long back and forth about
whether FairVote is some nefarious organization, but I'll answer the
below.
First, a lot of folks in the election integrity community know that we're not in this for the money, have been doing it a long time (I've been director since 1992, including an initial couple years of barely being paid) and have tried to build the pro-democracy community in a lot of ways, including creating vehicles that have brought a wide range of reformers together in ways that have directly boosted election integrity efforts and broader pro-democracy organizing (conferences in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008, for example).
Second, it's also widely accepted that FairVote has played a catalytic role in advancing big reform ideas other than our work on IRV and proportional voting - among them universal voter registration and the National Popular Vote plan for president. We've talked about pubic interest voting equipment and the idea of public ownership of the process for years, even though Joyce inaccurately may like to suggest it's opportunistic and recent. Some of you may like our reform goals, some not, but we have a broad vision that I think can be defended well based on the basic principle of respect for every vote and every voice.
Third, we see the problem of our plurality voting system as more important than many election integrity activists might see it. That's based on a value that we should have more choice in our politics and fairer representation, and from our perspective, nothing blocks that goal as much as plurality, winner-take-all voting rules. For a recent oped on that perspective, see this recent one by John Anderson that ran in several papers:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-200910290806mctnewsservbc-elections-commentary,0,2779407.story
Fourth, as to Everyone Counts, it no grand conspiracy. Just as in 2005 when Joyce had some weird theory that we were in cahoots with Hart Intercivic, there's no "there" there. The agreement came out of the work of an energetic staffer who several years ago was trying to help private associations/colleges that wanted to use ranked voting methods, but were having trouble doing it with their existing on-line election system. We also were interested in having people do mock votes on websites on things like using ranking rather that "vote for one" system.
We never took a dime from Everyone Counts and have in no way promoted Internet voting for electing public offices. The full extent of what was done with Everyone Counts (back in 2003-4 time, I believe, before Pau DeGregorio was there) was that: 1) its system was used for some mock elections we held on our website (I think they all were "voting for the best joke" series, which we did for several months); 2) it handled the administration for one private association election we ran. We haven't been in touch for years.
Finally, instant runoff voting can be done with integrity. Talk to folks in nations that use it for national elections in Ireland and Australia and to folks in the US like Mark Halvorson in Minnesota. There are definitely reasonable proposals for how you can handle manual audits of ranked voting elections. If folks are interested in working through those issues so that this is done right, even if you're ambivalent about IRV and proportional voting, let me know.
Rob
############
First, a lot of folks in the election integrity community know that we're not in this for the money, have been doing it a long time (I've been director since 1992, including an initial couple years of barely being paid) and have tried to build the pro-democracy community in a lot of ways, including creating vehicles that have brought a wide range of reformers together in ways that have directly boosted election integrity efforts and broader pro-democracy organizing (conferences in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2008, for example).
Second, it's also widely accepted that FairVote has played a catalytic role in advancing big reform ideas other than our work on IRV and proportional voting - among them universal voter registration and the National Popular Vote plan for president. We've talked about pubic interest voting equipment and the idea of public ownership of the process for years, even though Joyce inaccurately may like to suggest it's opportunistic and recent. Some of you may like our reform goals, some not, but we have a broad vision that I think can be defended well based on the basic principle of respect for every vote and every voice.
Third, we see the problem of our plurality voting system as more important than many election integrity activists might see it. That's based on a value that we should have more choice in our politics and fairer representation, and from our perspective, nothing blocks that goal as much as plurality, winner-take-all voting rules. For a recent oped on that perspective, see this recent one by John Anderson that ran in several papers:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/sns-200910290806mctnewsservbc-elections-commentary,0,2779407.story
Fourth, as to Everyone Counts, it no grand conspiracy. Just as in 2005 when Joyce had some weird theory that we were in cahoots with Hart Intercivic, there's no "there" there. The agreement came out of the work of an energetic staffer who several years ago was trying to help private associations/colleges that wanted to use ranked voting methods, but were having trouble doing it with their existing on-line election system. We also were interested in having people do mock votes on websites on things like using ranking rather that "vote for one" system.
We never took a dime from Everyone Counts and have in no way promoted Internet voting for electing public offices. The full extent of what was done with Everyone Counts (back in 2003-4 time, I believe, before Pau DeGregorio was there) was that: 1) its system was used for some mock elections we held on our website (I think they all were "voting for the best joke" series, which we did for several months); 2) it handled the administration for one private association election we ran. We haven't been in touch for years.
Finally, instant runoff voting can be done with integrity. Talk to folks in nations that use it for national elections in Ireland and Australia and to folks in the US like Mark Halvorson in Minnesota. There are definitely reasonable proposals for how you can handle manual audits of ranked voting elections. If folks are interested in working through those issues so that this is done right, even if you're ambivalent about IRV and proportional voting, let me know.
Rob
############
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org
r...@fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider
a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's
CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!
Joyce McCloy
Nov 10, 2009, 7:26:10 PM11/10/09
to Election Integrity
FAIRVOTE HAS A SERIOUS CONFLICT OF BY PARTNERING WITH INTERNET VOTING
COMPANY.
YOU ALLOW E1C TO USE YOUR NAME TO PEDDLE THEIR GOODS, LOBBY OUR
LAWMAKERS.
Security expert: no way to secure Internet voting
WBBM Newsradio 780 CHICAGO (WBBM) -- An Internet security expert says
there's no way Internet voting can reliably replace paper ballots to
ease the expense of election day.
John Hopkins University computer science professor Avi Rubin spoke one
day after Lake County, Ind., sat out a transit referendum because
county commissioners didn't have a spare half million dollars to fund
the election.
...
The ultimate problem, he says, is one of authentication: there's just
no guaranteed way to tell who is who at either end of the voting
connection.
Rubin says banking transactions are fine on the Internet because
there's a back-office trail that can always be followed. But he says
there's no secure way to ensure whether the person casting or counting
a private ballot, is who they claim to be.
http://www.wbbm780.com/Security-expert--no-way-to-secure-Internet-voting/5597466
COMPANY.
YOU ALLOW E1C TO USE YOUR NAME TO PEDDLE THEIR GOODS, LOBBY OUR
LAWMAKERS.
Security expert: no way to secure Internet voting
WBBM Newsradio 780 CHICAGO (WBBM) -- An Internet security expert says
there's no way Internet voting can reliably replace paper ballots to
ease the expense of election day.
John Hopkins University computer science professor Avi Rubin spoke one
day after Lake County, Ind., sat out a transit referendum because
county commissioners didn't have a spare half million dollars to fund
the election.
...
The ultimate problem, he says, is one of authentication: there's just
no guaranteed way to tell who is who at either end of the voting
connection.
Rubin says banking transactions are fine on the Internet because
there's a back-office trail that can always be followed. But he says
there's no secure way to ensure whether the person casting or counting
a private ballot, is who they claim to be.
http://www.wbbm780.com/Security-expert--no-way-to-secure-Internet-voting/5597466
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages