Posts Tagged ‘Voting’

Oscar Internet Voting Plan Smeared With Gumbel Gunk

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

Andrew Gumbel, the ghost writer for Amanda Knox’s ex-boyfriend’s forthcoming Authentic Autobiography, has had his recent attacks on the Oscar Internet voting plan featured in The Guardian and reprinted in the LA Times as an “original” Op Ed.

He says The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was duped into accepting an Internet voting system for the vote on the Oscars in 2013. In the ghost writer’s opinion, a trustworthy Internet voting system is impossible to achieve with current technology. As “proof” he cites a list of anti-Internet voting extremists, including Ron Rivest and Alex Halderman (who are well known for having bullied West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant in a public forum on Internet voting.)

Leaning on Rivest, Halderman, David Dill, and a couple of others, Gumbel writes, “Computer security experts have warned [of] … cyber attacks that could falsify the outcome but remain undetected.” Well, that is one scary story! Imagine – Anonymous hacks into Oscar’s computer and votes for Bollywood’s Rakhi Sawant in every category, and nobody knows it was him! That would truly be a disaster!

But has anything like that ever really happened?

The answer is a big NO! Internet voting has been conducted in Norway, Switzerland, India, Canada, and here in the US in several places, including West Virginia. In every case, technical and political experts, including officials and the public, were satisfied that there were no undetected Leprechauns who snuck in and changed everyone’s vote.

As if that isn’t gunk enough, Gumbel then reveals that he told “the Academy’s chief operating officer, Ric Robertson, … of the near-total unanimity of computer experts [that Internet voting was insecure].” He says Mr. Robertson was shocked at the news.

Only one little problem with Gumbel’s report. In every successful Internet voting event, there were dozens of experts who worked on the project, and who knew it could be done. So, no “unanimity” there.

Come on Mr. Gumbel; stop throwing your gunk at Oscar!

For more on Gumbel’s gunk go to Oscar Hit w/ Gumbel Gunk

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Twitter: wjkno1
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com

The Hankster

US AG Holder’s Voting Rights Gamble – The Supreme Court Voter ID Showdown

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

During 2011, this blog published many articles about the GOP’s push to pass legislation requiring one of a very limited selection of government-issued photo IDs (like a driver’s license, passport or gun permit) to vote.

The new laws require specific identification not carried by a disproportionate portion of certain demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic. These groups include Blacks, Hispanics, the poor, seniors, and the young.

Because such laws do have a disproportionate on certain demographic groups, the U.S. Department of Justice, last Friday, blocked South Carolina’s new voter photo ID law. It is widely thought the Justice Dept. will move to also block Texas’ new voter photo ID law in the coming weeks.

Two of our articles looked at the pending show down down between the U.S. Department of Justice and the conservative leaning justices on the Supreme Court of the United States overt the voter photo ID laws and possibly the 1965 Voting Rights Act, itself:

On Friday, Slate published an article that also looks at the pending USDOJ v. SCOTUS showdown:

On the Friday before Christmas Day, the Department of Justice formally objected to a new South Carolina law requiring voters to produce an approved form of photo ID in order to vote. That move already has drawn cheers from the left and jeers from the right. The DoJ said South Carolina could not show that its new law would not have an adverse impact on racial minorities, who are less likely to have acceptable forms of identification.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley denounced the DoJ decision blocking the law under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act: “It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights.” The state’s attorney general vowed to fight the DoJ move in court, and thanks to an odd quirk in the law, the issue could get fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, which could well use it to strike down the Voting Rights Act provision as unconstitutional before the 2012 elections.

The current dispute has an eerie echo. More than 45 years ago in 1966, South Carolina also went to the Supreme Court to complain that Section 5 unconstitutionally intruded on its sovereignty. Under the 1965 Act, states with a history of racial discrimination like South Carolina could not make changes in its voting rules—from major changes like redistricting to changes as minor as moving a polling place across the street—without getting the permission of either the U.S. Department of Justice or a three-judge court in Washington, D.C. The state had to show the law was not enacted with the purpose, or effect, of making minority voters worse off than they already were.

… In its 1966 South Carolina v. Katzenbach decision, the Supreme Court said the law requiring “preclearance” of voting changes, while an extreme intrusion on states’ rights, was necessary because lesser measures—like federal government suits over each discriminatory voting practice—had not worked. … Today, Some conservatives argue that Section 5 is no longer constitutional, because the states subject to preclearance don’t present a special danger of racial discrimination.

… If South Carolina argues in court [in 2012] that it is unconstitutional to require it to submit its voter ID law for federal approval, and the three-judge court rejects that argument, it is hard to imagine the Supreme Court conservatives refusing to hear that case.

Why did the Obama DoJ deny preclearance, knowing it could well set up this massive confrontation and potentially lead to the downfall of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act? There are both principled and political reasons.

First of all, it was the right thing to do. As the DoJ letter explains, South Carolina presented no evidence that its law was necessary to prevent voter fraud, and the evidence was uncontested that minority voters were less likely to have ID

Second, if the Court is going to strike down Section 5, it might be politically better for this to happen before the 2012 elections, so that Obama can run against a Supreme Court, and the possibility that a President Romney could appoint a young version of Justice Scalia to take a retiring Justice Kennedy’s seat on the court, solidifying the court’s conservative majority for a generation.

It’s a gamble, both legally and politically, and no one knows for sure how it will turn out. But South Carolina may fare much better before the Roberts court this spring than it did before the Warren court in 1966.

Read the full article @ Slate.

Democratic Blog News

New voter law will suppress legitimate voting | timesfreepress.com

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

The following column appeared in the Sunday, October 23, 2011 edition of The Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Tennessee voters are more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their vote stolen at the ballot box.

Millions of citizens cast ballots in Tennessee elections; more than 6 million votes have been tallied in the three previous statewide elections in Tennessee alone.

Still, state Election Coordinator Mark Goins told the Chattanooga Times Free Press he can point to only one, possibly two, instances of someone being convicted of impersonating someone else when trying to vote.

One — “possibly two” — cases out of a number far greater than 6 million.

By any measure, Tennessee elections are a success story. Over the years, our electoral process has virtually guaranteed your right to be a voter and have your vote counted.

Few systems of any kind could boast such high rates of success, yet for years Republicans have trumpeted claims of rampant voter fraud.

Though every effort — local or national — to demonstrate widespread fraud at the ballot box has failed to produce evidence that such fraud exists, Republicans persist in such claims for cynical and partisan reasons: The assertion of “voter fraud” is the perfect bogeyman for those who want to enact photo ID laws like the one we’ve seen passed in Tennessee.

The reality is that photo ID laws result in unnecessary costs and disenfranchisement of the elderly, the young, the poor and minorities — individuals who are least likely to have government identification or to be able to afford to get it.

No one wants to see the system abused, but the problem with combating “voter fraud” with photo ID requirements is that these laws exclude and deter people who are otherwise legal voters.

Whether you’re in favor of voter ID laws or opposed, it should be just as disturbing to think someone could abuse the system as it is to think that someone could be excluded from it.

In Chattanooga and elsewhere in Tennessee, we’ve

already seen the real effects of the voter ID law. The plight of Hamilton County’s Mrs. Dorothy Cooper, a 96-year-old African-American woman who has voted without issue for seven decades until the new voter ID law, has received national attention.

Mrs. Cooper’s story directly disproves the Republican argument that all law-abiding voters have a photo ID.

In fact, according to the Department of Safety, there are around 675,000 voting-age Tennesseans — about one in 10 — who are just like Mrs. Cooper and lacking the picture ID now needed to vote.

To be a voter on Election Day, a majority of these citizens must obtain a photo ID from a driver service center.

So why don’t they just get one? Good question. Republicans have volunteered you to pay the bill.

A cost analysis of voter ID implementation costs in other states puts the estimated price tag for Tennessee taxpayers between million and million over the next four years. Republicans have decided to spend limited state resources chasing mythical claims of voter fraud rather than investing tax dollars back into our communities, creating jobs and improving education.

Even with taxpayers subsidizing the program, there are still unnecessary costs and hurdles for those who want to obtain a government-issued voter ID.

First, a whopping 53 of 95 Tennessee counties have no driver’s license center, meaning some rural residents will have to travel as far as 60 miles to get a proper ID — a significant burden for the working poor, the elderly and disabled voters.

Second, news reports from Memphis indicate that some voters have spent as much as four hours waiting in long lines to get an ID — only to be turned away on trivial technicalities, like Mrs. Cooper was, for not having enough documentation.

For some voters, these burdensome barriers to the ballot box will be just enough to rob them of their constitutional right.

In an effort to scuttle the concerns of citizens ranging from preachers to U.S. senators, Gov. Bill Haslam’s administration has rolled out a modest effort to educate voters about the new requirements. Haslam’s plan includes asking some county clerks to issue photo IDs, opening up express lanes for ID seekers and running several public service announcements.

As of Oct. 5, the Department of Safety reported to The Tennessean that a mere 214 voter ID cards had been issued.

If the number of issued voter ID cards does not increase dramatically before March’s primary election, it will be impossible for Republicans to whitewash the voter-suppressing effect of this law.

There is a growing movement seeking a full repeal of the voter ID law. We support that action to ensure the voting rights of all Tennesseans.

The debate we should be having is how to encourage more participation in our elections — not less. At the Democratic Party, we are committed to making sure every law-abiding Tennessean who wants to be a voter can be without barriers.

Chip Forrester is the chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party and an executive committee member of the Democratic National Committee. He may be reached by email at chip@tndp.org.

New voter law will suppress legitimate voting | timesfreepress.com.

TN Democratic Party News

Early Voting Starts Today

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

Today is the start of Early Voting for the November 8, 2011 Constitutional Amendment Election. It will run through next Friday, November 4, with Election Day on Tuesday the 8th. You can see details by clicking to this link.

A majority of the voters must approve the amendments before they can be implemented. Several cities have also authorized “special election” ballot propositions for their respective jurisdictions. Check the appropriate sample ballot style for your election precinct to see if your city has a “special election” proposition on your ballot. Don’t know your precinct number? Find out how to locate your precinct number by clicking here.

Election Day Vote Centers Coming to Collin Co. Again For This Nov. 8th Election:

Election Day Vote Centers work almost exactly like Early Voting Polling Places. On Election Day any voter registered in the Collin County can vote at any polling place through out the county.

League Of Women Voters Collin County Information:

Collin Co. Election Registrar Information for the November 8, 2011 Constitutional Amendment and Special Election:

Texas Secretary of State postings for the Nov. 8, 2011 Election:

For another comprehensive look at the state constitutional amendments read the House Research Organization’s Voter Guide.

Democratic Blog – News

99% Satisfied w/ Internet Voting in Canada

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011

Hello Independents!

Fear NOT! Lets take the lead on Internet voting!

Here in the USA there is a strong opposition to Internet voting. But they have NO FACTS to support the scary stories they tell about what “might” or “could” go wrong. Here is a report that gives FACTS about the successes of Internet voting.

We Independents can learn a lot from this report. I hope US companies will show this report to the state Secretaries of State and local election officials. Hopefully, such factual information will help Americans to overcome the baseless fear that now stymies the progress of Internet voting in the USA. Read more at, http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Facts

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Twitter: wjkno1
Internet Voting Explained on
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WJKPhD

The Hankster

IndependentVoting.org’s Nancy Ross Says Congress Should Investigate Situations As in Utah Where One-Third of Voters Are Independent and Locked Out of Primary Voting

Tuesday, September 6th, 2011

OPEN PRIMARIES

  • Voter group disapproves of Utah’s closed primary elections (By Jennie Christensen, Cache Valley Daily) When it comes to politics, 54 percent of Utahns call themselves Independents. But Nancy Ross, national director for IndependentVoting.org, says the state of Utah is anything but Independent. She says four years ago 93 percent of the people voted for Mitt Romney.
  • If you are a voter you’ll want to read this (By KMVT News) Before July 1st, the state of Idaho never required party registration. But because of the federal court decision in Idaho republican party versus Ysursa, the law’s changed. Only registered voters of a political party may vote to select their party’s nominee.
  • Political Booths At County Fair Offer Friendly Alternative to Heated Debates (By Ben Botkin, Magic Valley Times News) There’s also voting information at the fair that doesn’t seek to sway your political views. The Twin Falls County Clerk’s office has a booth that explains the state’s switch to a closed primary system. It will require voters to declare a party affiliation before voting in the 2012 primaries, unless party leaders opt to allow unaffiliated voters to cast ballots.

The Hankster

GOP Rep. Cao Faces Recall Petition For Voting Against Stimulus

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Rep. Joseph Cao
Bayou Buzz reports that Rep. Joseph Cao, the Republican who replaced scandalized Democrat William Jefferson, now faces a recall petition over his stimulus opposition by a group of ministers.

Cao had indicated that he would be voting in favor of the controversial legislation but instead voted against it.

Papers have been filed with the Office of the Louisiana Secretary of State which started the process requiring sufficient signatures to force a recall election for the office held by Representative Cao.

Rev. Toris Young, one of the leaders of the effort, said the stimulus vote was the “last straw.”

Cao represents a majority African-American, and traditionally Democratic, district. However, the Times-Picayune says the ministers will have a hard time unseating him.

The Recall Anh Cao Committee faces daunting odds. The effort has 180 days from its filing Monday to gather 100,000 valid signatures from registered voters in the district — a third of all district voters — in order to get a recall vote. And even if they succeed at that, and voters approve the recall, it appears that Congress would not accept the result.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/19/gop-rep-cao-faces-recall_n_168403.html

The Democratic Republican – views and news

Lenora Fulani: Two Ways to Beat the Democrats without Voting for a Republican

Monday, August 3rd, 2009
Are you a New York State voter?
This year there are two ways to beat the Democrats
without voting for a Republican:
Vote for Charles Barron on Column J (Freedom Party)
OR
Vote for Andrew Cuomo on Column C (Independence Party)

The Hankster

Maine Greens Applaud Passage of Instant Runoff Voting in Portland

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

MAINE GREENS CONGRATULATE CANDIDATES FOR RUNNING STRONG CAMPAIGNS, STRENGTHEN THE CALL FOR ELECTORAL REFORM
Maine Green Independent Party Candidates who ran for the office of state house and state senate ran strong campaigns, often finishing a close second in the race Tuesday night. Fred Horch, of Brunswick, ran a close second with 34% of the vote [...]
Green Party Watch

Maine Greens Applaud Passage of Instant Runoff Voting in Portland

Thursday, April 9th, 2009

By way of Green Party Watch:

MAINE GREENS CONGRATULATE CANDIDATES FOR RUNNING STRONG CAMPAIGNS, STRENGTHEN THE CALL FOR ELECTORAL REFORM

Maine Green Independent Party Candidates who ran for the office of state house and state senate ran strong campaigns, often finishing a close second in the race Tuesday night. Fred Horch, of Brunswick, ran a close second with 34% of the vote in District 66.

In Portland, voters approved the work the of the Portland Charter Commission that calls for the election of a mayor using instant runoff voting, a method of voting that allows voters to choose their preference of candidates by number.

“This is a great victory for the people of Portland and those of us who worked for this reform on the commission,” said Anna Trevorrow, a Green Independent candidate who finished second in her race for state house in district 120, against incumbent Diane Russell.

“This also provides us the opportunity to use instant runoff voting as a starting point for electoral reform in the city and as a model for the state,” said Trevorrow who also serves on the state steering committee. Eliot Cutler, the gubernatorial candidate that finished second in Tuesday’s race, was quoted today on MPBN that he would like to pursue a method of electoral reform in Maine that included a runoff.

The Maine Green Independent Party has always favored instant-runoff voting as a more democratic way of voting, since it eliminates the need for a second election between the candidates who receive the top percentages of the vote and allows voter to rank their preference of candidates in order from one to the amount of total candidates. It would also mean the winner would have to get just over 50% of the vote to be declared the winner, thus encouraging all candidates to run positive campaigns.

“It’s time to take instant-runoff voting seriously, especially if people are going to look into the idea of having a runoff election. The runoff could take place by the election workers and require no additional voting, no second election,” said Nate Shea, media chair for the Maine Green Independent Party (MGIP). “It would also encourage greater civic participation and would encourage candidates to soften their tone to attract a wide-range of voters, not just their base,” said Shea.

The MGIP plans to pursue the idea and implementation of instant runoff voting for future elections. Party leaders and members plan to contact members of the legislature as well as key political players who have expressed an interest in the reform. Anyone who is interested and would like to express their support for or learn more about instant runoff voting is encouraged to visit our website at www.mainegreens.org and click on the “contact us” tab or call the Portland office at (207)699-1321.

-30-

Press contact: Nate Shea – nateshea78@gmail.com (207)745-4517
Spokesperson: Anna Trevorrow – ajtrev@gwi.net, (207)699-4141 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (207)699-4141

Independent Political Report