Monday, December 31, 2007

What is best Church-State balance?

My Father in law sent me this link from a salt lake city article:

http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_7840906

Over several mornings in late 1996, the group delved into the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, exploring the lessons from Mormon scripture and how they apply to modern government...
In the transcripts, Leavitt said he felt an obligation, looking ahead to an easy 1996 re-election win, to use the "blessing" of his popularity to convey a message strong on values.
"I mean, I think that the opportunity I have in January the 6th is to get up and to say something in a form that's big enough and appropriate enough for me to lay down a marker. I think that's going to be done in a little way and a big way, really, with this values campaign. I think that's going to be a big marker, because it's using all the tools of communication and it's going to draw on this trust that's been created by whatever combination of circumstances and personality and just blessing."



The point seems to be that Mike Leavitt's meetings were too much mingling of church-state. The discussion of Clinton as Satan is disturbing, but Leavitt et al could have had that discussion in ANY context and it would have been disturbing. More and more in the Internet era, I favor openness and information accountability to any attempts to regulate speech and language.

I don't get too bothered by these type of meetings. I would rather have a public record of them. The key questions for me are: is he using government to proselytize? Is he coordinating with LDS leaders? Is he discriminating against other faiths? The key questions to me have to with flows of resources and faith tests for employment or government services.

If I were governor and I wanted to have six advisors come in and discuss how the key documents of the enlightenment would affect my policies, would it be any different? I think the separation of church state is about the government not favoring a religion, but not about the banishment of religion from public arenas. I passionately disagree with many religious conservatives, but I want government to model tolerance and transparency. Sometime church-state arguments look to me like a slippery slope towards policing thought and language.

Like, I want MORE atheists in office, talking about how their values effect policy, not more closeted Christians using code language.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Interetsing cross section of voters...

Here is an interesting NPR story about voters...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17668960

Its for listening. Jim and I were talking about how there is this populist anger that merges concern about the economy, health care, and immigration. How a politician wrestles that bull (rides that wave...) may be the decisive factor in the 08 election.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Why the BS rhetoric of bipartisanship infuriates me

I feel like I get into discussions sometimes with Democratic friends, especially the more moderate ones, where they argue that the Democrats have to be "responsible" or something to that effect. For example, not use legislation to change Iraq Policy, use pay-go rules for budget bills, not impeach the Emperor-with-new-clothes, or approve appointees (like AG Mukasey "I don't know if it is torture."). The mainstream media echo this sentiment by idolizing bipartisanship and some supposed halycon days of old when Ds and Rs would "reach across the aisle."

Just three short years ago the Republicans, drunk with their undeserved victories in 2000 and 2004, were threatening to scuttle the filibuster. Oh, if only we had...

A new Campaign for America's Future Report highlights the deliberate obstructionism and churlish strategy of Bush and the Congressional Republi-can'ts.

The Republican Senate minority today filibustered an omnibus budget bill, setting a modern-day record for blocking the most legislation during a congressional session. A new report released today by the Campaign for America's Future details the 62 times conservatives have used the filibuster to block legislation (or force modification of bills) in the first session of the 110th Congress. In just the first year of this two-year Congress, their use of the filibuster in the Senate topped the previous record, reached during the entire 107th Congress.
So, don't give me any of this BS rhetoric about how its incumbent on Democrats to put policy over politics and bipartisanship over hard ball. Its a naive stance. Its unilateral disarming. Until Republi-cant's start behaving, the responsible thing to do is spank them until they change. They are not reasonable. They are little brats.

And they should thank their stars Frist and Rove's drive to abolish filibuster rules in the Senate died.

And I weep that the Senate Dems couldn't have used the same tactics to block Gonzalez's nomination, or Alito, or the military commissions act, or any number of blank check Iraq bills.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Focus the Nation events on Climate Change at Bucknell

Here is the schedule of events, hot off the press...

Focus the Nation, Bucknell University

Schedule of Events

Wednesday, January 30th. 2008

- 5pm, Campus Theater: “The 11th Hour”, new climate documentary by Leonardo DiCaprio

Thursday, January 31st, 2008: Focus the Nation Teach-In

- Interdisciplinary Discussion Panels (Harvey Powers Theater, Coleman): four professors on each panel, all talking about/discussion a specific issue related to global climate change. Panels and participants are:

Session 1: “Obstacles to Change(8:00 am - 9:22 am)

Raymond (Chemical Engineering): “The Current state of our climate”

Siewers (English): “Philosophy of our relationship with nature”

Buonopane (Civil Engineering): “Building design and energy use”

Kochel/Trop (Geology): “(Un) Control of nature”

Session 2: “Tipping Points” (9:30 am -10:52 pm)

Stamos (Economics) - “When cost becomes prohibitive”

Wilshusen (Environmental Studies) – “When public opinion changes”

Searles (Anthropology/Sociology): “When our behavior threatens an entire people: case study on the Inuit”

Tranquillo (Biomedical Engineering): “When small changes have a global impact: non-linear relationships”

Session 3: “Can we afford not to stop global warming?” (1:00 pm– 2:22 pm)

Shrivastava (Management) - “Overview”

DiStefano* (History) - “Historical Response to Environmental Crisis”

Wooden (Environmental Studies) - “Winners and Losers”

Pizzorno (Biology) - “Role of Climate Change in Spreading Disease”

Session 4: “Motivating Action” (2:30 pm – 3:52 pm)

Grant (Theater): “The role of art and theater in social movements”

Antonacio (Religion): “Our Moral Obligation”

Unal (Economics): “Changing our current political economy”

Hendry (Management): “Responsible Investment/Conscious Consumerism”

- 11am-1pm: Campus Sustainability Celebration (Fieldhouse): Student bands, environmental research posters, nature-related art and humanities expo, sustainable business/industry expo, and more!

- 4-5pm (Harvey Powers Theater): Nonpartisan, intergenerational discussion between leading environmental students and invited elected officials on campus about what the state and country are doing to address Global Climate Change

- 730-830pm (Trout Auditorium, Vaughn Lit building): Keynote address by Andrew Revkin, lead reported on global climate change and environmental issues for the New York Times

Out-of-the-box campaign ideas

Steve and I were chatting at the potluck. I mentioned two sources of ideas for his up-coming campaign.

One is Wellstone Action. They provide a range of trainings and tools for authentic candidates. Next Camp Wellstone sort of nearby is May, in Virginia.

Camp Wellstone

5/9 - 5/11/08
Camp Wellstone: Virginia
This Camp will open for registration six weeks in advance.


More about the training:

  • Electoral Campaigns: Tools and Tactics for Success
  • Citizen Activism: Grassroots Advocacy and Organizing
  • Being a Candidate: How to Run and Win a Progressive Campaign

Each track has a distinctive curriculum (see below) taught by some of the nation’s leading experts in grassroots politics and organizing. In each track, we draw from Paul and Sheila Wellstone’s distinctive and innovative approach to politics – something we call the Wellstone Triangle. The three elements of the triangle are: progressive public policy, which lays out an agenda for action; grassroots community organizing, which builds a constituency to fight for change; and grassroots electoral politics, which provides tools for influencing and holding decision-makers accountable.

The other resource is the idea of using community service events to promote a candidate and an issue. Chris Carney did this at least once in Sunbury. I recall in the 06 cycle that there was a PAC making this tactic their central push. A google search now is fruitless to turn up the website. Maybe Jim Buck recalls the specific name. I thought it was ServicePAC.

UPDATE: It was called good works PAC. Site now seems defunct. Here is a Kos diary explaining it: Post.

It would be good to see if they thought it worked and if not, why not?

I thought it would give you good free press, humanize and ground more progressive candidates, and help to uncover new contacts and volunteers as you build a netcentric and grassroots campaign.

Two GREAT net roots projects

Here are two great netroots projects.

First, ten questions... You get to see candidates answer real questions from real voters. Guess who is the only candidate so far to answer all of them... answer below the fold.

Second, TechPresident, a non partisan review of how candidates are using Internet technology to actually promote transparency and participation. You can get more ideas at a blog post on my blog.



Answer: Mike Huckabee

Monday, December 3, 2007

Which candidate do you like?

Susan Mathias forwarded me this little quiz. Its fun!


http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Put your results in comments.

Saturday, December 1, 2007

Jordi Puts a Verbal Smack-Down on an Old Lady

At yesterday's Carney town meeting, there were maybe 100 people? He ended up taking about 17 questions. The staff gave the floor to one person by giving them a microphone to speak. There was no order to it. I, among others, had our hands up almost the whole time without getting called on.

So, this one senior citizen, in her own bumbling, bulldozer way, just decides to take the floor herself. Now, Rep Carney sort of invited this by letting a different older gentleman tack on a comment out of turn. The comment ended up being a two minute harangue about the cost of government.

Anyway, this one lady grabs the floor. She cuts in line. And my sense of grade school justice is aroused. Who does she think she is?

Her question:
"I wrote to Bil Clinton about why Rosalyn Carter's staff was so big. And he never wrote me back. And now what are we going to do if that Bill Clinton is there? How much staff is he going to have? And you know how much they paid her staff, Rosalyn Carter's? $600,000."

Dope-slap time.

I realized that Carney's staff couldn't smack her around.

So I took the floor in a bit of civil disobedience and said to her:

"Is that really the most important issue in America right now? Is that we need to focus on?"

She glowered. I didn't care. Score one for Gen-x. And that felt good.

My quick hits on Carney


I think the Carney people could have done more to capitalize on the social capital that was there. 1) ask each speaker to say their name and place of residence. 2) Have staffers get email or phone from each of those people for more follow through and (don't know election laws) pass them to campaign staff for as potential volunteers. I mean that technical school teacher and Iraqi veteran. Come on! he was brilliant! He knew about Enron and California! 3) Ask people to write down their questions on a card, and mail or email. Afterwards compile all unanswered questions and push them out to those people in attendance. 4) Video and YouTube anyone...? Unless they don't want that kind of overlap of message. Maybe they hope he needs to be present as more moderate in some arenas, more conservative in others. That seems to pose risks down the line as being painted as phony. 5) Do these in the evening and work with local groups to have child care so that working

My quick takes:

"American democracy is alive and well. I enjoyed seeing so much aroused citizenry prodding and challenging their representative. Rep Carney looked like he was having fun.”

“People are worried about the border. I understand that. At the same time, I think it is hard to discuss this issue as a politician. A lot of people want the government to break the bank to make an impregnable border. The cost of that would surely make Iraq look like a park clean up in the federal budget. We live in a world of global flows. A fortress America approach will cost us. Brilliant people won’t come to America to learn in our universities. Companies exporting and importing will face higher costs. Tourists won’t come. Isolation weakens us.

Poor Mexicans and Central Americans are not waking up saying “I want to go break US laws today and be labeled an outlaw!” The trade policies we have enacted, including those by centrist democrats like President Clinton, and corporate welfare for US agribusiness a have set off waves of economic turmoil. That turmoil pushes people to migrate to better opportunities. And US companies are all too happy to employ them. What is a tank on the border going to do about that?”

“I think Rep Carney is getting a win-win when he describes the US as the ‘Saudia Arabia of green energy.’ But we need to know more about how federal policy can lead to healthy markets. Coal is cheap. How will green energy compete with cheap black energy?”

“People are fed up with Iraq. Several people demanded Congress defund the war. People cheered when others talked about getting out now and defunding. Rep Carney is cautious to a fault on this. I don’t know if its his own military background, or fear of the ‘weak on security’ label. The naked truth will help him. I think he saw that when people applauded him saying ‘Our troops won the war. The politicians lost the peace.’”

Guantanamo bay, and all the other illegal and murky detention practices, area dishonor to our nation and a profound strategic mistake. I didn’t get to ask Rep Carney why he won’t help shut it down. Like John McCain said about torture, its not about them (the enemy). Its about us and who we are. We can not try and lead the world as a democracy while we let this rot fester. I wish I could hear Rep Carney defend his lack of action on closing Guantanamo. How can we win a global struggle for hearts and minds while we reek of hypocrisy?”

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Iran saber-rattling is domestic political ploy

Frank Rich, of the NY times, makes a very good case that unlocks why Bush and Cheney seem so hell-bent on war with Iran despite the catastrophic fallout that is likely (Pakistan, a country with actual nuclear weapons falls to its own internal Islamist dissidents).

The GOP has decided their one best shot is to make Iran a boogeyman for the electorate so they can define the eventual Democratic nominee as soft on terror. If they actually attacked Iran, it would sink their candidate. By setting up that war with Iran is an imperative to protect Americans in the scary post9/11 world, they make tough on terror (instead of failure in the ME) the dominant debate.

Rich writes:

Whatever happens in or to Iran, the American public will be carpet-bombed by apocalyptic propaganda for the 12 months to come. Mr. Bush has nothing to lose by once again using the specter of war to pillory the Democrats as soft on national security. The question for the Democrats is whether they’ll walk once more into this trap.
So, would Clinton walk into it? Obama? Edwards? Biden or Dodd?

Monday, October 8, 2007

If they worry about Idaho, now is the time to Fight

This DailyKos post makes a case that now is the time to fight back.

That means Fighting. Back. Now. No more caving to the administration on FISA. No more Blue Dog Dems (and Kucinich) voting against healthcare for children. But most importantly: No more funding for Iraq without withdrawal deadlines.

That's what we can learn from Idaho.

Kucinich voted against SCHIP? Wha...?!? I must be out of touch with day-yo-day politics.

I know that some people make a cause out of split-the-difference centrism. Read the whole post. The people are leading the Dems kicking and screaming to more populist positions. Not ideologically liberal, but populist. Healthcare. Iraq. Without a coherent social movement, its that raw populist sentiment that can prod our preternaturally timid politicians.

Torture? I don't know. How do average voters feel about the recently released torture memos? Do they feel that our values are betrayed? or do they think head-slapping and water boarding are fraternity pranks?

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Some creativity on War Policy-Tax the War

Here is a USA Today piece about using an income tax surcharge to pay for the supplemental war funding.

The plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2% to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15% surcharge, Obey said.
This seems good policy and politics to me. Lets start paying the real costs for Bush's adventurism and then talk about supporting the troops alongside other national priorities (health care for children, anyone?).

Since its John Murtha, Who our Rep Carney has worked with in the past, sponsoring this, maybe he would endorse it as well?

Iraq, funding, and Carney

Here is a kos post about recent poll numbers about the $190 billion.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/2/42411/5200

70% of independents, 90% of democrats, and 46% or republicans do not support full funding.

Lets say the Ds did not pass this funding as a lever to force change in military policy.

Given that, I assume Rs would run ads for the next thirty years saying: "Right when the surge was producing results, the Ds showed their true colors. They ain't red white and blue, but something a lot more yellow. And that is why Iraq has been a murderous hell hole for the last thirty years."

In that political climate, how many of those voters will continue to say that Ds are "soft" on defense? I don't know, but "a bunch" seems to drive a lot of D strategizing.

Does it drive Rep Carney's? Maybe. He has always seemed more willing to militarily engage with Iraq than his more progressive supporters. If he refuses legislation for timelines, reduced funding, and other attempts to wrest military policy from the delusional White House, he should come clean. What does he know or believe that leads him to go against teh will of t eh majority of Americans?

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT on local candidates seeking CSCC endorsement

Here's your chance to share your thoughts about the candidates we saw at the September 6th meeting.

Three local candidates are seeking CSCC endorsement. They are:

John Showers, incumbent candidate for Union County Commissioner
Jim Buck, candidate for East Buffalo Township Supervisor
Fred Greenawalt, candidate for Kelly Township Supervisor

The endorsement vote will conclude at CSCC's October 11th meeting. We will send an e-ballot at least one week before the meeting. All voting members (those who have donated $20 or more to the organization in 2007) may vote either by e-mail or in-person at the meeting (Oct. 11, 7:30, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg).


Here's some information to guide you as your think about this endorsement process:

ENDORSEMENT PHILOSOPHY

from CSCC's by-laws

13.2.1) The debate about whether or not to endorse a candidate should be guided by the question of whether or not it would tend to further CSCC’s philosophy and mission as stated in section 1 of these by-laws.

Here is Section 1:
1.1) Philosophy: CSCC seeks to empower its members to participate in the democratic process in order to realize our shared, progressive vision of a society that is stronger, freer and more just.

1.2) Mission: To that end, CSCC will help to recruit, train and elect local, state and federal candidates who share our progressive vision.


NOTES
All three of these candidates appeared and took questions at the Sept. 6 CSCC meeting.
All three also appeared at the CSCC land use forum back in March.

We invite you to SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS about these candidates through this public blog.

Friday, September 21, 2007

W is now 0-3 in making historical analogies for Iraq occupation

The following commentary is the work of John Peeler. I'm posting it here on his behalf. For those keeping score, Bush has tried analogizing the Iraq occupation to WWII, Vietnam and now Korea. He's 0 for 3. Will Greneda be next?

Grasping at Straws:

Iraq and the Korean Analogy

John Peeler

President Bush has recently been arguing that our mission in Iraq ought to be seen as equivalent to our maintenance of troops in South Korea for more than fifty years. That he would resort to such a pathetic analogy is a measure of his desperation to lock in American commitment to a war that has lost the support of the people.

The decision to put American troops in South Korea was to defend an established government in response to a massive invasion from North Korea. It was in the strategic context of the early Cold War and the prevalent doctrine of containment of Communist expansion. The war in Iraq was an invasion BY US of another country, for the purpose of overthrowing a government objectionable to us, and replacing it with one more to our liking.

Although American troops carried the major burden in the Korean War, the defense of South Korea was conducted under United Nations authorization. The United States failed to get such authorization for invading Iraq in 2003 (in contrast, both the 1991 expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow of its Taliban government, were UN-authorized).

The core of Bush’s argument is that since the Korean Armistice of 1953, the United States has maintained a military presence in South Korea for more than fifty years, to deter renewed attacks from the North. It is asserted that we should expect a similar long-term commitment in Iraq. In South Korea, though, our continued presence has been steadily supported by popular majorities and by a succession of increasingly democratic governments. In Iraq, all available public opinion surveys show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, regardless of sect or ethnicity, want us out, now. Some elements of the political elite and the government obviously want us to stay, because we put them in power and they would have to leave with us if we left.

It is of course important to remember that South and North Korea were client states set up by the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively, after World War II, and the failure to unify them was a reflection of the Cold War (very much like East and West Germany or North and South Vietnam). Neither the South Korean regime nor that of the North was much more than a puppet in 1950, when war broke out. Over time, South Korea has become a prosperous industrial democracy.

Bush argues that Iraq could evolve in a similar way. There is a remote chance that he will be proven right, but the realities of a country divided along ethnic and religious lines, and immersed in a region suffering enormous, violent conflicts, justify extreme skepticism about Iraq’s democratic prospects.

Our continued presence in South Korea is intended to deter attacks by North Korea. In Iraq, notwithstanding overdrawn assertions of a threat from Iran, the fundamental mission is, and would remain, to protect Iraqis we favor from those we oppose. Those we favor will be a small minority. The longer we stay, the more the majority of Iraqis will oppose us. This is not a posture we will want to maintain for fifty years. We would be occupying a hostile country.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Amusing use of media and consumer tropes

This youtube clip is spot on in its skewering of the spin and marketing approach to discussion of the war and the "surge."


Enjoy.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqaA4-gz58I

Monday, September 10, 2007

A few lessons learned

Thanks to the 25 (or so) people who came out for the CSCC meeting last Thursday (9/6/07). Thanks also to John Showers (incumbent running for Union County Commissioner), Jim Buck (candidate for East Buffalo Township Supervisor), and Fred Greenawalt (candidate for Kelly Township Supervisor)--who came and took our questions. Special thanks to Eric Epstein who came from Harrisburg to talk about the politics of energy deregulation and what to do next.

Among the lessons learned, from my perspective: don't assume there's no need for air conditioning in September in Pennsylvania. The room at the Baptist church in Lewisburg (more people to thank!) worked fine for our group, but air conditioning or a few fans would have been a good idea. Eric Epstein said that he's been in some hot churches, but none hotter than that room.

There was also a big lesson to be learned the kind of presentation we heard. In the Q&A several people asked a variation on the question, "What should we do?" For Eric Epstein, the answer seems to do everything right now starting with calling your legislators and asking them to extend the rate caps. Though he acknowledged that much of what he shared was "Inside Baseball"--the stuff that the insiders know about public hearings, legislative process, etc.--he didn't seem to appreciate how far removed from our experience his experience is. We as a group are still talking about incremental steps to try to build a coalition and reframe big issues; he's focused on trying to do the small and the big things all at once, from keeping poor people from having their electricity or gas cut off in the middle winter to influencing big policy decisions. For someone who's been extremely active in politics for 30 years, it's probably hard to imagine not being well-informed on public issues of all sorts.

I thought the most far-reaching insight was his observation that the environmentalists and alternative fuels advocates have lost interest in protecting the poor from the whims of the large power companies now that they have funding for what they want to do ($100 million split five ways, I believe he said.). In effect, a coalition has started to split, and it plays to the advantage of the already powerful energy companies (who got a lot of what they wanted).

In short, I learned that I have a lot to learn, from learning the definition of "stranded costs" and the diffference between PPL and PP&L to understanding the way the regulatory commissions work (and their names and acronyms).

Loren

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

HR 811 good for Pennsylvania

The following is an opinion piece by the person I trust the most when it comes to analyzing voting integrity issues and legislation, Mary Beth Kuznik, executive director of VotePA. Mary Beth has been closely involved with the writing and passage of HR 811 (aka the Holt Bill, so named for its principal sponsor, Rush Holt). Here's what she has to say about this piece of proposed legislation that is slated to get a vote on the House Floor this week (ie the first week of Sept.).

"Pennsylvania is truly the Keystone State in many ways. Geographically,
we are centrally located where the Midwest, the Mid-Atlantic, southern
New England, and The South all meet. In culture and business our
diversity reflects the nation as a whole. Pennsylvania has two
world-class major urban centers, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, but
agriculture remains our #1 industry. We have one of the highest numbers
of over-65 seniors of any state but we are also home to millions of
young adults and growing families. We have descendants of the original
settlers with family in the region for hundreds of years living in the
same communities as recent immigrants from around the globe.

Politically Pennsylvania is also a keystone in that we are one of the
most swinging of the swing states. We are deep blue in some areas, ruby
red in others, and no party or candidate can take a win in Pennsylvania
for granted. As such, with our 21 electoral votes we are one of the
most targeted states – by media, candidates, and just perhaps by those
who might want to perpetrate an election fraud.

In response to the Help America Vote Act, Pennsylvania has deployed a
hodgepodge of some eleven different voting systems. Of our sixty-seven
counties, only nine have chosen a solid, non-blended system of optical
scanner and accessible ballot marker, and many of those counties tend
to be smaller in population. All through the purchase process for HAVA
compliant machines vendors were fiercely pushing their higher profit
Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems throughout the state. A full
fifty-four counties, including the huge counties that contain
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, ended up purchasing paperless DREs, some
of which are currently the most notorious machines for lost votes and
bad design.

Like many of the so-called swing states, Pennsylvania has been unable
to come to grips with the reality that our voting systems are basically
insecure and unverifiable. Even after numerous reports of serious
problems our county and state officials still parrot soothing words,
proclaiming that we have had three “smooth elections” in 2006 and 2007
since the introduction of the new machines.

Pennsylvania’s Department of State has taken the position that all
currently available voter-verified paper printer options for DREs
violate the secrecy of the ballot and thus are illegal under our
Pennsylvania state constitution. Our key voting system examiner,
Michael Shamos, is nationally notorious as one of the few remaining
computer scientists who discount the need for paper verification by
voters. Our Governor Ed Rendell personally votes in Philadelphia on
ancient, failure-prone, paperless Danaher 1242 machines and he has many
times publicly stated how well he likes “the buttons.”

Amidst this atmosphere of denial and lack of knowledge our state and
local officials have seemingly gone out of their way to avoid
purchasing “old fashioned” optical scan systems and the fully legal
voter-marked and verified paper ballot they would provide.

As if all this were not bad enough, Pennsylvania and its counties are
facing a severe budget crunch and financial deficit. It is extremely
unlikely that officials will designate additional state or local funds
to improve Pennsylvania voting systems unless they are compelled to do
so and full funding comes from federal sources to fix the mess created
by HAVA. Although there are several bills proposed in the Pennsylvania
General Assembly regarding voter-verified paper ballots and related
issues, none are likely to move at all in our state unless and until
the issue receives federal level resolution and funding.

With all these factors in play, Pennsylvania election integrity
activists highly anticipated Congressman Rush Holt’s latest incarnation
of his “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act.” The finished
bill was introduced in February and carries many innovations that would
provide changes Pennsylvania needs. No bill is perfect but the basic
premise of HR 811 is sound, and makes great sense for a swing state
like Pennsylvania.

HR 811 provisions such as standards to end conflicts of interest
between vendors and testing labs, payments for lab fees through a
third-party governmental escrow account with public disclosure of test
results, public disclosure of software code, requirements for emergency
paper ballots to allow voting in the event that the machines fail,
strengthening chain of custody of voting machines with no more
“sleepovers” of machines at insecure private homes, prohibition of
wireless devices in machines, and preservation of a private right of
action will all go far to improve our situation.

Of course the biggest and most publicized change HR 811 would provide
is the requirement for voter-verified paper ballots on all voting
systems, with routine manual audits of all federal elections. This is a
most desperately needed protection in a highly targeted swing state
like Pennsylvania. The ideal goal here would be to get rid of paperless
DRE machines and replace them with more accessible, auditable,
recountable, and affordable optical scan systems.

Some activists have criticized HR 811 for its lack of language that
would reach that goal by directly banning the use of DRE machines in
federal elections. But from our lobbying efforts among the Pennsylvania
delegation in Congress and in our state legislature, many members of
VotePA are keenly aware that any bill containing an outright ban of DRE
machines is very unlikely to pass.

HR 811 would have the more politically palatable effect of disallowing
DRE machines through the back door, the same way that the original HAVA
“banned” our beloved Pennsylvania lever machines. The requirements for
voter-verified paper ballots in HR 811 would mean that our state would
have to get paper. But our Pennsylvania Constitution’s requirement for
a secret ballot would make it virtually impossible that any of the
currently available DRE / roll printer systems could be used to comply.
Thus, as of now this would mean replacement of DREs with currently
available voter-marked paper ballot systems using optical scanners and
highly accessible ballot markers.

We know that our Pennsylvania budget crunch meant that our state
legislators, election officials, and many others are deeply concerned
about the funding of any changes made to our voting systems. With no
state or local funds available, they are reticent to replace the DRE
machines our state has recently spent so much to purchase. But HR 811
intends to fully fund the changes it mandates, with over $300 million
earmarked for changes in fiscal year 2008 alone, and more beyond that.

In May, an excellent version of HR 811 was reported out of the
Committee on House Administration and was headed for the House floor.
Unfortunately congressional leaders chose to make additional changes to
the bill in negotiation with certain interests, and the resulting
Manager’s Amendment that will be introduced on the floor of the US
House is not as strong. It allows certain delays that were not in the
reported Committee markup, and contains other provisions that are less
functional and less cost effective than the earlier version.

Despite these changes, VotePA still considers the good in HR 811 to far
outweigh these weaknesses. With its tremendous initial support hard-won
through the work of thousands of activists over three Congresses, HR
811 is still the only vehicle that has the impetus and attention to
bring the issue of election integrity to the national forefront and
make changes for the better in time for the 2008 presidential election.

Further delay to look for more ‘improvement’ or the perfect bill will
risk 35 million voters having to throw their presidential votes down
paperless DRE machines come November of next year. Without HR 811,
hundreds of millions of votes will be counted electronically with no
audit whatsoever in this all-important election to choose our next
President and the 111th Congress. And additional delay will buy time
for DRE manufacturers to come up with more “band-aid” add-on products
that will be pushed to keep DREs in place and further line their
company pockets at taxpayer expense.

As one of the most targeted swing states, Pennsylvania simply cannot
afford to face the 2008 presidential election at the mercy of paperless
DRE machines in fifty-four of our most populous counties.

To prevent these disturbing scenarios and to improve the accuracy of
our elections and public confidence in them, we believe that supporting
and passing HR 811 is the right thing to do for Pennsylvania and for
all of our nation."

-- Mary Beth Kuznik

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Democrats better organized going into 08 race

At least here in Union County, the Democrats will be much better organized going into the 08 presidential election.

This is true on many levels, but one that you probably haven't heard much about is the Dems' new voter database, known as VAN.

In 04 we relied on a system called PREVAIL, which we were given only limited access to and then only very late in the campaign season. In 06, the Dems were using a new system known as SAGE, which was more user-friendly. Still, we couldn't start using stage until the summer before the general election.

While VAN is a new system, it is close enough to the SAGE system in the way it functions that the learning curve should be fairly short and easy. And the training has already begun. Our new DNC field organizer for this region, Missy Stehr-Wood has already held training sessions in Union and surrounding counties. Missy tells me that VAN has just been upgraded, and she's going to be providing more training for us in early September.

That is very good news. My brief time on the VAN system indicates that is will be a very valuable asset. And by introducing it now, 16 months before the presidential election, the party is giving us plenty of time to get used to it and to work the bugs out.

We've come a long way since 04 in many ways. For 08 we should be second to none in terms of information technology.