[EM] Legal Analysis of HR811 & Brennan Center Think-Tank Analysis of HR811

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 10:39:16 PDT 2007

On 6/14/07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

> On this particular issue, HR 811, I have been
> familiar for some time with some of the issues,
> and I have strong opinions, based to some degree
> on experience, about the whole topic of DREs,
> which I consider to have been a serious mistake
> from the beginning.

Yes. Any rational thinking person agrees with that I believe.

> However, HR 811 is not
> establishing the use of DREs, it is regulating
> them and setting up a means that would, properly
> monitored, allow us to measure the performance of
> DREs, which measurement could eventually lead to
> a ban, if appropriate.

Yes. I agree with that as well.

> It's my opinion that,
> while HR 811 does not prevent all possible forms
> of election manipulation through DREs and how
> they are programmed, it makes it highly likely
> that such manipulation on a significant scale,
> enough to shift election results, would be
> discovered. This does not, by itself, solve the

Yes. Again I agree that at the least HR811 would make fraud much more
difficult to successfully accomplish and would begin to expose how
innaccurate and unreliable the voting counting devices are (esp DREs)
because of subjecting vote counts to "independent" audits, rather than
letting election officials audit their own work - which usually
results in a coverup effort from what I've seen.

> problem. We will still need to be vigilant and to
> act to ensure that discovered problems are
> addressed, that perpetrators of fraud are
> identified and prosecuted, and that if there are
> incompetent election officials, they are likewise
> identified and replaced. HR 811 gives us tools
> that can allow this to be done, it does not
> itself do it. It is not the complete solution,
> but it is a very important start, and that is why
> I've decided to support it fully.

Exactly.  To get where we want, we have to be willing to take the
first steps to begin moving in the direction of our goal, not insist,
as some of the HR811 opponents are, in jumping to the goal in one
jump.  Although most of the anti-HR811 folks want to take us back to
hand counted paper ballot only, which is not on the table anyway.

> How did I come to this position? Well, Kathy Dopp
> reported the controversy to the Range Voting
> list, in which I am an active participant. I
> looked at the blog I'm quoting because it was
> cited by a critic of HR 811 as an example of
> telling arguments. I looked at the blog and,
> instead of cogent arguments, I found polemic
> exaggeration, and, indeed, misrepresentation. I
> did not go to the blog as a supporter of HR 811,
> I was not hostile to criticism of it.

Yes. Brad "Fried"man is using wrongful misleading attacks of HR811 as
his tactic to get his "DRE ban" through Congress because he is
unwilling to do the work himself to find sponsors and try to pass "DRE
ban" himself.  No one wants to tack his "DRE ban" onto existing HR811
because we want to be sure it passes and do not want to attach
anything on it which might kill it.  Brad "Fried"man is like a spoiled
child who wants to smash everyone blocks down if he can't get his own
idea through.  Here is what the EFF.org says about Brad's efforts to
kill all current election reform as his tactic:


"Nothing has prevented or currently prevents now-vocal critics who are
calling for an outright DRE ban from going through the process of
drafting the appropriate legislative proposal and then soliciting the
necessary support for it. But attempting to derail or hijack HR 811 as
a vehicle to ram through an unlikely-to-pass DRE ban unnecessarily
risks the passage of other important substantive requirements. And
once again, nothing in HR 811 prohibits states from limiting the use
of DREs of any kind or banning them altogether."

> Now, that a proponent of a view uses false
> arguments supporting it is no proof that the view
> is false. Those of us who support Range Voting
> have our own enthusiastic supporters who argue
> vociferously, pulling in every argument they can
> imagine, including ones which are utterly bogus,
> and even insulting those who disagree with them.

Yes. I suppose that is true. I've seen some people on my side of the
2004 exit poll analysis somewhat discredit our own otherwise very
strong case by inserting incorrect analysis as well.

> However, it is telling that six of the "seven"
> serious problems in the blog in question, cited
> by a less polemic writer as a source for
> information on the problems, disappeared or faded
> greatly in significance when examined in detail
> and carefully. Are there any *other* problems?
> The one remaining problem was the allegation that
> paper ballots need not be available to voters until 2010.

I believe that voters must still be supplied with paper ballots in
2008, but I'll doublecheck this.

Kathy Dopp

The material expressed herein is the informed  product of the author
Kathy Dopp's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a
Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in
exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at

P.O. Box 680192
Park City, UT 84068
phone 435-658-4657


Election Audit Mathematics Bibliography

Support Clean Elections in 2008

Important Facts About The Voter Confidence & Increased Accessibility Act (HR811)

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body
and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day," wrote
Thomas Jefferson in 1816

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list