The Daily Blog Open Mic – Thursday 29th September 2016

1. TO Marcus and friends,

   This conversation is an important recap of Nationals scheme to “fix” the next election and are effort to save our Democracy and the next election from being “rigged” by National.

   Today I have requested ball opposition MP’s to place a submission to Amy Adams hands at Parliament for our Submission to be added to Bill no 176-1 “Electoral Amendment Act 1993 with her 107 amendments to attach another amendment for “Voter Verification paper audit trail” changes to our voting system for the 2017 election.

   This is copy of that Letter we send with names removed.

   Dear
   Our history; 29th September 2016.

   Today we collectively have a new menace facing our common wish for democracy to reign

   Today our family asks you to support our submission to save our democracy from Nationals new plan to “fix” the 2017 election plan with 107 amendments (see below)

   I have already sent our family submission to your Leader Andrew Little & all opposition Parties who are impacted also, asking for action as you return to the parliament and sit through the 1st reading of the “fixed” Electoral amendment Bill 176-1 as Amy Adams introduces it to the house for first reading as she wants to dramatically alter the Electoral Act 1993.

   Please speak out on this assault on our Electoral process as National wants to rig the next election by allowing the process to examine every early votes or postal votes ahead of election day!!!!!!!!

   There is a dark reason why they want this, as it is wrong that they may be able to change alter the outcome of our next election as we asked Electoral Commission if they can verify if any votes were altered in any event and they said no they have no way of confirming if any vote paper has been altered.

   We asked the commission to introduce the widely used VVPAT or (Verified voter paper audit trail) and they refused and said send a request to Amy Adams as Minister of Justice the very person that will be asking your party support for in the weeks ahead who is overhauling the Electoral Act 1993 with 107 amendments mainly for their benefit not ours.

   Now is your time to request as USA and other countries is doing now to introduce a new safer election voting process that still uses our manual paper voting system but now gives the voter either a copy of the voting paper or access to the register to see a image of their voting paper after to check their vote was recorded correctly with a copy of their actual voting paper.

   This happened during Canada’s last election, as they used a company http://www.dominionvoting.com/field/canada using “Dominion voting -Democracy Suite was introduced with the scalable ImageCast® line – the first all-in-one optical scan voting system with configurable accessibility options” to provide this type of VVPAT verified voting process.

   Suggestion’s on a very recent 23/9/16 website called “verified voting Foundation”. http://thevotingnews.com/what-are-the-post-election-day-procedures-states-can-take-to-confirm-the-election-went-well/ is the gold standard now.

   Quote Pamela Smith president;

   “ Post-election audits enable verification of the voting system’s correct operation regardless of whether a voting system has malfunctioned, suffered an error in ballot programming, or been breached through malfeasance. Audits involve manually checking a representative sample of paper ballots in order to confirm that counting software has functioned correctly.”

   You can confer firstly with her should you wish. Go on that site and correspond? http://thevotingnews.com/what-are-the-post-election-day-procedures-states-can-take-to-confirm-the-election-went-well/

   We may need another company to design a opical reading of our actual ballot paper that we feed through the machine at the polling station before they have us place it in the ballot box and give us the scanned copy as the recent election in the Philippines election process did. You can verify the details with their company that conducted their electoral process?

   This will keep the national Party honest not to fix the next election because we all need to change this Government.

   Please assist you party to achieve this.

   Your response is requested.

   Registered voters; submitted by

   ——————————————————————————–

   From:
   Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2016 2:40 p.m.
   To:
   Subject: SUBMISSION TO MP;s must fight Bill -MP AMY ADAMS SAYS -“This bill makes a number of minor changes to the Electoral Act 1993” she wants 107 changes OIA evidence from Electoral commission our voting can easily be tampered under present Electoral Act 1993
   Importance: High

   SEEKING SOLUTIONS THROUGH PUBLIC AND LOCAL INPUT AND CONSULTATION

   (As defined by the Court of Appeal 1992)

   In coordination with Local Governance, and other interested parties

   28th September 2016. URGENT.

   Justice matter to submit to please.

   SUBMISSION; To all opposition PM’s in respect to our rights to a free & fair transparent tampering proof 2017 Electoral process.

   Perhaps you are not aware that the Government have swiftly inserted a serious Bill 176-1 into parliament last Thursday 22nd September 2016 to radically alter the election in 2017 even worse than the 2014 election with radical changes with 107 changes?

   It is called Bill no 176-1 Electoral Amendment Bill

   Subject; Bill no:
   176-1

   OUR REQUEST: MP’s must fight this Bill – Electoral Amendment Bill

   Bill no:
   176-1

   Introduction:
   22/9/16

   AMY ADAMS SAYS -“This bill makes a number of minor changes to the Electoral Act 1993”

   Amy Adams wants 107 changes

   THESE ARE NOT CONSIDERED MINOR AMY!!!!!

   We have below for your evidence copied emails sent us under OIA evidence from Electoral commission clearly stating that our Electoral voting can easily be tampered with under present Electoral Act 1993 without any knowledge.

   Please on behalf of your voting public place a strong request before the minister Amy Adams for the verified vying changes that will ensure we the voter receive our right to have our ability as voters to check that our voting preference was recorded correctly so to ensure a free & fair transparent voting system is given to all voters.

   Your response is requested.

   Registered voters; submitted by

   Refer to full Electoral Commission response as below Ms Temel answers question three and seven in green.

   Quote highlighted in yellow ;

   OUR QUESTION 3/ If a ballot paper was altered how can you confirm if it was or not?

   ELECTORAL COMMISSION ANSWER; “Because it is a secret ballot it is not possible for either the Commission or the voter to prove one way or the other. The Act does not provide a process by which a voter can request to see their voting paper after it has been placed in a ballot box. That is why the Act contains a range of processes to ensure security of the ballot box and that scrutinisers can be present throughout voting and the preliminary and official count process to watch ballot boxes, the count and the recording and reporting of votes.”

   THEN IN ANOTHER QUESTION WE ASKED HOW WE CAN CHANGE THE ACT.
   Question 7/ – Will you support Voter Verification paper audit trail rights for transparency and security of our NZ Parliamentary Elections?

   ANSWER FROM ELECTORAL COMMISSION; “As outlined above, the Electoral Act does not provide a process by which a voter can request to see their voting paper after it has been placed in a ballot box. If you want to see this type of process, legislative change would be required. In the first instance, you would need to raise your concerns with the Minister responsible for the Electoral Act 1993 – Hon Amy Adams, Minister of Justice (amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz). Public and political consensus would need to focus on whether there is a need for this given the high levels of trust and confidence that New Zealand voters have in the manual system, and how it could effectively be delivered whilst protecting the secrecy of the ballot. I am not aware that any such system has been introduced in any other comparable countries that have manual voting and counting systems including UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.”

   From: Kristina Temel [mailto:kristina.temel@Elections.govt.nz]
   Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016 .
   To:
   Subject: RE: RESEND URGENTLY UNDER OIA CONFIRM RECIEPT PLEASE :From: IMPORTANT: KRISTINA TEMEL PLEASE -MORE QUESTIONS – FURTHER- OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST – NZ Electoral Commission letter 17th May 2016..doc

   Dear

   Thank you for your further e-mails and faxes dated 18, 19 and 24 May 2016. I have added responses in green to each of your questions which I have listed below.

   You have the right under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act 1982 to complain to the Ombudsman if you are not satisfied with the response to your request.

   Kind regards

   Kristina Temel

   Electoral Commission

   ——————————————————————————–

   From:
   Sent: Wednesday, 18 May 2016 To: ‘Kristina Temel’; ‘Public Enquiries’;

   Subject: IMPORTANT: KRISTINA TREMEL PLEASE -MORE QUESTIONS – FURTHER- OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST – NZ Electoral Commission letter 17th May 2016..doc
   Importance: High

   Kristina Temel

   Electoral Commission

   Dear Kristina, Under OIA if required. 18th May. 2016.

   Thank you for your reply 17th May 2016 for further questions following your response from 3rd -11th May to our OIA request for information.

   Your reply as usual threw up some further questions; Questions in Violet.

   · QUESTION 1/ To clarify the current changes YOU ARE TO MAKE in 2017 election concerning RMS electronic operations;

   · Am I correct in assuming the following in violet?

   The RMS system was not used in the past three elections.

   So RMS is not being used for the 2017 election? That is correct. RMS is not being used for the 2017 election.

   RMS was designed to electronically process postal votes.

   RMS is not used in a Parliamentary election even for Postal votes? That is correct. RMS is not being used for the 2017 election even for postal votes.

   The provisions of the referendum legislation provide for an electronic process.

   Like a flag referendum? Special legislation had to be enacted just for the flag referendums process because it is was a government initiated binding referendum ‘The New Zealand Flag Referendums Act 2015’ and that legislation provided for electronic processing for the 2015 and 2016 flag referendums.

   No electronic vote counting occurs at parliamentary elections.

   Not even to tally up phoned in statistics from polling centres?

   The provisions of the Electoral Act make it very clear that the issue and counting of votes is to be undertaken using a manual process.

   So not even any electronic calculators or computer logging programs? The Electoral Act 1993 provides for voting papers to be counted manually. This does not mean that reconciliation cannot be done using a calculator to check addition, but the Act does not allow for votes to be scanned and counted electronically.

   The legislation does not provide for an electronic process.

   QUESTION /2 – Kristina sadly we need to revisit this thorny issue here over “Voter verification paper audit trail” as we are not clear as to THE FOLLOWING;

   How you can verify any audit if you do not have the actual voter verification audit samples confirmed by the voter, that the paper vote was an accurate “Interpretation” of their “preference” as you only what the polling centre sent you, and may have been altered?

   The voting papers are the audit trail. The Electoral Act does not provide a process by which a voter can request to see their voting paper after it has been placed in a ballot box. However scrutineers can be present for the entire process. Ballot boxes are sealed until after the close of polls. They are opened in the presence of scrutineers and counted manually.

   QUESTION 3/ If a ballot paper was altered how can you confirm if it was or not? Because it is a secret ballot it is not possible for either the Commission or the voter to prove one way or the other. The Act does not provide a process by which a voter can request to see their voting paper after it has been placed in a ballot box. That is why the Act contains a range of processes to ensure security of the ballot box and that scrutineers can be present throughout voting and the preliminary and official count process to watch ballot boxes, the count and the recording and reporting of votes.

   Under 3rd May 2016 response below you said;

   ‘under section 187 of the Electoral Act 1993 but to protect the secrecy of the ballot, no person can see how the voter has voted.’
   QUESTION 4/ – How can you provide the clear concerns globally of these security issues showing up today, of all voter’s rights to request verification by examining their own paper vote as an audit to assess an accurate interpretation of their voting occurred by verification, and their audit of how their preference of how the voter’s intent was interpreted by the voting system?
   Question 5/ – As this we quote below in red is now required in many counties as “four” of the steps to ensure safe secure elections are held now, as I quote from › Resolution on Electronic Voting http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/projects/electronic-voting-resolution/
   Quote “Election integrity cannot be assured without openness and transparency. But an election without voter-verifiable ballots cannot be open and transparent: The voter cannot know that the vote eventually reported is the same as the vote cast, nor can candidates or others gain confidence in the accuracy of the election by observing the voting and vote counting processes.” Unquote.

   See response to question 3 above. New Zealand does not have electronic voting or electronic vote counting at parliamentary elections so the premises for questions 4 and 5 don’t apply. Each country is unique in its democratic tradition. In some parts of the world there are trust and security issues that we are fortunate not to have. Trust and confidence in the manual parliamentary electoral system is high.

   · Question 6/ So after reading this, how are you going to increase voters rights to be assured without openness and transparency, by an election without voter-verifiable ballots cannot be open and transparent: The voter cannot know that the vote eventually reported is the same as the vote cast, nor can candidates or others gain confidence in the accuracy of the election by observing the voting and vote counting processes.” Candidate and party scrutineers can observe the process, the count and the reporting of results.

   Question 7/ – Will you support Voter Verification paper audit trail rights for transparency and security of our NZ Parliamentary Elections?
   We actually asked how you physically give a voter their right to verify their own voting paper audit trail preference and this was not explained expect you said a JP can glance at selected ballot papers at will but the voter who cast the ballot cannot ever recheck their own ballot paper to see if the voting system has cast their “Preference” accurately or was Interpreted correctly?
   You only addressed this question this way.
   of how the voter’s intent was interpreted by the voting system? N/A
   The VVPAT system is now gaining international recognition as the only way to give true accuracy to any electoral voting system, whether it was a “Manual” counted system or any other method as the Global experts all confirm it is vital to give voters their rights to audit their vote correctly by allowing them a system where they can have an audit of their own vote recorded within the electoral voting system.
   Other questions may follow if required, and/or in response to these questions for information.

   As outlined above, the Electoral Act does not provide a process by which a voter can request to see their voting paper after it has been placed in a ballot box. If you want to see this type of process, legislative change would be required. In the first instance, you would need to raise your concerns with the Minister responsible for the Electoral Act 1993 – Hon Amy Adams, Minister of Justice (amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz). Public and political consensus would need to focus on whether there is a need for this given the high levels of trust and confidence that New Zealand voters have in the manual system, and how it could effectively be delivered whilst protecting the secrecy of the ballot. I am not aware that any such system has been introduced in any other comparable countries that have manual voting and counting systems including UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

   Visitor Centre contact details
   + 64 4 817 9503

   Electoral Amendment Bill
   Home
   Parliamentary Business
   Bills and Laws
   Bills (proposed laws)
   Metadata

   This bill makes a number of minor changes to the Electoral Act 1993 that will rationalise and clarify the law, help improve services to voters, and assist with the smooth delivery of elections.

   Bill information
   MP in charge
   Adams, Amy

   Amy Adams

   Progress of the bill
   What do the symbols mean?

   Bill Introduced: The bill is made available for the House to consider.

   First Reading: MPs debate and vote on the bill. If successful, it is usually sent to a select committee.

   Select Committee: The select committee gathers information and prepares a report on the bill for the House, including recommending changes to the bill.

   Second Reading: The House debates the select committee report and votes on the bill.

   Committee of Whole House: MPs consider the bill in detail and vote on proposed changes.

   Third Reading: Final debate and vote. If successful, the bill has been passed.

   Royal Assent: Bill signed by Governor-General and becomes an Act.

   Fail / Withdrawn: A bill fails if the vote is lost at first, second, or third reading. The member in charge of a bill may withdraw it. _________________________________________________ Note: this simple progress display does not cover all possible stages for a particular bill. Where a date is shown in brackets, this means the debate has been interrupted. See the Bill History content for more details.

   InBill
   Introduced 22/9/16
   1First
   Reading
   SCSelect
   Committee
   2Second
   Reading
   CHCommittee of
   whole House
   3Third
   Reading
   RARoyal
   Assent

   Read the bill
   Read the bill on NZ Legislation website

   Supplementary Order Papers
   Read on the NZ Legislation website

   Bills and Laws

   Bills (proposed laws)
   Acts and regulations
   Schedule of divided bills
   Progress of legislation
   Bills Digests
   Supplementary Order Papers
   Proposed members’ bills
   Notices of local & private bills
   View all

   Bill History
   Bill Digest
   Hansard
   Reports
   Submissions & Advice
   Video
   SOPs
   Bill History
   This bill makes a number of minor changes to the Electoral Act 1993 that will rationalise and clarify the law, help improve services to voters, and assist with the smooth delivery of elections.

   Member in charge:
   Hon Amy Adams

   Type of bill:
   Government

   Parliament:
   51

   Bill no:
   176-1

   Introduction:
   22/9/16

   • CG you are really onto it.
     My hat off to you man!
     Thanks on behalf of all those who want to save true democracy in this faltering country.

2. I notice how ACT Party is screaming “hypocrisy” because the Greens have openly stated they will not stand a candidate against Labour in the (assumed) by-election to replace Phil Goff.
   ACT says it is hypocrisy because the Greens are criticising ACT in 2015 and doing the same themselves, and that it proves it is natural part of the political process.
   Wrong!
   There is a big difference between what the Greens and doing now and what National and ACT colluded to do in 2015.
   National didn’t withdraw their candidate from Epsom, they left him as a fall guy whilst Key waltzed around going nudge nudge wink wink and whispering to National supporters not to support their own candidate and vote for Seymour instead.
   The Greens have openly said they won’t stand a candidate.
   How is that the same?
   Is is quite different, so where is the hypocrisy ACT?
   It exists in their shallow minds, no where else.
   Dirty deals might be a part of ACT’s natural political processes but that does not make them right.

3. ‘Solid facts? 5 flaws that raise doubt over int’l MH17 criminal probe’

   https://www.rt.com/news/361006-mh17-jit-report-questions/

   ‘MH17 int’l probe’s only sources are Ukrainian intel & internet – Russian MoD’

   https://www.rt.com/news/360963-mh17-probe-ukraine-internet/

   “The international investigators relied only on data provided by the Ukrainian military and from the internet, a Russian military spokesperson said Wednesday. He added that no Russian missile systems have ever crossed into Ukraine…

   • CHOOKY

     This was a setup to get a war going like Hitler did on Poland last war,
     BY SETTING UP A FAKE SO CALLED POLISH ARMY RAID ON A GERMAN RADIO STATION ON THE BORDER USING THEIR OWN GERMAN OFFICERS WHO WERE PRISONERS EXPENDIBLE FOR THE FORTH REICH.

     NAZI’S ARE ALL BEHIND THIS, TO GET BACK AT RUSSIA FOR LOOSING THE WAR.

     They are attempting to march us to another war here and must be exposed for what they are, war mongers.

Comments are closed.