Fernando Morales

2231 Wakerobin Ln.

Reston Va 20191

703-476-9878

[**fermorales3@comcast.net**](mailto:fermorales3@comcast.net)

April 11, 2005

Memo to: Election Assistance Commission (EAC),

EAC Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TDGC)

From: Fernando Morales, Inventor of a new electoral process paradigm

Re: David Webber untrustworthy logic.

After fourteen (14) exchanges of email with David Weber "DW" and
realizing that we were getting nowhere, I received the following: (I
appreciate the honesty, recognize the disappointment, and notice the
conformist attitude, which he, like many other Americans who know the
"modus operandi", has been subjected to) (Personal Voting Code "PVC")

(DW Claims to be a Consultant, Author, Inventor, Innovator. Holder of
two US patents for software technology. Noted international authority on
XML and eBusiness).

15- On April 8, 2005 at 6:02 PM I received from David Webber:

Fernando,\
\
If you think HAVA is setup to enact change you are dreaming.\
\
It\'s function is what is commonly called a \"snow job\".\
\
I think this is why you are making the mistake of thinking that they
will recommend changing the current status quo to make use of the
\"wonderful new ways that PVC provides\".\
\
Frankly they could not care less.  HAVA and NISTs job is to show that
the current vendors approach is OK, so Americans can feel good about
where their\$M went, instead of feeling cheated.\
\
Sorry to be the carrier of bad news here.  The current government of the
United States have become masters of Orwellian double-speak - saying one
thing -- like \"Clean Water Act\" - but really it is law to allow
polluters to continuing polluting.  Helping America Vote Act -- is also
the opposite of what it says.\
\
They will ignore your PVC \"enhancements\" ( I guess you have realized
that already).\
\
What I am looking to do instead - is ask fundamental questions of trust
and logic about the current process - that cannot be refuted - and thus
gain some measure of verifiable steps into the current laughable
process.\
\
DW

15- On April 2005 after this file was posted at the NIST website I
responded to Dave with the following message:

David,

Please read my response on the following website:
(http://www.vote.nist.gov/ECPosStat.htm).

David,

At no other time in history has there been so much "convincing" power
given to an electoral commission. This is a unique moment: even though
the States have autonomy and can independently choose to not follow the
recommendations, these two facts: voters' awareness and the billions of
federal dollars allocated by HAVA are enough to move them to adopt the
"new" set of EAC recommendations. No doubt that the EAC Commissioners
have the power to change or to "snow job" the entire electoral process.

Take note of the EAC's balanced composition, the commissioners have been
selected to be perfectly bipartite. For that reason alone, they are
obligated to pass along to the States the recommendation to follow the
same balanced-oversight approach throughout the entire electoral
process.

If vote trading were possible (and the current TGDC discussions indicate
they are aiding it), the current political divide is fertile ground for
turning around a victor with a small amount of money. The relationship
between vote privacy and vote trading is inversely proportional; to
minimize vote trading it is required to maximize voter's privacy. As
with the balanced-oversight of the entire electoral process, here again,
the EAC is obligated to reach the highest level of voter's privacy
available.

In previous elections, voter's choices were made using a binary code
(blank=0 or mark=1), which could easily be interpreted by an observer of
an absentee voter or by using electronic means to spy upon the entire
population of voters visiting the precinct. By replacing the binary code
with a decimal code (0, 1, 2, 3 ... 9) and allowing each voter to
pick/store the numbers used to mark their choices, the process will
reach the highest level of voter's privacy.

Consequently, if any good is going to come out of this, the EAC has no
option other than to recommend the States to adopt the use of Personal
Voting Codes (PVC) and to provide balanced-oversight (balanced powers)
throughout the electoral process.

Only time will tell ... about the Commissioners' wisdom. In the
meantime, I rather dream.

Fernando

cc: EAC Commissioners

EAC Juliet Thompson, General Counsel

EAC Carol Paquette, Executive Director

David M. Thomas & Christopher A. Lopez of Representative Tom Davis'
office

Ursula Wojciechowski of Representative Adam H. Putnam's office

Matthew Petersen of Representative Robert Ney's office

Paul Vinovich Staff Director Committee on House Administration