Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 12-2-2008: TRANSCRIPT - New Hampshire... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10229
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 5 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - 11:36 am: | 
|
Below you will find the transcript of a video -- and a link, so you can see for yourself. This video pertains to perhaps THE most important issue in election protection today, the RIGHT TO KNOW.
We will continue to run down pointless rabbit holes seeking election reform if we don't focus on the core issues. The truth is, it doesn't matter how secure or how accurate a voting system is, if the public does not have the right to know; every change in election procedures or legislation must be examined through the lens of whether it helps or hurts our right to know.
The right to know is built into the founding documents of our nation. It is especially important in the area of elections, because it is through elections that we exercise control over our government. The argumentation for right to know can be framed as follows:
- Government is the servant of the people, and not the master of them.
- The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.
- We must remain informed so that we may retain control over the instruments of government we have created.
- When we lose the ability to control, we lose our sovereignty over our own government and we no longer have a democratic form of government.
If "right to know" is not honored in our elections, we do not have democratic elections -- fundamentally altering our form of government, creating a different form of government without our consent.
HOW NEW HAMPSHIRE IS BLOCKING RIGHT TO KNOW
In New Hampshire, the first thing a new legislature does is cast a SECRET vote for who will be secretary of state. The New Hampshire Secretary of State's office controls elections.
Control of elections should not be decided by a secret legislative vote kept hidden from the public. And in each election, the counting (which includes adding up the votes) must not be done secretly.
TRANSCRIPT: New Hampshire hiding vote counting processes from the public
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwvDVfA3NgY
After the 2008 general election citizens tried to observe the central tabulation of election results. The New Hampshire Secretary of State's office told them they could not enter the "nonpublic" rooms where the tally was occurring and gave them a "warning" about videotaping events where the central tabulation was taking place.
CAPTION: Protecting the Count - On Nov. 4-5 2008, American citizens fanned out across the nation to witness, document, and defend the vote count. For the 90% of America's ballots that are "counted" in secret by corporate-owned and programmed computers, citizens documented precinct level results to defend against "middle man" vote count manipulation and central tabulation fraud. They also attempted to witness and document central tabulation.
CAPTION: Democratic elections require 100% citizen oversight to be fair, open, and to ensure the integrity of election results. In a fraud-friendly election system, election officials obstructing citizen oversight are the worst offenders.
CAPTION: So in 2008, fed up with secret vote counting, disputed elections, and corporate control of the vote count, We the People answered the call to Protect the Count.
These are our stories.
AQUENE FREECHILD, Co-Coordinator, Protect the Count New Hampshire: I'm Aquene Freechild. We're here in Concord New Hampshire at the Secretary of State's office, Room 204 for the final tallying of the votes in the state of New Hampshire in the Nov. 4, 2008 election.
CAPTION: The Secretary of State is preparing to tally all of the election results from New Hampshire cities and towns. This is supposed to be publicly observable.
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE DAVE SCANLAN: Well this is the, you know, the public part of the office so you can watch what goes on. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
SCOTT KRAVITZ: Would you mind describing what's going on for us?
SCANLAN: These are the official returns that the state police have delivered from the towns this morning so they're opening the envelopes, they returned the envelopes that contain the Return of Votes, and they're just sorting out the papers so that we can start the process of tabulating the returns.
[People are sitting at a table, accepting stacks of envelopes from state troopers, opening them and stacking the papers.]
KRAVITZ: What are the papers that they're sorting out?
SCANLAN: Well you have the Return of Votes, you have the Moderator's Certificates. The Return of Votes are actually the votes cast for the candidates. The Moderator's Certificate has the ballots cast. And the Moderator's Worksheet, which is an optional document, where they reconcile the various numbers that we were dealing with last night.
KRAVITZ: And then what happens after that?
SCANLAN: Then the people in this office will start tallying the result, we'll take the information from the Return of Votes and we'll compile them on spreadsheets so we can put the totals together for each of the districts and candidates running for in the state. And it's going to be a several day process. We should finish up sometime Friday.
FREECHILD to PAULA PENNEY: Which other people are doing the tallying?
PENNEY: You need to speak to Dave, all questions need to be routed to Dave Scanlan. So if you need him I'll get him for you.
FREECHILD, to SCANLAN: So we're just wondering where the votes are being tallied, which computers, and which people are doing the tallying.
[Freechild is a young graduate student-aged woman, with quiet, polite, and calm demeanor throughout.]
SCANLAN: All the people in this office are going to be doing it but again, this is the public part of the office, feel free to film whatever happens from here. We don't want any audio taken at people's office desks (gestures to another office behind him) because the nature of some of the conversations that we have. That's private, secretary of state business.
FREECHILD: So you're going to count--
SCANLAN: Well we do a lot of other things besides just the count, we're doing other business in the office. People are working on, you know, doing the tallies, we don't expect to have people over our shoulder.
FREECHILD: Are you certain that in the constitution, the count itself rather than the tallies…
CAPTION: "In open meeting…a moderator...shall sort and count the votes." -- New Hampshire Constitution, Article 32
CAPTION: "The public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted." -- New Hampshire Constitution, Article 8
FREECHILD: So we understand that there may be a process where people are correcting things--
SCANLAN: --They're not correcting, they're, they're taking information on the forms and they're turning the thing onto a spreadsheet so what's on those forms is what's going to be entered into our database. Now if towns find that they might have made a mistake and they sent us another form, that information might be on there, but we don't change anything.
FREECHILD: That's not what I was intending to say, what I was trying to say was that we're not trying to breathe down your neck in the sense that we want to accuse you of doing something, but we also want to be observers of the WHOLE count, not part of the count that's in the public part of the office because it's in the Constitution--
SCANLAN: Well those are the counts. We have people that are going to take those numbers, they're going to put them in the database, they're going to take those forms, we're going to prepare the document, at the end of the day the numbers should match, if they don't then raise the issue. But these are, you know, what we are working on are working documents, they are not subject to the right to know law until they are the final documents. If you disagree with that you can go to court and see what they have to say about that. That's our understanding of the statute.
CAPTION: Are vote tally sheets REALLY just "working documents not subject to the right to know law"? We asked a leading civil rights attorney for an opinion: "The Secretary of State can not legally shield these tally sheets from the public by claiming that they are 'working documents' and that therefore the tally sheets are 'not subject' to the right to know law. Draft agency documents, exempted from the right to know law, are very different from vote tallies coming from different towns, where the Secretary of State's job is not to rewrite them or edit them, but to add them up, and maybe create a merged document in addition to the individual tallies.
SCANLAN: So, like I said, you know, this is the public part of the office so feel free to observe or take video, but again, we don't want to hear on the Internet or some other place, private conversations, because that's not part of the public office. And you have a warning right now.
CAPTION: The New Hampshire Secretary of State conducted the central tabulation of the 2008 election results in what they called the "nonpublic part of the office" and "warned" citizen observers not to videotape the tally.
How is that even Constitutional?
* * * * *
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS
1. Prohibit secret selection of the state's top election policymaker by requiring the selection process to be in full public view
2. Place all phases of vote counting and tallying in public areas so the public can view the process.
3. Work for compliance and consequences, to deter violations of the right to know principle in all phases of elections. |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 229
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - 11:56 am: |
|
if any sec of state was interested in an open,honest election...when confronted with citizens wanting to video..he would say,,,,,great idea.....we will hold the return of votes up....u tape it..then pan to the tally sheet..tape that
wooooshbob....open and honest..end of story
great work to all that worked on the video |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5415
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Bev,
Thank you for your skill of distilling complex issues down to their core essence.
Thanks for providing a transcript as well as the video.
Congratulations to everyone involved in this. Freechild comported herself with dignity, strength and calm composure in the face of shocking and unconstitutional obstructions presented by Deputy SOS David Scanlon.
NH voters need to wake up and rescue democracy in their home state. I bet people would be shocked if they knew how the Deputy SOS is keeping the vote-counting process hidden.
Like Karen, I feel that any SOS of integrity would be delighted to have as many extra eyes as possible on the vote-counting process. It's like having unpaid extra staff who can help with Quality Control.
The only reason for not being overjoyed with citizen observers is if there is something going on that is not consistent with integrity.
Scanlon's weak attempt at justifying a secret tally by saying that there was other business going does not stand up to scrutiny. If there was any other business going on in the midst of a process that requires careful, focused attention, then that in itself is a red flag. The clear, unambiguous requirement for open elections, as per the NH Constitution, trumps any excuses of "other business".
Does the Deputy SOS suggest that any requirement for observation under the NH Constitution vanishes by his decision to have some other activity going on nearby that is not related to election business? That would be a handy way to obstruct any procedure that is supposed to be open.
I'd consider it to be Scanlon's job to create the circumstances in which a proper, focused tally can be carried out with full observation. If he's not willing to do that then he should resign. |
Dale McClain
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 43
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 10:13 am: |
|
I have a tiger by the tail here in tn.
dale |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 232
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 1:29 pm: |
|
I'd consider it to be Scanlon's job to create the circumstances in which a proper, focused tally can be carried out with full observation. If he's not willing to do that then he should resign.
CAPTION: "In open meeting…a moderator...shall sort and count the votes." -- New Hampshire Constitution, Article 32
CAPTION: "The public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted." -- New Hampshire Constitution, Article 8
Clearly the New Hampshire Constitution considers it to be Scanlon's job to create the circumstances in which a proper, focused tally can be carried out with full observation.
More than any individual
secretive, deceptive, fraudulent or allegedly just neglectful shortcoming casting suspicion of increasing unreliability on our varied range of voting systems...
...nothing speaks more loudly and clearly than...
the persistence of official hostility to public witness of election processes:
the choice to construct blackbox processes, &
the choice to purchase & employ blackbox equipt, &
the choice to hire voting equipt w/ proven past histories of facilitating election fraud...
as NH's legislature chose to for this election cycle,
& whose processes NH's current secretly elected SOS has protected from sight wherever possible, no matter any NH laws to the contrary.
Call it the JustUs System, law as a one-way street that isn't applicable to the actions of lawmakers or their proxies. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2008 - 4:09 am: |
|
It would be interesting to identify the states which by law permit or do not permit citizen observation of the aggregate counting, and to consider which races are affected by that fact.
For example, if citizens can watch central counting in a county but not some aspect of aggregate counting at the state level, then citizens across a state can witness all of the individual totals going into the state count (and presumably get those figures), but not the state level count, then races up to the county level are presumably transparent, and the potential to draw conclusions about the state aggregation is possible but a bit arduous. If citizens can only watch precinct level but not town level, then probably no race is actually transparent.
I wonder if Pew or NASS or other election info collectors have looked at any part of this question.
It gets to the "serial display of info" in which now you see it, and now you don't, and next we show you the results of the election.
A great tool at the state level for advocates to create would be to make a chart or graphic that shows the hypothetical movement of the ballot from voter's hand (or fingertip if DRE) through state aggregation.
It would make it easier to discuss with other citizens the implications of breaks in the chain of transparency, and point out what the remedies to lack of transparency that are proposed will improve.
It will be intuitively obvious at the broad brush level that openness is desirable -- but in the end, how it has worked out on election issues in my state is that you have to get citiznes to rally around the language in some bill at the state level that most are not tuned into.
The theme is that the transparency chain is only as strong as its weakest link. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5418
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2008 - 5:33 am: |
|
quote:A great tool at the state level for advocates to create would be to make a chart or graphic that shows the hypothetical movement of the ballot from voter's hand (or fingertip if DRE) through state aggregation.
Excellent idea. |
Marian Beddill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 175
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2008 - 7:38 am: |
|
A chart of ballot-flow has been made and published - at least up to the County central-count level:
Introduction:
http://noleakybuckets.org/reference.html
and detailed:
http://noleakybuckets.org/BallotFlow3.html .
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1205
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 5, 2008 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Marian, thanks for the great flow chart example. That's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. It's a great cheat sheet, too, when one is trying to fathom election statutes, regulations, and procedures and see how they all fit together (or....don't). |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 233
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 6:39 pm: |
|
Marian,
That was an eye-opener. Thank you.
Christine,
To make explicit what is implicit in your 12/5 4am post...
Complicating your excellent suggestion is--
each step's transparency is a 3-part question:
is transparency required by law in that step?
do procedures in the law designed to effect transparency actually do so?
are procedures to effect transparency actually followed?
The folk we choose among when voting sometimes seem as if nominated for their excellence in designing systems that divorce themselves from intents akin to the 1st question above by their adroit management of the 2nd & 3rd questions. |
Marian Beddill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 176
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 7:31 pm: |
|
My chart there still has some fuzzy places. Like the collection of ballots happens at about 8 places. We are all VBM, so there are no traditional pollsites. The Elections Office has one "accessible" DRE running, so that's the closest to a Pollsite. On Election day, there are about 8 remote drop-sites at population centers. Their ballot collection boxes are brought in when the hour of poll-closing (8:00PM) arrives.
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1221
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 3:41 am: |
|
Joel, while I do sometimes write at crazy times, this time it was a 7 am post -- don't forget, I'm on the East coast but the clock on this website is west coast time.
Yes, your question as to whether transparency is required is exactly the point of doing a flow chart similar to the one Marian has done. Adding in your info on what the statutes permit or mandate then would allow a citizen to see quite simply what they can see of the process, and what they can't. It would allow advocates to easily explain to others why they were focusing on particular areas for changes in the law.
In working with the law and comparing it against real, known situations or doing audit observations or election observations or FOI info gathering, I find that the second question's answers start to become clear: Namely, I start to see what actually has utility and what may have some marginal benefits but mainly functions as a patina of transparency or security or efficiency.
As to whether the procedures are actually followed, a flow chart allows an advocate to easily explain to officials, law makers, or fellow citizens the EFFECT of not following laws that would effect transparency. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5427
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 7:04 am: |
|
Christine, Marian, Joel
Yes to all these points. A picture/graphics flow chart is a great idea to easily show a system and its vulnerabilities/problems.
The same chart could be used for many purposes:
--To indicate (using colour?) the relative seriousness of any particular point of vulnerability (this could be related to what it can affect downstream)
--To show where an election integrity group's area of focus is, for fund-raising or reporting purposes
--To be used as a strategy development tool by election officials or election integrity groups or individuals |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5428
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 7:05 am: |
|
Proposed remedial stategies could be indicated according to which vulnerabilities they do or don't address. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5429
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 7:07 am: |
|
Perhaps Joel's 1.2.3 points could be shown as "drill-down" in a more detailed version of the chart. |
Marian Beddill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 177
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 7:46 am: |
|
Good points, Catherine;
Perhaps someone with more advanced graphics-tools than I have (MS-Paint) can expand the flow chart. It might be generalized - but that runs afoul of the "cases where that model is not true", so I suspect there will need to be a series of charts, each for specific case.
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5430
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 8:30 am: |
|
What would be really cool would be a web-based tool so that election integrity people (incl. citizens in their own local community) can develop customized diagrams of their local system. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 10:01 am: |
|
Agree with Marian here:
It might be generalized - but that runs afoul of the "cases where that model is not true", so I suspect there will need to be a series of charts, each for specific case.
Creating such a chart is a tremendous learning experience. For that reason, general models or specific examples are useful starting points to e.g. learn how to train oneself think about the processes of an election.
Situation-specific charts are more useful for grounding oneself or one's group in the issues and realities of a particular state or county (or town?)
Once a group of citizens (or one real trooper) have researched enough to create their specific chart, the info about one's own state will be pratically branded on their foreheads.
I bet that canned programs such as Power Point could be pressed into service. I am not sure if any of the easy org charg software could allos it to be done well. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5431
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 10:32 am: |
|
One could give ideas as to some elements that might need to be included, but there would have to be enough flexibility to allow true customization to fit unique local situations.
Sample charts for a few very different kinds of systems would also ease the learning curve. |
Marian Beddill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Uu7thprinciple
Post Number: 178
Registered: 8-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 10:42 am: |
|
It is truly an educational experience to discover and understand the flow of the ballots, and other components of the election process, including the Log-Sheets, for another example.
I have both kinds of programs mentioned.
Power Point can DISPLAY the product, but (in my experience) cannot generate the graphic content. And it's display is (generally?) limited to a single full-screen view, which shrinks large graphics.
I have, though little used, an Organizational Chart and Project-Flow-Diagram generator. What I saw there (someone please add experienced comment) was not so much improved over what I used for the Whatcom ballot-flow chart - plain old MS-Paint, saved as .JPG's. Paint is uncomplicated: - WYDIWYS - What-You-Draw-Is-What-You-See.
As I did on the website originally mentioned:
http://noleakybuckets.org/BallotFlow3.html - you might build the entire chart by segments - then display them in an HTML page.
Have fun. Make a difference.
Marian
http://NoLeakyBuckets.org
|
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5432
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 10:42 am: |
|
"a few very different kinds of systems" as in not just different election equipment, but different election procedures and laws and staff and attitude in one place as opposed to another.
Attitude--that's a key factor, and subject to quick changes depending on staff changes. While not strictly an element in a flow chart, it's a crucial element to be able to map throughout a system.
E.g., maybe attitude is great at some or many points in a system, then lousy, sloppy or obstructive at some key point(s). It could be illuminating to see this mapped out for a given locality.
Subjective, to be sure--but relevant and useful.
Ditto for key partnerships--vendor, local media, key state politicians, local judges, local law enforcement, local DA or US attorney, etc. Not sure how these would be mapped on a flow chart (though maybe the points they influence could be shown).
Without being unnecessarily complicated, it would be instructive to look at a system flow-chart through the lens of various bodies or individuals, and see if there are likely points of influence or vulnerability, and consider the potential impact.
It's as if one would need a multi-layered cube, with the ability to zone in on any layer, and run a Monte Carlo analysis to examine the system for the impact of various layers or points and identify likely breaking points. (This would be a great thesis for a statistician. . .) |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 235
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Christine,
Apologies if my last comment (seems to have) tasted like criticism of the idea (which I like)...
I had no such intent -- but did want to inject that added bit of complexity to the picture you were proposing.
Catherine's pt re: "attitude" adds an important 4th element pertinent to each block in Marian's flow chart...& the attitude of folk responsible for enforcement where/when procedures aren't followed is a 5th.
Witnessing Marian's flow chart shows the excellence of the approach.
That the flowchart would look different for every jurisdiction...it is a daunting task for any one jurisdiction, but well worth the effort as an analysis tool/framework if anyone with legislative influence is seriously interested in the goals of reliability and transparency in their jurisdiction. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 2:30 pm: |
|
I got it, Joel.
In terms of attitude, there is this concept of discretionary work -- when you have a "good attitude," you will do much more than the minimum, and the work beyond the minimum is what is called "discretionary work".
I'm not sure how it applies to discretionary integrity that fills in the gaps between procedures -- you could get away with it, but you would not think of it.
IN terms of designing a system, I suspect it is better to design one that will work if the integrity level is low, and then work not only to work inside the design, but work with a high level of honesty. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5434
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 3:16 pm: |
|
quote:IN terms of designing a system, I suspect it is better to design one that will work if the integrity level is low,
YES! |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5435
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 3:18 pm: |
|
My point about attitude (and integrity, as you put it), is that it's relevant in terms of system design--and also relevant in terms of addressing the "local-reality-on-the-ground" in terms of making immediate, practical choices about what to do. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Catherine, you're pointing, I think, to a reality of elections. Punting occurs, and can be designed out to some extent, but making decisions with less than optimal choices can be part of the reality of the job.
It's one of the reasons I am coming to view "education" as necessary, not just "training" to dot i's and cross T's, or "enforcement" in the absence of education.
One of the areas that requires both education on principles and buy-in is, of course, the public's right to know and the way it is expressed in small and large "rules". For example, in a town in CT recently (we are only one state away from NH), at the town level, the election officials shut the people there to retrieve the results for their parties outside an auditorium, closing the door. Not all polling places are idea, but an auditorium is not a room that could be short on observer space. The statutes make it crystal clear that the door may not be shut for any reason.
Had the workers been "trained", maybe they would forget a rule and all would blur in their memories. Just maybe -- had they been educated, their remembering the principle might serve to remind them that a closed door was not within the principle they learned, and maybe they better check because it SEEMS like something that should not be done.
I know the person who was excluded, asked about any mitigating circumstances (there really aren't any for shutting an inside door that I can see, and I believe she knows one of the DROVs, so this isn't a case where I suspect something wrong happened -- but we don't have to make that judgment because the conditions under which the election result tallying may take place were 1) not created and 2) to not sugar coat it, were violated.
|
|
|
