| Author |
Message |
    
Jo Anne Karasek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jo_anne_karasek
Post Number: 87
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 8:08 am: | 
|
Sherry Healy of California Election Protection has introduced to e-USE, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/e-USE/ , the following plan for voting/elections. This version is tailored to California, but the word is that the concepts are planned for the country.
http://www.califelectprotect.net/GSAP_16d.pdf
She has allowed people in e-USE approximately 24 hours to comment!
Comments here would be appreciated. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 333
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 5:03 am: |
|
They want to use high school volunteers to count votes at one stage. One of the problems here is that a 'volunteer' may be volunteering because they have an interest in affecting the vote. BUt if you get people that you verify are disinterested in the outcome of the vote, how do you have any belief that they'll do a good, conscientious job? |
Jo Anne Karasek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jo_anne_karasek
Post Number: 89
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 5:29 am: |
|
I do not support much of the Gold Star Audit Protocol, but I do support volunteers watching and, with video cameras, photographing the counting. (I think high school volunteers, and others, should be made available by having election day made a holiday.)
The reality is that elections are either supervised and counted by people who have an interest, and might do biased things, or do not have an interest, and might not care to do their job right. The best thing to do is assume everybody has an interest and observe/make an unbiased record of their activities as above.
Jo Anne |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 334
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
I have several problem with the underlying theory of "everybody check everyone/everything else and things will come out right". First, you don't get to check everyone else all the time (at some time in the cast-your-vote-through-possible recount(s) process, as a citizen, you won't be able to be sure that the ballots or counts haven't been altered or compromised). Second, if you're pulling any sort of organized flim-flam, amny opportunities exist if you just need to get your people who are ill-intended 'observers' or workers blocking well-intended observers or workers and it looks like (and they witness to) what you want them to say happened, happened. Third, I think the only person we can all count on to champion a specific voter's original intent in voting is that very same specific voter.
Until you enable a voter to check on his specific vote, some of us will always be unsure as to whether our vote was counted as we cast it, or even counted at all, and no one will be able to tell them that their wrong. Certainly provisional voters are pouring their ballots down a rat hole.
Voting is a system, all systems that can correct for error have feedback. Voting is missing feedback, most of it at the nearly- finished-product end of things. This is the ultimate feedback for legitimate votes error correction.
Every scheme for a completely anonymous vote eventually leaves us trusting people that most of us don't know, to do what they promise they will do and are supposed to do with our ballots in order to see that they're accurately collected, counted and protected from corruption until the election is finalized. Let's find a way to give some oversight back to the person who has that ballot's best interest at heart: the original voter. |
Philip N. James
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_james
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 12:56 pm: |
|
I found the GSAP most interesting and a useful checklist of things to do. I'm reaching the conclusion that the following are important:
1. Voter verified paper ballot -- as in optical scan systems, not DRE cash register tapes, because OS ballots have never been through the computer to be changed.
2. Hand-count audit of the VVPB. Many suggestions here on the Net but something that's statistically able to surface significant errors is the underlying principle.
3. Recounts: If outcome changes or results differ by x%, do a hand count.
4. Chain-of custody: When an absentee ballot is mailed in, it's received from USPS by the central electkions department. From there it passes through many hands. There has to be some way to audit this whole process.
Anybody got good ideas here?
Brant, any schemes you recommend for enabling the voter to check his vote?
5. Separation of powers: Different team for audit and recount than for election itself. This is especially true at polls: A new team comes in when polls close. I'm not against students for this process if supervised by somebody like League of Women Voters.
6. Posting results rapidly at precinct: Even if you don't do audits, you could post the precinct results from the machine tape concurrently with its being transmittied to Election Central. And after that, you could add in the early and provisional votes. But it should also be posted online or somewhere else so people can easily find it and review it.
*****
Would be most interested in comments.
Phil |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 335
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:20 pm: |
|
I've got one posted in Tech Central, have a look. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 336
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 4:42 am: |
|
Absentee ballots are going to be a tough nut to crack in order to have good security; they represent something that could pass through many hands in order to make it to the first person who's charged with protecting them. I personally think it's an unclosable security hole. If the ballot's destination is predominantly one party a partisan for the opposition might throw it away from an odds-on bet. |
Philip N. James
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_james
Post Number: 14
Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 10:17 am: |
|
Brant...
Re: Voters check their own ballots' progress through the system...
Couldn't find your offering on Tech Central. (I love this site, but haven't mastered it yet!) Could you give me a more specific subject or something? ...or a "jump to" link?
Thanks...
Phil |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 337
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 6:35 am: |
|
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/9707/17304.html?1138223142
That should do it for you, Phil. |
Philip N. James
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_james
Post Number: 16
Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 8:24 am: |
|
Thanks, Brant. It's going to take some thought to make useful comments, but here's one. This, it would seem, makes vote buying pretty easy. Isn't that why we don't want duplicate ballots, or receipts?
Are you familiar with David Chaum's scheme? It accomplishes the same thing yours does, but without disclosing the vote. But it's far too complex, I think. I believe you can find it on the MIT-CalTech Voting Technology Project website.
Phil |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 341
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:30 am: |
|
Vote buying is easy now; being assured that you got what you paid for isn't. While this makes it easier to buy a vote with confidence, it also makes it easier to prove that someone bought your vote. They ask to see your ballot, you take a picture or video of that and them handing you the money and you have them. If they write you a check, so much the better.
I personally have noticed that the Republicans are working the angle that disenfranchises poor people and attempts to create obstacles to the individual's vote. I believe that this is because their advantage stems mostly from election fraud, rather than voter fraud. I think that they have vote flipping and false vote creation staked out as a functional monopoly.
I don't think vote buying is going to be a major factor in elections, as you need a lot of votes and people who are bribed aren't reliable people, you'd get sold out. Especially if there are major legal incentives to sell them out, which I believe need to be enacted immediately. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1605
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 6:14 am: |
|
As a general rule this is not how "vote-buying" works. It's nods & winks, perhaps providing a needed service for free, or facilitating approval of something through the system. Maybe giving someone a few dollars for a few beers. Very hard to prove that something is exchange for a vote (or for many votes--e.g., agreement to encourage one's employees to vote a certain way, or encourage others to donate to a particular cause or campaign fund, etc.).
Proof that one voted as agreed would not necessarily be expected. There are other ways--e.g., frighten someone that you'll know if they don't vote as agreed. I've seen that one a few times.
Intimidation can be all the more effective when it is done subtly.
Corruption is more of an issue than buying the votes of individual voters. |
Philip N. James
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_james
Post Number: 18
Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 7:23 am: |
|
I agree with both of you that vote buying is currently a small fraction of the problem of controlling the outcome of elections, but people always bring it up as a response to any scheme to give voters a receipt. Certainly intimidation, unequal distribution of voting machines, sloppy disenfranchisement of felons, and many other techniques we heard about in 2000 and 2004 add up to much larger numbers. And why is it that any problems seems to result in the Republicans getting the benefit?
And since you mention it, why aren't the Democrats (other than John Conyers, bless him, and Barbara Boxer) raising hell about all this?
Phil |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 343
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Catherine's post's logic is the reason I think that there should be large rewards and strong protections for people that turn in the people that tried to extort their vote. I think there should be a hotline to turn them in and get all the help necessary to put them away for an extremely long time.
The reasons that the Republicans benefitted from them was because they were behind the best organized cheats. I'm not saying that some Democrats don't cheat, I'm saying that the Republicans were desparate, and willing. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 344
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:13 pm: |
|
Have you got a URL for David Chaum's stuff, Phil? MIT Cal Tech Voting technology project got too many hits. I haven't seen his stuff.
The reason that I'm stuck on the idea of a voter-retained, legally-binding ballot is that all self-correcting systems need feedback, and voting doesn't have any, really. Not that joe-voter can be sure of, anyway. |
Philip N. James
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Phil_james
Post Number: 20
Registered: 11-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 8:17 am: |
|
Here's a URL for a PDF by a colleague of Chaum's which (I think) explains his system better than he does -- but contains a reference to Chaum's article:
http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~poorvi/Chaum/chaum.pdf
Chaum also started a group called VSPR (Voting System Performance Rating), which brought together a number of computer science types to develop standards for recommendation to EAC and others. I haven't followed their progress for a long time, but the URL is:
http://www.vspr.org
Hope this helps!
Phil |
