Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (US) 2/06 - How To Rescue America... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 89
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 5:00 pm: | 
|
To the crew of BBV
I have put together several "out of the box" ideas and thoughts, to form one SuperPath that might be taken for those so enclined. Some are from BBV, especially the think tank, others are from elsewhere.
You can find the complete text on www.howtorescueamerica.com. However, I've included the main part of what's found there below.
Can this work? What problems do you see with it? Can you expand on it, mabybe spin it into an entirely new idea/orbit? More importantly, can you "break" it?/mac
...
How To Rescue America
Simply & Quickly
Taking back this country may be easier than you think. I’m going to show you how we can take back this country; simply, quickly and non-violently, using three new tools that you need to know about. I call them freedom tools.
The Problem
The only thing citizens have to directly control their government is the vote. Without it we are helpless and at the complete mercy of government. With it, we are in control. I contend that the vote has since the beginning, been periodically rigged. The new electronic voting facilitates the practice to the point where as few as one person, can rig an entire election with a few key strokes.
As common sense proof of my assertions, I offer you the following: It is an undeniable fact that in this country all legal transactions of any merit are always documented. When it comes to transactions between government, business, and citizen everything, and I do mean everything is documented. You can’t even buy a quart of milk without the cashier placing a receipt in your hand. However, there is one exception. There is something that isn’t documented and has never been documented by receipt in the 200 years of this countries existence. It is, the vote.
Your vote is being routinely stolen, and it is being stolen primarily because those who are stealing it, are the only ones who are allowed to see it. That is to say, because you can’t see your vote to verify that the vote you cast was the vote that was counted (same as a bank receipt & statement), your vote has been and is being stolen in one form or another without your ever knowing the difference. Without the vote we become slaves, not symbolically, but actually.
The Solution
The solution to the problem is to prevent the theft. To do this I have developed three tools, powerful tools, each of which attacks the problem from three different directions at once. However, these tools though simple, must be implemented to work.
There is good reason to assume those presently in government will do all in their power to prevent the implementation of these freedom tools. And what government level would that primarily be? It would be that level which is responsible for the hiring of the **Registrar of Voters, where clearly this despicable theft is taking place. Your vote is being stolen at the county level, all with the certain knowledge and acquiescence of a rather silent, even shadowy entity, your County Board of Supervisors.
**I’m speaking of the actual position of Registrar and not the good people employed by the R of V, who would surely turn in the vote thieves if they knew who they were.
Use the Recall
I am calling for the citizens of every county of the United States to immediately launch a recall of their Board of Supervisors. The same groups that conduct the recall, will recruit and draft suitable replacements who will openly swear in public, that on taking office they will implement the tools I propose. Tools that will end this malevolence, ensure the integrity of the vote and deliver this country back into the hands of her rightful owners.
The Tools of Freedom
1) The Point of Origin Poll - P.O.P.
We have been told and it is generally believed, that exit polls are so accurate that they are by far “never wrong”. In Germany where a hand count is required by law and can take over a week to complete, the people know the results election night due to exit polls. In forty years they have never been wrong.
For all their reliability, there are however problems with exit polls. Since their data source is other than the precise point of origin of the actual vote (time & place), they rely heavily on the word and memory of the voter being polled, as well as the integrity of the interviewer. These things become portals for the introduction of error. Their absolute reliability could thus be open to question in a situation in which “irrefutability” is a requirement, such as a legal proceeding.
Indeed, if a poll could be designed that could irrefutably check a final vote-count, it could conceivably provide legal grounds to nullify the results of an election if those results did not agree with the poll. It was with that in mind that the Point of Origin Poll was developed.
A Point of Origin Poll is essentially an exit poll, on steroids. It would be conducted by ordinary citizens who would gather together in ad hoc fashion, for the single purpose of irrefutably verifying the integrity of the vote. The poll would not require permission or license from government, a requirement since it is an independent check of that government.
Note: Verifying the vote must not be the exclusive domain of government, as government checking its own vote count is a clear conflict of interest.
The difference between a P.O.P. and an ordinary exit poll is primarily that its data source is taken directly from the actual vote, and it is taken at precisely the same time and place that vote is made (in the votebooth). This way, any one tampering with the vote on the registrar’s side has no time, and thus opportunity, to make a switch before poll data has been sampled, logged and verified through another separate and entirely independent system.
How It Works
Randomly selected voters would be asked to participate in the P.O.P. before entering the voting place. The voter would be asked to select a verifier from a group of people chosen for their known good character. The verifier would accompany the voter into the voting booth for the purpose of verifying their vote.
In California a voter may bring another person into the booth to assist them. I assume this is allowed in other states as well and if it isn’t, then it should be. After all, it’s your vote. If those who are stealing it can see it, then why shouldn’t a verifier of known good character be allowed in, with your permission, to prevent that theft.
As a voter makes a choice the “verifier” would check-off their selection on a sequentially numbered, tear apart form of the type used by business. After all the choices are made and the entire vote has been “cast”, the verifier would sign and date the form, then accompany the voter out of the booth and back to the P.O.P. station.
There the voter would remove the “original” sheet, fold it and place it in a ballot box constructed completely of Plexiglas so all the ballots are constantly in view. The second sheet would be given to the verifier who retains it, and the third sheet is the voters copy.
On the back of the voters copy would be a website address where the voter would go the next day to verify their own vote. The website would contain several pages, each with hundreds of ballot numbers/votes including the voters. The voter would download the entire page, scroll down to their ballot number and check their vote. If the vote has been tampered with in any way it will turn up there, thus providing end to end verification of the vote, in a fashion similar to banking’s receipt/statement audit system.
Alternatively, if the voter did not have access to the Internet there would also be a phone number they could call where a public interest group would take their ballot number and anonymously read to them their vote.
It is important to note that only the vote and respective ballot number would be present. The voters name would not be listed as it is not required to conduct a P.O.P., it is only necessary to know that they did indeed vote. The Point of Origin Poll would thus possess built-in anonymity.
In addition, the verifier would also verify all the votes they verified the previous day as well. This way end to end verification is provided by two human witnesses, the voter and the verifier, who were actually present at the precise moment and place the vote was cast.
This last feature is something no vote count of any Registrar of Voters in the United States can presently provide, thus throwing their vote count into serious question should a discrepancy arise. Currently the Registrars final vote tally is accepted without question because, though clearly problematic, it is presently the more robust of any other alternative. P.O.P. will change that. In a court of law the P.O.P. must be considered the more robust system and thus trump any discrepancy.
2) Openly Publish the Vote
The purpose of “vote secrecy” has ostensibly been to thwart the practice of “vote selling”. This is clearly a bogus argument, for if government were truly concerned about the practice it would not have created nor allowed the absentee ballot. The absentee ballot practically invites vote selling as it can be conducted completely in private, away from the critical eyes to be found at polling places.
No, vote secrecy to prevent vote selling is only a plausible rationale served up to a gullible public to inhibit or prevent something else. I assert that ‘something else’ has always been to prevent the introduction of systems such as; the anonymous, but open, publishing of the vote.
This freedom tool would operate by openly publish a persons vote, along with that vote’s ballot number, but absent a voter’s identity. A voter’s identity would still be secret, only the vote itself would be made public. Publishing the vote this way would let the voter see what the vote counters see and thus infinitely enhance the votes perceived as well as actual integrity.
Once entered or scanned, the vote is in electronic form. It would be a simple matter to generate and upload a file of the entire vote to an Internet website. From that website anyone could download the entire file. A voter could independently verify their own vote, or even tabulate and verify the entire vote count. Along with P.O.P., publishing the vote would make rigging the vote near impossible and certainly far less than is now possible.
3) Increased Penalties for Vote Tampering
trea son (tree-zon) n. treachery toward one’s country...
If an act by a citizen of the United States places the very existence of this country in jeopardy, could that not be considered treason? In most states vote fraud is treated as a minor issue, often a misdemeanor. What would happen if vote fraud were elevated to a far higher level, carrying with it an appropriate sentence? Would that not deter vote fraud? Certainly it would cause more than a few sleepless nights for the vermin who now steal the vote. It might also cause them to pause and reflect before doing it again.
On taking office your new Board of Supervisors would immediately raise the penalties for vote fraud, or set in motion forces that will result in same. If possible they will make those penalties retroactive. They will then offer a one month period during which all those involved in vote fraud, will be allowed to come forward and receive complete amnesty.
For amnesty, they would have to reveal all they know (names & means) concerning vote fraud previously conducted in their respective county. It would be a county truth commission of sorts. There is the possibility these people might even be used in the future as consultants, after all, many would be genuine experts on the subject.
Drop All Else
The main thing now is knowledge. If everyone knows, things will just happen. Spread the word. Email this to anyone and everyone. Make copies using your inkjet printer and place them on auto windshields, front doors, bulletin boards etc. You have a US Supreme Court tested right to distribute this. See the case of Watchtower Bible & Track Society vs. Village of Stratton, case #00-1737, June 17th, 2002.
One other thing; if these and other freedom tools are implemented, and it turns out that we are wrong, that the vote system is rock solid and we discover there to be absolutely no vote theft whatsoever, we will still have done no harm, Indeed, we will have actually verified the votes veracity beyond a doubt.
However, if our worst fears prove true, expect change, positive change. The kind of change that will ultimately deliver us to a world only seen in dreams. A world of milk, honey and everlasting peace. A place in time, where we will all be safe.
mac
c. 1/19/2006 M J Sperry---all copyrights on this work are relinquished to the public domain as long as reprinted in its entirety including copyright notice & disclaimer. Please distribute widely.
For updates see the website: www.howtorescueamerica.com
All contacts: sitemaster@howtorescueamerica.com |
Jim Eldon
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Vegsledman
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Unfortunately, gaining a trustworthy voting system does not automatically give us a healthy democracy. Given what the folks at FairVote.org have documented, that Democrats and Republicans have colluded to create a situation where ”Over 90% of Americans live in congressional districts that are essentially one-party monopolies”. (From FairVote’s “Dubious Democracy” http://www.fairvote.org/dubdem/overview.htm),
having our ballots perfectly recorded and tallied does not cure our diseased democracy.
This is why voting systems activists must keep the big picture in mind, that real change will come only when the people have legislative authority, as per, for example, the proposed National Initiative for Democracy (http://ni4d.us). Only when we have publicly funded elections, the legislative process is insulated from financial interests and legislation is generated largely from citizen assemblies will we be able to approach the democratic ideal of effective self-government based on a system of one person one vote. Every other activist agenda I've seen effectively maintains the status quo. |
Judy Williams
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Judyw
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 10:19 am: |
|
I'm new to this forum, but am delighted to be here.
I haven't read all of Mac's ideas (I'm still working on Bev's history of electronic voting), but I wanted to post a caution about recalls of all County Supervisors. I just worked very, very hard on a campaign for Norma Santiago (of South Lake Tahoe, CA). It was a tough 4-way race and nobody, except her core group, expected her to win. But she did... we did it by walking precincts and talking to everybody we could! However, because she's just filling the position for a Supervisor who quit because of illness, she has to run again in June. And at that time, I expect SoS MacPherson (R-CA) to have wiggled his way into letting the Diebold machines into our county.
My point - county-wide recalls could very well get rid of progressive people as well as those up to their eyeballs in big money. I'd hate to see that happen with Norma because she has so much to offer and is just beginning what I expect to be a brilliant political career.
As far as the Diebold machines coming into our County (El Dorado), I'm sure I'll be posting questions as I work hard to learn what tools I need to speak with intelligence and confidence about these issues, to people who don't think there's a problem. I'll take any suggestions about where to start.
Thanks so much for this site. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3343
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
Welcome to Black Box Voting, Judy.
I totally agree with your warning about citizens not being over zealous in recalling all county supervisors. BBV agrees with you that there are many, many good election officials and we want to protect and support them in their efforts to clean up our election process.
We also applaud your efforts to help put an election official into office, who will work to adminster honest elections to the citizens of your county.
BBV and its members will be glad to answer any and all questions you may have regarding this issue and look forward to your participation in our forums.
Kathleen Wynne |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 90
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 9:57 pm: |
|
>>>BBV agrees with you that there are many, many good election officials and we want to protect and support them in their efforts to clean up our election process<<<
The litmus test for "good election officials" starts aqnd ends with whether or not they spoke up against electronic voting. If any of them actually asked for a reasonable discussion of the issues and possibly a genuine test or two, then they might pass the test. From where I stand, few if any did standup to be counted.
If there are such people of course they should not be recalled, and should be supported, even recruited. otherwise the only way to ensure the implementation of the tools I've proposed and those other tools that might be included, is to recall em all.
It's no accident that virtually all of the 3,141 Registrar/Board of Superivsors are in sympathtic lockstep with each other. The chances they would have all misplaced the basic critical thinking skills it took to get them elected are too great to attirbute to chance. Orchestration, yes, but not chance/mac |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 324
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 5:25 am: |
|
Whether intended for malfeasance or not almost any job of significance has orchestration in the effects felt from standards, professional or trade journals, etc. . We're humans. Sentient beings. We orchestrate things. In much of what we do, we do it unintentionally.
Your litmus test needs to be, once confronted with incontrovertable facts, do these people still proceed this way. One of the blind spots that we (as people that feel the deck has been stacked) are prone to, is thinking that everyone else sees the unfair manipulation of the cards.
If your viewpoint is foreign enough, it would seem that all humans are in lockstep. Realize your frame of reference is very different than theirs. Also, if this group of people didn't compare notes with people that have the same jobs, we'd think they were idiots.
Even papers that will cover the lack of security of the electronic voting machines are concentrating almost exclusively on Diebold. The word isn't out to most people, yet. A rhetorical question: "Where do you think these elections officials get their information from?"; the vendors, of course. |
Judy Williams
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Judyw
Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 8:56 am: |
|
It's also difficult to make people understand that this is any different from the election fraud that has plagued all countries through all time. Someone working with Norma Santiago's campaign who is extremely progressive and politically saavy, argues with me that this is no worse than it's ever been! Education about this problem is glacier slow (that's the glaciers of old <g>).
And if you recalled everybody, who do you think you'd get in to replace them? Rarely would they be people any better educated about the problems. I'd guess that, because of their naivete, they'd be just, if not more, susceptible to the money and influence of vendors.
For people in California, I suggest you check out Debra Bowen's website. She's a Democratic state senator from Marina del Rey, she's running for Secretary of State, and is totally immersed in this problem. She's worth watching and possibly supporting. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1590
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 9:54 am: |
|
And also support AZ State Senator Jack Harper (Rep.) who is doing his best to see that a proper investigation of the paper ballots is carried out in Maricopa County. |
Jim Eldon
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Vegsledman
Post Number: 3
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
I think Judy and Catherine have the correct approach. As Bev has stated elsewhere, the strategy of activist "swarming"* is what's required for successful political change. Some people working on disenfranchisement issues, others on ballot & voting systems integrity, and yet others on campaign finance, corporate lobbying and other issues. Working with sympathetic political candidates and officeholders can definitely help. I've already written to CA Secretary of State candidate Debra Bowen, thanking her for her open criticism of Diebold and ES&S, but suggesting she broaden her "campaign for open and fair elections" beyond DRE issues and address gerrymandered voting districts, etc. I don't know if I said the right thing to the right person at the right time, but the thought of gaining an ally in the Secretary of State made it worth writing.
I sympathize with Mac's desire to find a single solution applicable everywhere, but aside from the issue of who to replace the recalled Supervisors with, I think the organizational and funding challenges are too huge. And after all, what we really want, what we should have had all along, are adequate checks and balances. Simple recall and replacement does not address this need.
*"swarming" reference was taken out of context, but is still applicable. Bev referred to activists within the anti-DRE movement: some working on code, others on accessibility, etc.
Jim |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 91
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
>>>Your litmus test needs to be, once confronted with incontrovertable facts, do these people still proceed this way.<<<
OK, if this is the litmus test then still virtually all of the 3,141 Registars/Board of Supervisors would still fail the test. Most of these people still 'proceed this way'. There comes a point where you can no longer chalk it up to the usual human foibles.
Anyone of those 3,141 counties could have invited Harri Hursti or probably dozens of others to "break" the system anytime within the last three years. Not doing this has to call into question their fitness or willingness to perform their job. I come from design engineering background. There you test, test, test or suffer the litigational consequences. There you actually hire peope whose one and only job is to "break" your engineers latest "marvels". Suggesting that none of these people went the Hursti route before now because all three thosuand plus are used to following the leader seems a real stretch, wouldn't you say?/mac |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 92
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 2:02 pm: |
|
>>>Working with sympathetic political candidates and officeholders can definitely help.<<<
That is precisely the idea behind the replacement of the Board of Supervisors in each county. With their repalcement comes a new Registrar of Voters who will allow, facillitate and even fund the three basic Freedom Tools as well as implement paper ballots.
>>>I sympathize with Mac's desire to find a single solution applicable everywhere<<< I'm not suggesting this is the only solution, though it may be the only one we need. I'm saying it is doable now without permission of government. Most everything suggested so far requires us to ask "Mr. Fox. Will you please stop stealing all the chickens? Pleaasssee??" I'm saying we should get off our knees. We have the power through the recall. Taking this thing back is just about as easy as recalling the Board of Supervisors.
>>>but aside from the issue of who to replace the recalled Supervisors with, I think the organizational and funding challenges are too huge<<<
You handpick a person of known integrity who will in public, in front of hundreds of people swear on a bible that on entering office they will implement the three freedom tools. With that in place WE are then in the drivers seat.
As to the funding: a county of 2 million might have 1.2 million registered voters. In California you have to get 10% of that, or 120,000 "good" signatures. So figure a 50% margin; that's 180,000 signatures at $1 to $1.50 a signature if you exclusively use professional signture gatherers. Altogether that's roughly $250,000 for a county recall of one candidate, or $1,250,000 for all five. Let's say that 125 patriotic people of means were to each put up $10,000 each. Or 1,250 people were to put up $1,000 each. Or 12,500 people were to put up $100 each. If any or a combination of these were to occur the recall would be accomplished and "we, all of us" would be in the drivers seat.
Of course, that figure would plummet to near no cost at all, if ordinary citizens got the signatures themselves door to door, which happens now and then. There was a petition in Southern California last year that was done just that way. It concerned the removal of a cross from a municipally owned hillside./mac |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 332
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Mac, where do you get the idea that these people have been confronted with incontrovertable facts? Doing most of their business with the vendors, where would they hear them? The Hursti hack got it's first 'national' coverage (if you call a DC paper national coverage) just the other day, didn't it? How many people read the Washington Post?
This still needs to get out. It needs TV play, etc. . What are the chances of moveon.org getting involved in this? How about a national commercial? |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 93
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 2:34 pm: |
|
>>>One of the blind spots that we (as people that feel the deck has been stacked) are prone to, is thinking that everyone else sees the unfair manipulation of the cards.<<<
The people who are conducting all this do 'see' the 'unfair manipulation' of the cards. Indeed, they deal in 'unfair'. It is their stock and trade. "Muddy" is how they like it. "Muddy" is where they excel. If they can convince others that what can be clearly seen is only a "difference of opinion", then they have scored a big victory.
What should be 'clear'? If you have hundreds of computer scientists lining up to sign petitions, all asserting that these machines are prone to compromise, then you must assume "there might be a problem". Then you create and conduct a test to prove or disprove their assertions. This wasn't done because it would've made things 'clear', not 'muddy'. Instead they just reiterated "this is all just a difference of opinion", buying them time and scoring a big victory/mac
(Message edited by littlemac on January 27, 2006) |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1597
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Mac,
That's a good point about certain folks preferring things "muddy", avoiding facts or tests which would clarify, and framing actual problems as "differences of opinion."
It helps to perceive this for what it is--a deliberate strategy in many cases. |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 94
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Well Catherine, it's good to see we may have reached common ground here.
Let me sum up my perception of your post: In some cases there is a deliberate strategy afoot in which a person(s)disagree on things, then mark them up to "differences of opinion", and all for the surreptitious purpose of keeping the issue unclear, obscure, difficult to understand.
If we can agree on this we could formalize it with a "name" that can be used by all to recognize the phenomenon, without having to go back and re-explain it everytime it crops up. Doing things this way would go far to eliminate the problem, particularly as it applies to those in government who regularly use it. i.e. turn it around and use its power to undo the perpetrator/mac |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:52 pm: |
|
Your summing up needs to include that objective, substantiated facts are ignored and passed off as being a "difference of opinion."
Objective, proven facts or events are re-framed as subjective opinion, eliminating or reducing their impact.
It's a way of effectively "undoing" factual data that others wish didn't exist.
Reframe Facts as Just Opinions?
(Message edited by catherine_a on January 28, 2006) |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 95
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Let me sum up my perception of your post: In some cases there is a deliberate strategy afoot in which a person(s)disagree on things >>>that are clearly objective, proven facts or events re-framed as subjective opinion<<<.>>>thus reducing their impact<<<.
Is that better?
Also, it came to me that all this could be summed up by the acronym/phrase: Denial Of the Obvious, by asserting Difference Of Opinion. Maybe you could play with that a little to get it right (but don't get any on ya)/mac |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 6:02 pm: |
|
I'd re-order the sentence:
In some cases there is a deliberate strategy to reduce the impact of objective, proven facts by re-framing them as subjective opinions open for debate.
Disempower facts by presenting them as opinions. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 338
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 7:17 am: |
|
The (P)oint of (O)rigin Pole has a vulnerability in that you're sampling a small percentage of the voters, so that it can be said that your poll has unfairly (intentionally or accidently) sampled the populace to yeild its results. You would have to record everybody. Also, your volunteers or appointees for this function aren't any likelier to be non-partisan than election officials.
Your second proposal only offers the option of finding out if the recorded ballot has been recorded as you intended and offers no avenue for voter enterprise in its correction. If the voter were one of the lucky few that had done the POP poll and attempted to appeal the recording of his vote, chain of custody issues would be a major weakness. |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 96
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 2:42 pm: |
|
>>>The (P)oint of (O)rigin Pole has a vulnerability in that you're sampling a small percentage of the voters, so that it can be said that your poll has unfairly (intentionally or accidently) sampled the populace to yeild its results. You would have to record everybody.<<<
A large enough sample that seems relatively tiny as compared to the whole, can still be statistically valid. Exit polls for the entire nation are typically less than 20,000 samples. Recently a "parallel election" was conducted in a San Diego Mayoral race in which there were less than 300 samples. University of California statisticians later estimated that the odds of the kinds of differences discovered between the PE and the final count were 1,300 to 1.
Note that this PE was no where near as robust as a POP, in that a POP samples at the precise point at which the vote is made. The PE, as well as the registratrs count, do not.
>>>Also, your volunteers or appointees for this function aren't any likelier to be non-partisan than election officials.<<<
Except for one thing, the 'election officials' are not the only ones whose data has to agree with the final count. There is now with the POP the voter himself to contend with. Every one of the 'election officals' could attempt to alter the vote, if there alterations do not agree with the voters, their efforts are foiled.
>>> Your second proposal only offers the option of finding out if the recorded ballot has been recorded as you intended and offers no avenue for voter enterprise in its correction.<<<
Yes, that's true, and your system Brant does include that provision. I agree with your idea and think it a good one. However, the most important thing, from which all else will follow, is first and foremost the discovery of wrongdoing/mac |
Ron Crane
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ron_crane
Post Number: 103
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
> >>>The (P)oint of (O)rigin Pole has a vulnerability in that you're sampling a small percentage of the voters, so that it can be said that your poll has unfairly (intentionally or accidently) sampled the populace to yeild its results. You would have to record everybody.<<<
A large enough sample that seems relatively tiny as compared to the whole, can still be statistically valid. Exit polls for the entire nation are typically less than 20,000 samples. <
Those polls are statistically valid because they *randomly sample* the population, which ensures that the participants (within a small margin of error) represent the viewpoints of the whole population. Participants in the POP are self-selected, which means that we don't know whether they represent the viewpoints of the entire population.
> Recently a "parallel election" was conducted in a San Diego Mayoral race in which there were less than 300 samples. University of California statisticians later estimated that the odds of the kinds of differences discovered between the PE and the final count were 1,300 to 1. <
Citation please.
-R |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 97
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 10:52 pm: |
|
>>>Participants in the POP are self-selected, which means that we don't know whether they represent the viewpoints of the entire population. <<<
The participants in a POP are not self selected. They would be selected in an enforced (protocol) random fashion. Even if a person doesn't agree to participate there would be provision to ask another in, also, a random fashion.
As to the site concerning the parallel election I can't produce it. I know I read this a ffew months back on a website that dealt with the CAPE parallel election in San Diego/mac |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 339
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 5:08 am: |
|
While you have mathmeticians agreeing that your poll would be accurate, you have to get a judge to agree to it. Not at all the same thing. And the voters then need to be able to verify the results of the POP for their vote. You never covered how the POP workers were selected, so no one knew. There is no reason that a judge is going to give this legal leverage, except that he chooses to do so, you haven't said that it's provided with any legal standing.
Remember, mathematicians of significant standing stood behind the early exit poll numbers and said that the statistical chances for error were astronomically tiny, it made no difference. |
Ron Crane
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ron_crane
Post Number: 104
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
quote:>>>Participants in the POP are self-selected, which means that we don't know whether they represent the viewpoints of the entire population. <<<
The participants in a POP are not self selected. They would be selected in an enforced (protocol) random fashion. Even if a person doesn't agree to participate there would be provision to ask another in, also, a random fashion.
The end result is very likely to be that participants are effectively self-selected. Lots of people will participate in ordinary exit polls. Some will participate in parallel elections. Very few are likely to participate in the POP. If you want this to be taken seriously, you've got to show that it's statistically valid, not just say that it is.
quote:As to the site concerning the parallel election I can't produce it. I know I read this a ffew months back on a website that dealt with the CAPE parallel election in San Diego/mac
There you go.
-R |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 98
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 2:16 pm: |
|
>>>The end result is very likely to be that participants are effectively self-selected.<<<
No, they aren't self selected. Did you actually read the essay?
>>>Lots of people will participate in ordinary exit polls. Some will participate in parallel elections. Very few are likely to participate in the POP.<<<
I disagree. I think many will paricipate once they understand how their vote is definitely being stolen and how their participation in a POP will definitlly end that theft.
>>>If you want this to be taken seriously, you've got to show that it's statistically valid, not just say that it is<<<
I contend the methodology proposed is sound. I stand by it. Break it, if you can/mac |
mac Sperry
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 99
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
>>>While you have mathmeticians agreeing that your poll would be accurate, you have to get a judge to agree to it<<<
The reason the ROV's final tally is accepted over all else is that their methodology is considered the more robust and thus the least likely to be compromised. POP will change all that because it is by far the more robust system.
>>>And the voters then need to be able to verify the results of the POP for their vote<<
Reread the essay. Voter verification of their vote is covered.
>>>You never covered how the POP workers were selected, so no one knew<<<
Reread the essay. I termed the POP an 'ad hoc group of citizens'
>>>There is no reason that a judge is going to give this legal leverage, except that he chooses to do so<<<
I'm convicned there are still some judges of conscience and character on the bench. Eventually we'll get one.
>>>you haven't said that it's provided with any legal standing.<<<
Nothing has ever had legal standing, until it achieved it. I predict POP will eventually be accepted as a judicial "standard" due primarily to its clearly superior robust nature.
>>>Remember, mathematicians of significant standing stood behind the early exit poll numbers and said that the statistical chances for error were astronomically tiny, it made no difference.<<<
Remember also, most of the time there's a discernable difference between a mathematician and a whore; most of the time/mac |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 342
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 7:54 pm: |
|
'Ad hoc' does nothing to say how they were selected, only that the committee is 'for this purpose only', I know, I looked 'ad hoc' up, this does nothing to say specifically how these people are selected. The chain of custody for your records of the POP will be just as important as the chain of custody of the votes, if you want them as any form of legally useful proof, so where you get the people to do this poll from will be very important.
If you haven't done (or intend to do) anything to give the POP legal standing, you won't need one judge to agree with you, you'll need several, and conceivably, hundreds. |
mac Sperry
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 101
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 8:48 pm: |
|
'ad hoc', at least in the context I'm using it here refers to the idea that ordinary people decide to "volunteer" their services, very much like what we're doing here.
You know Brant, you seem very familiar with this type of thing; why don't you brainstorm on this a while and come up with a good system for selecting these people/mac |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 345
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 5:10 am: |
|
Mac, that's part of the problem, people who really want to do it may have a hidden agenda (how would you know?), and those that don't really want to do it aren't likely to do it very well. This is why you need to involve the enlightened self interest of the individual voters in their own, individual, behalf. Because each voter is the one person guaranteed to have that individual voter's interest at heart, which can't be assumed for anybody else who would represent them. |
mac Sperry
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 102
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 8:21 pm: |
|
>>>This is why you need to involve the enlightened self interest of the individual voters in their own, individual, behalf. Because each voter is the one person guaranteed to have that individual voter's interest at heart, which can't be assumed for anybody else who would represent them.<<<
Exactly. The key to a POP is that the voter verifies their own vote, plus they have a "verifier" in the booth with them that further corroborates their vote. There quite simply is no, I repeat 'no' Registrar of Voters currently in the US with a system that even remotely approaches the hardiness of POP. It is by an order of magnitude more robust than any other system presently in use. In any disputed contest, logic dictates that the results of POP MUST be considered the more reliable count/mac |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 352
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 9:56 am: |
|
First, logic doesn't cut it here, only the law and things with legal standing do. If there's wiggle room, be sure that somebody will be wiggling. You need legal standing, and as a volunteer effort without set protocols (especially about chain of custody), I don't think you'll get it, unless you get it written into law. And I don't think you'll get it written into law with volunteers and without robust protocols.
Also, what happens if your volunteers go back and replace ballots that they'll swear are legitimate and get a shill to ask for rechecking) and use the POP to challenge a legitimate election? If 'the POP must be considered the more reliable count' this is a very profitable attack vector.
You're still counting on unknown people (to the voters, at least) to look after the voters' best interest, and that's where the vulnerability lies. |
mac Sperry
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 103
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 3:27 pm: |
|
>>> Also, what happens if your volunteers go back and replace ballots that they'll swear are legitimate and get a shill to ask for rechecking) and use the POP to challenge a legitimate election?<<<
"All" ballots would be posted to the internet immdiately after the election. If any ballots are 'replaced' the voter himself would see it, recognizeit and raise a flag. The same holds true of 'chain of custody'. If the switch occurs at any point in that chain the voter will know it.
You keep mentioning 'legal standing'. Could you dwell on that a bit as your idea of it and mine may be different/mac |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 356
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 8:37 pm: |
|
You're going to have to have the legal standing of this thing spelled out in plain legal english (a contradiction in terms?) so that it can't be ignored. Also, your voter will know that the votes been switched, but he'll have nothing with which to prove it, he's screwed. He just knows that he's been screwed. |
mac Sperry
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 104
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, February 3, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
>>>Also, your voter will know that the votes been switched, but he'll have nothing with which to prove it,<<<
The voter will have their receipt |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 358
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 5:50 am: |
|
Which includes what? An ID number? What proves it's his when he walks back in with it? What avenue does he have to challenge the vote's misrecording? You have to spell all of this out Mac. |
mac Sperry
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 105
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 1:31 pm: |
|
>>>Which includes what? An ID number? What proves it's his when he walks back in with it? <<<
2 things; first, the pop will comprise only a small sample, possibly as few as three hundred for a large voting block (1,000,000 voters). If that voter hopes to skew the POP, then there are going to have to be others doing the same. Defrauding a POP could be consideed a crime and to accomplish the crime the perpetrator has to expose themselves to intense scrutny, and why? For one or a few votes? Not likely.
Further, there is no reason the thumbprints of those condcuting the POP couldn't be placed on the original and all copies, including the voters, thus authenticating the voter's copy.
>>> What avenue does he have to challenge the vote's misrecording?<<<
On the back of the voters copy will be info concerning the handling of anomalies in the verification process. i.e. a tel. number or physical address/mac |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 362
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 8:37 am: |
|
If your only recording 300 votes to mirror the results of a million voters, they only have to skew very few. You haven't given a feedback path to keep this honest.
As twitchy as people are here about thumbprints, even with a double-blind method I proposed elswhere (there's your moment in the sun, Chuck!), I don't think many would participate. |
Jim Eldon
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Vegsledman
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
I prefer the zen solution to this problem:
Change your mind.
After reading Lynn Landes' page on Open Voting (http://www.EcoTalk.org/OpenVoting.htm)
I think she's right to call for an end to the demand for ballot secrecy.
As she put it, the fundamental contradiction is that "Secret ballots and transparency in government are mutually exclusive concepts."
Jim |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 369
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 12:23 pm: |
|
I don't know that she's right, but I think that much of people's worrying about anonymity of the vote at all costs has left us with an unprotected, untraceable vote, prone to flipping and highjacking. |
|
|
