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) 5/06 - Another approach to trans... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Paul Pazniokas
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ppazniokas
Post Number: 1
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 11:30 am: | 
|
In January, 2006, I received US patent # 6,991,161 for "Vote Word". It's a process by which the voter can look up his/her vote to confirm that it was registered AND counted correctly. The concept lets us return to the day when we could look over the shoulders of the people counting the vote. It closes the loophole of paper-based voting by enabling you to confirm if your vote was actually counted and/or RE-counted.
I would very much appreciate some public discussion of this idea. Please visit my web site at www.voteword.org and let me/us know what you think. Thank you! |
Richard Kinsley
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rgking66
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
I am not an expert but this sounds too simple to believe. what is important is to trust the vote count. This is on my mind in a big way, and I will talk to everyone about this.
I got this one question: How do you prove to anyone that you voted the way you said you voted If your vote was flipped by the machine? Hope you have the answer! |
Paul Pazniokas
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ppazniokas
Post Number: 2
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Yes, it is pretty simple. It took me a couple of years to whittle it down from its early, more complicated, form. (Wasn't it Strunk and White who said, "Simplify, simplify, simplify"?)
As for proving your vote, it's important to note that the law prohibits this, due to the possibility of vote selling. However, if the machine flips your vote, you report it - along with everyone else whose vote was flipped. If 100 or 200 people report that their Vote Word is missing (or that their vote was flipped) AND if no voters challenge them (by saying, "Hey, that was my Vote Word") then you have a solid cause for litigation.
Let's take the Florida 2000 vote as an example. If everyone had been issued a Vote Word and hundreds of people went home and looked up their vote and saw that it was flipped, then they would have called up and said, "My vote word was APPLE (or PIZZA, etc.) and it wasn't recorded correctly". At this point you have two important things to go on: first of all, you have hundreds of people reporting a problem. This alerts election officials and the media that there really is a problem. Second, you have a built-in safe-guard against the fact that these voters might be lying: when they tell the officials that the vote associated with APPLE or PIZZA is wrong, then that also gets (anonymously) posted for other voters to challenge. So if someone tries to get a bunch of friends together to discredit the Vote Words (and, hence, the associated votes) the people who really were issued those Vote Words will be able to say, "Just a second - that was MY Vote Word and it was recorded correctly".
In other words, more transparency saves the day.
Back to your point about it's being simple. You said what a lot of my friends have said, "I'm no expert, but..." (or "I'm not technical, but..."). I strongly believe that we, as end-users, should be given a way to check up on the results - the ultimate results of any machine we use. In fact, we're used to it. No matter how technical our machines are, we're used to being able to judge it by whether it worked: Did the very sophisticated dollar-changer give you the correct change? Did your complicated hybrid car really get 50 mpg? Does your Hi-def TV screen really look better? And - in this case - was my vote really counted and recorded correctly?
I mean, why shouldn't we know that our session in the voting booth really worked? |
Richard Kinsley
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rgking66
Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:50 pm: |
|
Actually the exit polls along with Vote word, would be a good indication of any irregularities i.e.: Lots of complaints with exit poll out of whack. And throw in other circumstances such as ,all in poor areas, all of one party etc.. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 518
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:07 pm: |
|
There' no reason for the losing side not to monkey-wrench any election, and no proof that they're wrong, either. This won't work. It devolves to anybody who wants to lie about it simply needs to be orchestrated and live in the right precinct and it turns into he said/she said. |
Paul Pazniokas
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ppazniokas
Post Number: 3
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
I do go into that scenario on my web site and I would suggest that a Vote Word makes stealing an election next to impossible. Consider everything that has to happen for the losers to manipulate the results:
1) They need to gather a number of already-used (i.e., published) Vote Words
2) They need to claim that those Vote Words are theirs AND that their vote was not recorded correctly
3) The number of losers in on this scam must be greater than the margin of their loss
4) When the news hits (Headlines: "Vote in precinct 9 is suspect") none of the real owners of those used Vote Words will speak up
5) The election commission invites the world to examines the software (and invites the world to do the same: Open Source!) and finds, mistakenly, that there's a bug. The world agrees.
Okay - now if every single one of those things happens (yikes), then we SHOULD be able to go to the final, irrefutable, evidence: the paper back-up. And so, after the election commission asks all those schemers to swear that those Vote Words are theirs, they are then forced to look at the paper audit - only to find that it just doesn't support what the schemers say.
I think you have to agree that more than #4 (which, I think, is your objection) has to happen for this to devolve into a he said/she said.
One final point. I think it's critically important also to look at this issue from the other end of the telescope: A sizeable number of Americans now do not feel confident that their vote was accurately (or actually) counted. Think about what this very inexpensive add-on could do for our faith in the voting process. If you and all your friends and associates SAW that your vote was recorded and counted, what effect would this have on the public's confidence in the process?
I hope I've made a case for at least considering the possibility that some day we'll be amazed that we couldn't audit our own votes. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 520
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:05 pm: |
|
It would take insider help to blow this out, but there's no reason in either what you wrote or what you posit as a system on the web site that eliminates the possibility of inside help. If there's an insider to change the ballot, then there's no backup for the real voter. Your system is still flawed. I think that people need to not only be able to audit their own vote, I also think that they must be able to correct them, and I see your system as insufficient to meet either of those goals. |
Paul Pazniokas
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ppazniokas
Post Number: 4
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
One thing I've not explained well is the fact that a vote word is an add-on: in no way is it intended to eliminate a paper audit trail.
In addition, a vote word would - if printed on a paper ballot - provide something that those paper ballots alone don't: the ability to look your vote up and confirm it in the case of a RE-count.
So that should address one of your objections.
As for an insider changing your vote: well, you'd be the first to know, wouldn't you? I mean that's the big appeal of being able to look at your vote on the web (or in the newspaper, or posted on the firehouse door). If you changed my vote, I'd know it the second I looked it up. |
mac Sperry
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 120
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Actually, your system is materially no different that what I suggested quite a while back, and have been hawking ever since. It's what I call "publishing the vote" and uses a 'ballot number instead of a ballot "word". BTW , what is the significance of a "word" as opposed to a ballot number?
Further, I have openly admitted that openly publishing the vote has potential holes, all of which can be cleared up thru the use of my (also original) P.o.O.P., or Point of Origin Poll which outputs data I contend to be so irrefutable that it trumps any present Registars vote count. A Registrars count that disagrees with it would logically have to be thrown out by a court of integrity.
Also, I considered patenting my solutions/inventions as well, but decided against it for two reasons. One, a patent would put myself(and any other inventor), into a position of being pressured to "bury" the patent by "forces". And two; to prevent the use of the patents force from legally inhibiting the citizenry making good use of these powerful inventions/ideas.
I believe my thoughts and ideas may have been published earlier than yours and thus may predate your patent. Whether they do or not I hereby turn over to the pubic domain any and all claim I may have to them i.e. P.o.O.P., Vote Publishing, Vis-Vote and Verifier. For your own good and that of this country, I suggest you do the same/mac
(Message edited by littlemac on April 25, 2006) |
Paul Pazniokas
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ppazniokas
Post Number: 5
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Good stuff - thank you.
First, I feel that a native-language word is easier to remember than a number. If you asked someone to remember the word "stomach" as well as the number 3,729, I think she/he would be more likely to remember the word. IOW, this fulfills my requirement of extreme simplicity.
I'm not familiar with how your P.o.O.P. system works, but would I be correct in saying that there's nothing to prevent it from being implemented with either a number-based system OR a word-based system?
And, the best for last, patenting. You and I agree completely on the importance of keeping these ideas free and open. We did, however, take different routes to ensure that this happens. Here's what I want to do: I want to set up a non-profit company that will take over my web site, take over the building of a prototype and take over the marketing of the idea (yech). I've only begun thinking about this, but I'm hoping a college nearby might be interested in doing all this.
Needless to say, this probably isn't the best way to get my $15,000 investment back (I have a darn good, moderately-priced patent attorney). But, as I tell my teenage daughters, "Some day you'll walk into a voting both and say, 'Grandpa thought of this thing called a Vote Word'" and that's worth an awful lot more than $15,000. (Well, perhaps ego is better than greed...)
So why the patent? I guess a harsh explanation would be that running a small software company for 20 years has made me a control freak. But if I were to be a little easier on myself, I'd say it's also because I've served on dozens of committees, boards and councils. I value collegiality and the wisdom of the group - but I've learned how to move things forward when I'm given that responsibility. I want that responsibility.
BTW, y'all will be among the first to know if someone tries to "pressure" me into burying this idea. What fun it would be to listen to someone spin that idea! I won't bite. I've got those daughters I have to answer to. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 526
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
"If you changed my vote, I'd know it the second I looked it up." But if the paper now supports me, and I claim the same 'voteword' all the evidence supports me! This is also a 2 vote change, one less for your candidate and one more for mine. |
Paul Pazniokas
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ppazniokas
Post Number: 6
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
So you're saying that someone could go in and change a number of printed ballot back-ups - as in re-print them? Would all those people who see that their vote has been stolen remain silent?
In this nefarious scenario, even if someone could pull that off, don't you believe that the resulting hue and cry (from all the people who had their vote words stolen) would bring unwanted attention (i.e., an audit and investigation)? |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 529
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 5:00 am: |
|
Since the vote-words are published, they provide no provenance about ownership. Anybody can look them up on the screen as they check on the internet. If it's not on the screen and you have to provide it, then he has to look at the ballot. That's not a problem if he's an insider, then he reprints your vote. Did you watch Ohio in 2004? Blackwell pulled every kind of crap under the sun and got away with it. The paper evidence all backs the cheaters. What is a judge going to believe you say / he says or the documents? One of the problems in all of the methods that people have proposed lately are that depend solely on the officially-held, ballot-box ballot is that all the legal proof of the election's results are in the hands of a standing, generally politically motivated body subject to all the possible suasions to which all humans are subject.
There was plenty of hue and cry in Ohio and it didn't make a damn bit of difference. Look into Ohio. Legal recounters had poll books taken out of their hands on the orders of Blackwell. Vote to be picked at random were pre-sorted to be counted.
Until election management is made non-partisan, the dangers of an inside job are very real. And how do you really do that? Almost anybody that is interested in elections has an opinion as to who or what is going to be best for the people.... |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 130
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 5:38 am: |
|
Brant,
This is the best Brant line I've ever read:
"Until election management is made non-partisan, the dangers of an inside job are very real. And how do you really do that? Almost anybody that is interested in elections has an opinion as to who or what is going to be best for the people...."
Bingo! Well said, and succinctly sums up the problem. Solutions that pass legal muster are the tougher part. Yes, proposing something outside the restraints of what is legal can be fun and even informative, but doesn't do much other than get people excited about something that isn't going to happen.
Now if we can work toward a solution that fits the problem you brilliantly stated, and fits the legal framework, we'd have something.
But Brant, I have an Ohio question that you may or may not know the answer to. What were recounters doing with poll books? That's a serious question, Brant. Yes, I'm working from a Pennsylvania law frame of reference, but here a recount has zero to do with poll books. Recounts involve the voting device (whatever was used) only. The poll bools are never touched. In fact, they're never taken out of their containers. The only thing that is done with pollbooks happens AFTER any recount, when the registrars scan the barcodes next to signed signatures to register which voters actually voted, to update theor voter history.
Do you know what was being done with pollbooks in Ohio? I'm genuinely curious.
Kurt |
Paul Pazniokas
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ppazniokas
Post Number: 7
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 5:43 am: |
|
>>>
Until election management is made non-partisan, the dangers of an inside job are very real.
<<<
I think this goes to the heart of a good, balanced strategy: we need to put in place auditable indicators ("trip wires", if you will) coupled with local/federal laws. With a panoply of such safeguards, we absolutely minimize the chance of a stolen election _without_ damaging the sacred process of voting, as it's been long practiced in this country.
>>>
Almost anybody that is interested in elections has an opinion as to who or what is going to be best for the people....
<<<
How true. And because of this, don't you fear what the result would be if we froze reform by becoming too entrenched in what each of us perceives as total victory? My fear is that progress - rather than proceeding with small-but-solid steps toward reform - will founder and fail, much to the delight of the non-partisan contingent you mention, above. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 532
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 1:59 pm: |
|
First of all poll books would have everything to do with good recounts, are you letting phoneys vote? They were checking for legitimate signatures for people who were honestly eligible to vote, of course!
Mr. Bellman, whatever else you may be, you don't sound particularly thorough. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 145
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Brant,
That's not part of a recount, not in PA at least. A recount is a recount of the votes cast, PERIOD! The poll books are irrelevant and are NOT ALLOWED to be examined during any recount under PA law. Th eonly person who is allowed to examine a completed pollbook are registrars in the process of doing their jobs, and then a judge in case of a legal case.
So what if you find a bad signature? That's election fraud and is cause for criminal prosecution if the perp can be found. But the ballot has been removed from its identity so it counts anyway.
I am deadly serious Brant. In no PA recount ever held has a poll book ever been part of it. It is simply not part of the process here. Maybe it isn't supposed to be in Ohio either. Maybe that's what happened. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 146
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Brant,
Under Pennsylvania law, all challenges to the identity, eligibility, or legitimacy of any voter must be made at the time the voter signs in. The challenge must be raised and ruled upon at that time, by the precinct judge, or through the provisional or challenged elector process.
After the election has been held, all challenges to any voter's eligibility are deemed waived, and nonjusticiable. There simply is no cause for a poll book to ever be part of a Pennsylvania recount.
Kurt |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2270
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Kurt, I believe the rules about poll books are different in Ohio. From accounts written at the time I remember reading that voters had a right to see the the poll books, as long as they were observed by election staff (or something to that effect). The right was enshrined in state law, state constitution or a state regulation--can't remember which.
Maybe Kathleen Wynne could comment if she happens to see this thread.
What happened in Ohio (removing the poll books from the observers who were checking them as they were entitled to do) was illegal according to Ohio law.
What do you do when officials do something that's illegal? It seems like usually nothing happens to them. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 151
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Cath (or others),
How easy was the Ohio recount to get? Was it expensive? Were the affidavit requirements high? I'd venture to say it had to be easier than here. Here, a recount must be filed for in court for each precinct separately. Almost a half million in filing fees for 9000+ precincts (statewide). Five registered voters from each precinct posting a bond for each precinct.
The ONLY statewide recount allowed is that called by the Secretary when the unofficial margin is less than 1/2% statewide.
With a 2% margin, no statewide recount would be available at all. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 535
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 5:18 am: |
|
See, you have no meaningful recount procedure for any one who cheats an election with any moxy. |
Ron Crane
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ron_crane
Post Number: 147
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Because the "vote word" is not printed out in some hard-to-forge manner (http://www.voteword.org/Heres_how_it_works.html says, "no printers"), a crooked vendor can make the machine display anything it wants, then record something different. The voter has no way to prove that the machine cheated -- it's a "he said, she said" situation.
And if you fix that problem (say, by adding a cryptographic signature and printing it along with the "vote word") then the procedure raises the usual objections about vote coercion and vote selling.
Finally, the explanation at http://www.voteword.org/But_some_questions.html about vote selling is rather incorrect. In particular, the part about deterring vote selling by "allow[ing] people to check their Vote Word before they leave the polling place" is ineffective -- and it contradicts the core principle of the system, which is that voters remember or write down their vote words immediately after voting. Perhaps the original poster meant this to give voters an opportunity to search the database for another voter who voted as the buyer demands? If so, that's badly invasive of privacy, because it lets the second voter at the polling place learn exactly how the first voter voted, and the first and third voters to learn exactly how the second voter voted, ad nauseam.
-R
(Message edited by ron_crane on May 24, 2006) |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 583
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 5:13 am: |
|
Your first argument is, I believe, inarguably correct.
The second is much less so. You can see how somebody (several somebodies) voted, but you still won't know who they are, unless you're the second guy of only 2 people in the precinct at the time (unlikely) which maintains the anonymity of the vote. I don't buy the second argument. Of course if you were trying to monitor for how people voted and you could spot check (and record) at an interval of every other vote, you could track who voted how, but you'd need a near infinite supply of people to vote and spy for you. |
Paul Pazniokas
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ppazniokas
Post Number: 8
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
One thing that I feel you may not be doing is stepping through the "he said/she said" scenario. Think about the failures in our system that would have to occur for some cabal to pull off fraud when confronted with the voters who really did cast the votes. The legal system and the media would evaluate any such debate on its very public(!) merits: what percentage of the voters claim their vote was changed or missing? Would those challenges, if valid, overturn the election? How does the open-source software look - is it bug-free? Could someone, in fact, have hacked into it? Are all the other traditionally-controlled parameters, like total voter count, within the acceptable margins? Do other voting locations also have the bug that this cabal alleges exists?
We quickly get to a point where our judicial system can comfortably and accurately ascertain whether those who are claiming fraud are, in fact, legitimate. The phrase "reasonable doubt" comes to mind – though I understand that some people would gravitate toward the word "reasonable" while others would focus on "doubt". This is all for the better, of course.
When it was suggested that I put my idea "out into the world of debate", I cringed: no one wants to hear about the shortcomings of his/her intellectual baby. So, I take a deep breath and acknowledge again that my system isn't perfect. Instead, it is a simple, inexpensive way to get "n" percent of the way to our ultimate goal. Of course, I think that "n" equals 99. Clearly, reasonable people may differ with my take on that.
Speaking of (my) ego, one of the very helpful things that this debate has shown me is that I need to recognize that while this invention is very important, it happens to be a very small technological add-on. Instead of trying to make my web site (www.voteword.org) grandiose, I need to change it to reflect that fact.
This debate, also, has reminded me how important it is to keep our goal in mind: Are we looking for perfect software? Yes. Nothing less will suffice. Are we looking for auditable systems? Yes, nothing less will suffice. How about darn-near perfect hardware? Again, yes.
But one of the best programmers who ever worked for me used to have a sign over his desk that said:
1. Inexpensive
2. On time
3. Bug-free
...Choose two.
In humor, there is often great truth. What his sign always said to me was not that we really did have to choose only two, but we certainly had to remind ourselves of how these three ugly realities are inextricably related.
I think that many intelligent, caring people are unwilling to acknowledge the machinations of the above three bogey monsters. But I submit that we do so at our peril. Ignoring those three nasties in my business would have meant that we were ignoring the fact that our customers, in fact, needed us to deliver software to them! The relevant point here, of course, is that if we lack the will to take solid, doable, inexpensive steps toward our goal, then we will be forever locked in stasis.
Our ultimate goal, the proverbial big picture, is to restore faith in our voting process. I would ask you to think about how you’d feel if the majority of voters in your state looked up their Vote Word and found that their vote was recorded correctly. Okay, maybe a few dozen people here and there saying that their Vote Word was wrong – but not enough voters anywhere to overturn an election or even to cause the experts to believe that the reports were anything more than "probable voter error". How would the media treat that? How about the voting public? How about us? What would a high degree of satisfaction and faith in our system mean to us? How would it change the debate and our strategy?
Those are questions we could easily and inexpensively answer – along with dramatically reducing system bugs and malicious hacking. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 586
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 1:20 pm: |
|
If you can get one out of the three in software that doesn't have multi-team review, on a product that they want to get right, you're doing better than most.
If you get a lot of people (and does it take a lot of people to swing an election, now? No)to say that that vote that they accessed with their vote word isn't right and just as many say it is, if this is in conjunction with an inside job, the liars are just as likely to look right (perhaps more so) than the honest voters. You have no proof. The cheaters can look up vote words at random, get the vote changed by the insiders and you're screwed.
It's no longer acceptable to have a vulnerability to an insider hack. |
Ron Crane
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ron_crane
Post Number: 148
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 3:16 pm: |
|
quote:The second is much less so. You can see how somebody (several somebodies) voted, but you still won't know who they are, unless you're the second guy of only 2 people in the precinct at the time (unlikely) which maintains the anonymity of the vote.
Yes, the problem isn't as pervasive as I implied. But it is still important because the ability to examine the entire list of "vote words" at the polling place enables two voters to determine how a third voter voted. Depending upon the circumstances, it might be rather easy for one conspirator to vote immediately before the target voter and one to vote immediately afterward.
The system also leaks vote totals progressively during the election. Some states ban this kind of leakage on the theory that it might influence later voters' choices (e.g., causing the "vote for the winner" effect). |
Ron Crane
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ron_crane
Post Number: 149
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
quote:Our ultimate goal, the proverbial big picture, is to restore faith in our voting process.
My ultimate goal is to have every jurisdiction adopt a voting system that any citizen of ordinary intelligence and training can effectively supervise from beginning to end. And by "supervise", I don't mean simply to determine whether her own vote was recorded correctly, but to determine whether the entire election (at least within her jurisdiction) was conducted honestly and correctly.
quote:I would ask you to think about how you’d feel if the majority of voters in your state looked up their Vote Word and found that their vote was recorded correctly. Okay, maybe a few dozen people here and there saying that their Vote Word was wrong – but not enough voters anywhere to overturn an election or even to cause the experts to believe that the reports were anything more than "probable voter error".
I wouldn't feel very good at all, for many reasons. First, even putting aside the "he said, she said" issue, the novelty of checking the vote words would wear off with time -- and then the real cheating would begin. Second, this approach attempts to address only vote switching frauds. It does nothing to deter presentation frauds, cheating by manipulating machines' reliability (reliable machines in precincts favoring candidate A, unreliable ones in precincts favoring her opponent), and box stuffing. Third, this system leaks information about how voters voted. And fourth, this system assumes that it's desireable to use e-voting machines at all. But only a tiny sliver of the public has a hope of effectively supervising such systems. For that reason alone -- and putting aside all the security and privacy issues -- they should not be used.
-R
(Message edited by ron_crane on May 25, 2006) |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 589
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
Yes, the problem isn't as pervasive as I implied. "But it is still important because the ability to examine the entire list of "vote words" at the polling place enables two voters to determine how a third voter voted. Depending upon the circumstances, it might be rather easy for one conspirator to vote immediately before the target voter and one to vote immediately afterward."
This would be a near impossibility in any precinct that I've voted in. And how do you time how long it takes the other voter to finish? Also if vote words weren't recorded by time in or in assigned in alphabetical order, you have to have a snapshot at every vote to even see what/where the new vote word is. And even if you were right (which you're not), you would need to sandwich each vote you want to check on with 2 other voters.
And it only leaks information about how the voters in aggregate voted; we call that elections results.
Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is full of holes because of the he said / she said argument, I just don't think it's fair to use unworkable arguments against it. |
Ron Crane
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ron_crane
Post Number: 150
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
quote:This would be a near impossibility in any precinct that I've voted in.
It'd be easy during much of the day in most precincts in which I've voted.
quote:And how do you time how long it takes the other voter to finish?
This is unnecessary.
quote:Also if vote words weren't recorded by time in or in assigned in alphabetical order, you have to have a snapshot at every vote to even see what/where the new vote word is.
See below.
quote:And even if you were right (which you're not), you would need to sandwich each vote you want to check on with 2 other voters.
That is the scenario I described: two conspirators (neither of whom needs any special access) working to determine how one victim voted. Maybe you should read the message to which you're responding again.
I'd also note that the ability to take a snapshot of the election in progress permits you to infer, with varying degrees of reliability, how later voters voted -- particularly if you already know something about those voters. Say, for example, that 10 voters vote in a multi-candidate election after you take snapshot 1 and before your confederate takes snapshot 2. If you know that voter A is, say, a member of minor party X, you can search snapshot 2 - snapshot 1 for a vote for an X party candidate. If you find it, you probably know how A voted. Further, you now have more information about how the other 9 voters voted. If you know something about them, you may be able to determine, with reasonable assurance, how some or all of them voted.
To see how someone might exploit this, imagine that Sheriff Knuckleby has a deputy monitor arrivals at the polls, and has a friend vote (and snapshot the election) every half hour. At least when the polls are not too busy, he'd be able to get a good idea of who voted for him -- and who didn't.
Finally, allowing snapshots makes it easier for crooked elections officials, vendors, or members of the public to determine how much they need to cheat to flip an election.
quote:And it only leaks information about how the voters in aggregate voted; we call that elections results.
And many states prohibit the release of election results before the polls close to avoid, among other things, the "vote for the winner" effect. See, e.g., Cal. Elections Code s.15101(c) (bans releasing absentee ballot counts before close of polls); s.14400 et seq (canvass occurs only after polls close).
(Message edited by ron_crane on May 26, 2006) |
Adam Stiles
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ajs726
Post Number: 14
Registered: 05-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, May 27, 2006 - 6:49 am: |
|
As I understand this, what you're basically saying is that we should construct a database, with one record per elector; but where the keys are a secret known only to the elector who cast that vote.
Unfortunately, it doesn't solve anything. Sure, I can go home and check that my vote hasn't been altered. But I don't know anything about anyone else's vote not being altered unless they check it. For all I know, half those votes are associated with made-up words from people who didn't even show up to vote, and so have nothing to check.
Now let's pretend that we can do without the anonymisation altogether, and put people's actual names and addresses on the list. After all, there are strict laws against discrimination based on the way a person voted (it's a form of treason) so we'll just enforce them properly. But having a list of voters and who they voted for still isn't really solving anything. Nobody knows everybody's name and address, so what's to stop there being a few fake entries in the list? Either non-existent people at non-existent addresses, and you take a flying chance that nobody will call you up on them; or real people at real addresses who abstained from voting. Again, you're taking a chance that people who abstained from voting will not check their non-vote.
Now bring in your anonymisation procedure, and it gets orders of magintude worse. How do I know that "Zebra" and "Desk" are real people and not made-up results? The only one I know about for sure is "House".
{Also, how can I be sure that nobody except me knows that my word is "house"? In the UK at present, the Presiding Officer checks your ID and crosses your name off the big list, but their assistant - who is seated such that they can't see the list properly - gives you your ballot paper, and the P.O. in turn doesn't see which one they gave you. Security is assured by there being two separate people. It's hard to be sure that a machine which does the job of two people isn't also exchanging more information than necessary between those two "people".}
With a typical voter turnout of 25%, only a few abstentions need be misrecorded to overturn a close-run election. And abstentions are, by their nature, very hard to verify. |
|
|
