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 - Toward The Future |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
mac Sperry
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Littlemac
Post Number: 126
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 10:10 pm: | 
|
What are the "simple truths" you have found here or elsewhere that will move us forward toward a secure vote, toward the future. No complexity here, just the simple truth/mac |
Pat Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 296
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, May 1, 2006 - 10:43 pm: |
|
My five "simple truths".
Simple truth #1 is that paper ballots have been around for over two millennia because people inherently only trust what they can see with their own two eyes and touch with their own two hands.
Simple truth #2 is that not all people are honest, and those who are dishonest will take advantage of those who are honest.
Simple truth #3 is that every voting system ever devised has been corrupted in some fashion by people who are dishonest.
Simple truth #4 is that the more complex a system becomes, the more likely it is to fail.
Simple truth #5 is, "It's not he who casts the votes that matter, but he who counts the votes".
Pat A. Vesely ;-) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 132
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 8:46 am: |
|
Pat,
I agree with #1 through #4, with a special emphatic "ATTABOY!" to #3, with the proviso that every change in system TEMPORARILY renders things more secure, until the cheaters figure out the new system. #4 is just freakin' brilliant!
I must partially disagree with #5. It is true on the margins only. In other words, when a ballot has "failures" it is subject to the interpretation of the counters. I disagree that it applies in general.
Simple truth #6 is (And I am ducking as I type this. Many will want to throw things at me.) The least "secure" voting method ever devised is paper ballots hand counted.
And I have lived this. This is absloutely true, IF you allow me to define "secure" thusly:
Secure - 1. free from the ability to have the vote altered after it has been cast
2. certain to be counted as the voter intended it to be counted
Anyone who has ever actually participated in counting paper ballots by hand, as I have, knows that it is FAR MORE ART than science. The "intent of the voter" standard is subjective, leads to frequent disagreements, and is arguably illegal post-Bush v. Gore. The application of objective standards for what constitutes a vote, as HAVA required, creates NUMEROUS situations where a vote must be counted other than the voter intended EVEN WHERE all present agree what it is the voter intended. I have seen this dozens, if not hundreds, of times.
V. Kurt Bellman |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2259
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 9:02 am: |
|
Hi Kurt, good thing you ducked! Wise man! 
I agree with all 5 of Pat's points. #5 is a power I would never want to give away--not to a company, not to a piece of technology.
I don't agree with your #6, Kurt, because there are too many existing places that prove hand-counting can be done reliably and securely. Your point about seeing ballots where votes are counted other than the voter intended "dozens if not hundreds, of times" proves the point. When I think of the number of contested ballots you must have examined during your career, that is a very small number indeed. Contrast that with the demonstrated ability of voting machines to screw up tens of thousands of votes at a time, in some cases losing the votes irretrievably.
As for ensuring security and accuracy in hand-counting, some places screw up hand-counting and other places do it exquisitely well. I'd want to find out all the factors that go into doing it well, and create legislation, regulations and enforcement accordingly. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 134
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 9:54 am: |
|
Catherine,
..or "To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer."
Please keep in mind though that most, but not all, screwups involving DRE's have been caught by internal procedures, not by outsiders. I believe that Franklin County, OH, 2004 falls into that category as well. The "extra" 3000+ votes for Bush was discovered by county personnel and corrected. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Election administrators have a line for election night screw-ups: "What part of 'unofficial' don't they understand?" We are today exactly two weeks from Pennsylvania's Chicago-like implosion.
That power (to count) has already been given away, not taken by anyone. It has been given away by rampant complacency, lack of participation, lack of sense of community, laziness, and "not me"-ism. Given a choice between being involved in hand counting ballots, and learning all the arcane rules that go with it (e.g. How do you count a ballot marked both with a straight party and individual candidates of both parties?), and letting some private secret software do the counting for them, where I live about 90-95% will opt for the secret software.
IN THE RANK AND FILE, NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS ISSUE, WHERE I LIVE! It is a tiny tiny minority who have ever given electronic voting a critical thought, and they tend to be quite extreme people ideologically, who are frequently dismissed as loonies by the population at large.
I'm sorry if that stings, but it is the truth! Where I live almost nobody alive has ever voted on a piece of paper. They don't expect to, or frankly want to. They love the DRE's. I know that blows the mind of the present audience, but it's true!
Is that enough reason to not seek reform? Of course not. But first the public needs to not just be INFORMED, which they are not, but CONVINCED that what they have long believed may not be true.
Now Catherine, you're a woman of the world, but you have not lived until you have tried to get someone of Pennsylvania German stock to change his mind about something. Mules are more adaptable.
Kurt |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2263
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
I never expected things to change overnight. I see this as part of a long process. You're right that it's our own fault by giving away our rights by not paying attention and by not getting involved.
It may well be that nothing will change till something happens that allows more people to see firsthand the vulnerabilities of the technology. the more these machines are happen, the more visibly they fail.
As for errors being caught in-house--in some cases, yes--but where this occurred they were usually kept under wraps until outsiders forced the issue. Election officials and staff have a vested interest in presenting a smooth facade that all is well. As a result, they are part of the reason it is difficult to inform the public. Fortunately there are exceptions. We need more who are willing to speak out.
We need to create a safe way in which election officials can say, "Well, actually, it would have been possible for an unauthorized person to have access to a memory card without my knowing about it;" or, "Actually the machines weren't kept under lock and key all of the time, and even when they were we didn't keep track of who had access;" or, "We sent voting machines home with people, but we thought they were secure".
Or, "We let our vendor's technician upgrade the software because we thought that was the right thing to do and we trust them, and we didn't think we needed to check the software version ourselves." Or, "We assumed that the ITA's approval meant that a voting machine was secure so I didn't take any particular precautions. How was I to know, since this information is only coming out now?!"
Until there's a safe way for election officials to discuss these things in the open, it'll be hard to educate the general public of the very real risks to democracy that these machines represent.
Last year Bev proposed an amnesty period to make it easier for election officials to make these kinds of observations, or to report actual malfeasance if they were aware of any. What do you think? If it's a lousy idea, what would be a better strategy?
Cover Your Ass behavior by election officials and vendors and ITAs is one of the barriers to educating the public. |
John Washburn
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Johnwashburn
Post Number: 88
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
RE: That power (to count) has already been given away, not taken by anyone.
That is itself a simple truth (#7).
Election in the American Repuclic were designed to be a participation sport not the spectator sport election have become.
(Just gimme some results any result, Just gimme them NOW!) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 136
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Catherine,
That amnesty has its place depending on how E.D.'s are hired. Elected ones may be able to take advantage of it. (e.g. Florida)
E.D.'s hired by elected people may need more protection. I knew that if I told the truth fully and completely about all things, my elected bosses would fire my keester in a heartbeat. Appointed E.D.'s are the most scared little rabbits you'll ever see, by and large.
The prime directive is and was, "Make the County Commissioners look good." Anything that fails that test gets E.D.'s fired, and frequently politically blackballed as well. I have a solution though. We need a law that makes E.D.'s not removable without due process and just cause.
On the other hand, we need to only hire E.D.'s who have a bloody clue what they're doing and we're a country mile from that place, too. Perhaps we need a certification regime for E.D.'s and ROV's.
As for the facade of "everything's fine, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" you are unfortunately correct. I never played that game. In every election that had a tech screw-up, I was on the news that night or the next morning explaining in MEGO detail exactly what it was and how we were addressing it. My Commissioners were horrified. I was told by my County Administrator that the truth is no defense. The truth is what the majority of the Commissioners say it is. The first election I was NOT there, last May, they lost several hundred votes and they all lied their backsides off.
MEGO = my eyes glaze over |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2264
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Sounds like whistleblower legislation would be in order.
And maybe some form of accountability, in addition to a certification procedure. If people knew they'd have to take a hit if something went wrong in an area over which they had direct responsibility, you can be sure that procedures would tighten up a lot.
Then there's also that little matter of funding. It's not right to put accountability on any person or department and then not provide sufficient funds to do the job. Any suggestions?
What's a keester? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 139
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
A keester is what the Brits call a "bum". |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 140
Registered: 04-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Alabama has an intriguing system for local election admin. The county head of elections is the County Probate Judge. I don't yet know if that follows through in substance, but it sounds less political and more trustworthy. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2265
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, May 2, 2006 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Oh--bumm as in backside or bottom or tush or arse. I'm a little slow on the slang sometimes. (I thought a keester was some particular person on your staff! Maybe someone in charge of keys.) |
|
|
