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) 12/06 - Reframing the argument: ... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Pat Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 413
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 7, 2006 - 4:28 pm: | 
|
The concept of holding elections to determine who will represent us in government is basically quite simple. We select candidates to campaign for office, allow the voters to choose between them, and then count those choices to see who the majority favors. Simple.
In practice, the process of conducting elections has become anything but 'simple'. A large number of competing vote counting systems have been devised and deployed, each requiring its own set of guidelines, rules, and regulations that govern how the system functions. Every voting system has both costs and benefits that must be carefully weighed against each other when determining which is 'best' overall for use in our elections.
Unfortunately, determining which system is the 'best' one overall, quickly becomes bogged down in a myriad of technical details over competing factors that all may influence the final decision on which system we should use. The confusion created by the debate over technical issues of lesser importance, often tends to distract from some of the more basic issues of greater importance.
Often lost in the plethora of details of how our votes are to be cast and counted, is the most fundamental question of who ultimately is in control over the vote count.
In a precinct based hand count system, both the people and the government have equal opportunity to jointly, and concurrently, participate in the count. This presents ample opportunity for either the people, or the government, to question the validity of the conduct of the count. In heavily partisan areas, independent non partisan observers are free to witness the count, and question the actions of those conducting it. Public precinct based hand counts are the only system that provide a means for 'the people' to have any control at all over the actual vote count.
Once we allow any mechanical or electrical device to be incorporated into the actual interpretation and tabulation of the voters intent, we have then ceded complete control of our vote count, and therefore our election itself, to the government.
quote:"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister, 1933 - 1945
The mechanism of the vote count clearly belongs in the hands of the people, but as the elected 'representatives' of the people, the government gets custody and control over any machines designed to cast or canvass our votes. It's a classic 'catch 22' situation.
If, as the case is now, our representatives in government claim that they have done their duty to assure that the machines are certified to perform correctly for us, then they can deny the people that they represent the opportunity to independently test and verify that they are telling us the truth. After all, as our elected representatives, they have tested and certified the system on our behalf, as our representatives!
One possible scenario that has not been discussed would be to take the machines out of the hands of the government, placing them instead into the custody of a non partisan, non governmental organization. Such an organization would be chartered to openly test, certify, and maintain the equipment between elections, and deploy them for elections. They would also be charged with the task of arranging for the open and independent testing of any particular voting system at the behest of any citizen, group, or governmental agency that wishes to test it, at any time, and for any reason.
Allowing 'shared custody' of the machines between the citizens and the government would put the people and the government on a level playing field when it comes to the level of trust we each place in the machines ability to perform accurately. It would also strip the government of their current ability to conduct testing at our expense, and then hide any unfavorable test results from us.
Would the government allow such a change in custody of, and shared access to, the machines for testing purposes? I seriously doubt it, but it might be fun to ask them what their objections would be to such an arrangement.
My guess would be that their reasoning against such an arrangement would parallel the reasons many people are against the use of machines in the first place. Chief among them would most certainly be trusting the people who are given access to the equipment to test it. Once they go on record stating that they lack trust in the people who access the machines in order to conduct our own security and accuracy testing, we have the perfect argument to turn around on them. Trust vs. verification.
The government does not operate on the basis of 'trust' in its citizens. They do not take a persons word on anything. They demand verification of facts. They will not register a citizen to vote unless that person can prove that they are indeed eligible to vote. They audit our tax returns based on what our employers claim to have paid us, not on what we claim to have been paid. 'I exist, therefore I'm entitled' won't get you government benefits without valid proof that you both exist and are entitled to the benefits that you seek.
Interestingly, from the very moment that our newly elected officials are sworn into office, we are asked to trust that they are telling us the truth. When they swear an oath of office, we are taking their word that they will act and vote in the manner that the majority has elected them to do. We have nothing but trust in their word that they will truly represent the will of the majority that elected them, and when they don't, our only legal recourse is to vote them out of office, and trust that the next person elected keeps their word.
Without an open and honest election system under the direct supervision and control of the citizens, the government is in a position do anything it wants to, and the citizens may be stuck with a government that they don't want.
The reason behind starting the National Hand Count Registry is to give citizens direct access to deciding their elections, and to answer the age old question of "Who's going to count the votes if not the government?" The answer from those of us who have signed up is simple, "we, the people, will".
If the government is too lazy to actually count the ballots with their own eyes as the citizens count them, then I say they are more than welcome to audit a small percentage of our ballots by machine afterwards. If the machine audit should come out differently than the hand count, it should be up to the government to prove beyond a doubt that the machine count was the correct one. Good luck to them proving it to us without showing us the original ballots. 
Pat A. Vesely ;-)
Paper ballots are the 'Currency of Democracy'. They've been helping to curb election fraud since 139 BCE!
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1097
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 7:34 am: |
|
You have to be careful of 'blue sky' analysis :
"One possible scenario that has not been discussed would be to take the machines out of the hands of the government, placing them instead into the custody of a non-partisan, non- governmental organization. Such an organization would be chartered to openly test, certify, and maintain the equipment between elections, and deploy them for elections. They would also be charged with the task of arranging for the open and independent testing of any particular voting system at the behest of any citizen, group, or governmental agency that wishes to test it, at any time, and for any reason."
How would it be non-governmental, how would it be known to be non-partisan (and, even if it started that way how would it remain so?) and how do you remain sure that they haven't been bought off? And as to the "charged with the task of arranging for the open and independent testing of any particular voting system at the behest of any citizen, group, or governmental agency that wishes to test it, at any time, and for any reason." Surely not at any time as you couldn't do this right in the middle of an election when they are needed for the election? |
Ami Silberman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jol
Post Number: 197
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 8:38 am: |
|
"Once we allow any mechanical or electrical device to be incorporated into the actual interpretation and tabulation of the voters intent, we have then ceded complete control of our vote count, and therefore our election itself, to the government."
The problem is that you have to have technology at some point in capturing voter intent. Even writing down the names of candidates on blank slips of paper involves the technology of the paper, the ballot box, and the writing utensil. And I think that no one would argue that we should be able to do better than that. (For example, by providing ballots with the candidates names already printed on them.) |
Pat Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 418
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Brant, You asked a number of good questions so I'll try to answer them all. Let me first preface my answers with the following statement.
I'm dead set against the use of any mechanical or electrical device to counts votes for a number of reasons. The most important reason being the total governmental custody and control of the counting mechanism. I made above suggestion to elicit critiques such as yours that would mimic the objections that the government would have to such a plan. The funny thing is, that when you apply the arguments that you immediately make to the government having control of the machines, you get answers that you don't want to hear.
quote:How would it be non-governmental, how would it be known to be non-partisan (and, even if it started that way how would it remain so?) and how do you remain sure that they haven't been bought off?
Government offices are held by partisans. Think Ken Blackwell. Do you think that it could be much worse giving the machines to a national citizens group, say something along the lines of the League of Women Voters?
A similar group could be founded and chartered as a 'non partisan, non profit' organization. If a local chapter were to attempt to keep people of a particular political party out, they would lose their affiliation with the national organization or the organization would be in jeopardy of losing their charter to operate.
As far as buying off every member of a non partisan organization across the country, good luck with that! Talk about a massive conspiracy theory.
quote:Surely not at any time as you couldn't do this right in the middle of an election when they are needed for the election?
Actually, let me qualify that statement. I really should have said "at any time, for almost any reason. (Just because I can, or want to, aren't good enough reasons!)
I most certainly do mean during the election! What better time to pull the equipment than when it's malfunctioning or acting in a peculiar manner?
If you're handing out paper ballots and you grab a stack and notice that someone has already filled in the space for one candidate, you set those aside and later investigate how they got filled in. You don't hand them out and make the voter erase the mark and start fresh.
With a voting machine, when the voter has a hard time getting their correct choice to register, or has their selection mysteriously dropped when they get to the review screen, the machines are often left in service. They shouldn't be. There should be an adequate number of backup machines built into the system to allow for failures or tampering. You can't skimp out on the number of units you need in the system at the expense of losing votes.
An adequate supply of paper ballots should always be on hand anyway, for provisional voters, and in case of machine or power failures.
From a machine security standpoint, the best time to catch a criminal is in the act. If a machine has been exploited, it might only be caught 'in the act' so to speak, during the election. A cleverly executed attack could easily remove any trace of itself when the election is closed out or the machine shut down. We should have the ability of any citizen or poll worker to declare a machine 'suspect' based on any demonstrable function that is other than normal. We should have the capability of a backups built into the system, if not, the system is inadequate. If you can't afford to have them, then your system is too expensive to use.
Pat A. Vesely ;-)
Paper ballots are the 'Currency of Democracy'. They've been helping to curb election fraud since 139 BCE!
|
Pat Vesely
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Pat_vesely
Post Number: 419
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 8, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Ami, surely you see the difference between 2000 year old plus paper ballot 'technology' and modern machines, don't you?
I believe that computers are an extremely appropriate technology in elections when used for ballot layout and printing. I wouldn't argue otherwise, but when it comes to interpreting the voters intent, they have no business.
Aside from the increased number of attack vectors and failure modes that a machine adds, the 'technology' of the paper becomes more important and costly.
You can purchase printers for your home computer that cost next to nothing. The 'hidden' cost comes each time you have to spend $30-$50 to buy ink. Optical Scan machines are similar in that the cost of the machine is lower than a DRE machine, but the ballots that you previously paid only pennies apiece for, now cost you around $1 or more for the extra precision required to make them machine readable. For all of the extra cost, you only manage to sacrifice transparency of the process and reduce the reliability of the system.
Can someone please point out where we're benefiting from using these machines? Somehow I'm not seeing it.
Pat A. Vesely ;-)
Paper ballots are the 'Currency of Democracy'. They've been helping to curb election fraud since 139 BCE!
|
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 5:39 am: |
|
Pat said: "As far as buying off every member of a non partisan organization across the country, good luck with that! Talk about a massive conspiracy theory." You don't have to buy out the whole organization, just buy out the pieces that you want. Or threaten them subtly. Just enough to win. Like this hasn't happened before?
And the qualification of your statement on when to look into a machine was necessary, if only to prevent inspecting machines from causing 'accidental' denial of service to voters, if nothing else. The reason 'because I feel like it' is invalid.
Any of the threats to objectivity that people have mentioned as carrots or sticks for vote forcing apply here. That partisans won't join or control the group is no more likely than that the 'bi-partisan' boards of elections won't be swayed, they were in Ohio. Just enough to win. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1104
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 5:51 am: |
|
BTW, I'm not 'mimicing the government', Pat, just showing holes where there are holes. |
Jt Gleason
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Entropyfails
Post Number: 80
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Ami posted: The problem is that you have to have technology at some point in capturing voter intent. Even writing down the names of candidates on blank slips of paper involves the technology of the paper, the ballot box, and the writing utensil. And I think that no one would argue that we should be able to do better than that. (For example, by providing ballots with the candidates names already printed on them.)
That was a hilarious stretch of what he obviously meant by electronic technology. =) I don't see any benefit of defining a simple term like "legible ballot" here in this discussion. Canada's system works just fine, we should try it. (though I believe it is even changing locally there as well, an ominous trend in my eyes) Computers should not be allowed to do tabulation as the parent points out very well. The solution is to pencil and paper the vote again.
I believe an additional reason for going back to hand counting is what I term "Democracy Penance." Perhaps the extra work will remind us of what we were taking for granted. Who can say? |
Ami Silberman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jol
Post Number: 214
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - 7:42 am: |
|
Why is it a hilarious stretch? There is research evidence that ballot position can have up to a several percent factor on vote totals (maximized on down-ballot races without party affiliations) -- if you use the technology of pre-printed ballots without using ballot rotation you have already interfered with voter intent, at least by influencing intent on races where the voter has only loose convictions when entering the polling place.
I'm all in favor of a non-electronic solution, but I think that we need to be aware that it still requires one to think about the technology involved. I don't think we need to define, in this discussion, what a "legible ballot is", but we do need to make sure that by the time legislation is introduced it addresses detailed requirements on what is to replace electronic voting, including, but not limited to: provisions for voting for the blind and those unable to physically mark a paper ballot, ballot layout, marking technology, counting procedures, public oversight etc. |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 1134
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 27, 2006 - 4:29 am: |
|
Perhaps the more appropriate word is methodology, instead of technology. |
ed hill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ed_hill
Post Number: 142
Registered: 03-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 11:08 am: |
|
In Mass. Paper ballots needing to be hand counted are handled by two people. One from either of the two major parties who must agree upon and sign off on the ballot.
I suggest we consider a variation on this system.
The method consists of two volunteers, one of each major party seated together on one side of a partition or curtain. They read the ballot to the voter who's seated opposite them, hidden by the partition. They read the ballot to the voter marking the voters sellections as they go. Finally, the volunteers sign off on the agreed upon resulting ballot.
Ballots so marked are kept seperate and their total is compared with an actual count of such voters in order to assure that no alerations are made to that cohort.
While there may be contention over the details, this method seems to me as offering fewer opportunities for mischief the I've seen elsewhere.
Regards
Ed |
ed hill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ed_hill
Post Number: 143
Registered: 03-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Ok... Maybe asking the voter to trust a couple of anonymouse nieghbors to honestly record and report a few votes is going too far.
Better to trust an anonymouse corporation to count a few thousands or even millions using mechanisms that prevent meaningful audit or recount.
Since much of the public is now somwhat computer literate I'm sure that most of us recognize the complete infallibility of these wonderful tools.
Clearly the latter option is an easier "sell"...
Best wishes for the new years.
ed
FYI, I am "severely disabled" by Multiple Sclerosis. Using even a touch screen is on some days questionable. As with many, my cogitive and conversational abilities will long outlive the usefullness of my extremities. |
ed hill
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ed_hill
Post Number: 144
Registered: 03-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
OOOOOPS!!!
Re; my post 142.
The descriptions above are meant as a practical means of eliminating the need for touchscreen or other computerized systems to accomodate those of us with special needs.
Regards
Ed |
|
|
