The purpose of the Holt audit is NOT to determine election outcome!

[Amaryllis]

A huge amount of the debate on the Holt audit centers around misunderstanding about its purpose. Below is a quote from Holt in response to criticism about his bill, posted at
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2243

In Holt's own words:

2) An audit is not the same as a recount. A recount seeks to determine the actual results of an election. By contrast, an audit ensures proper functioning of a voting system by spot-checking its tally against the voter-verified paper records. By testing randomly, an audit deters malfeasance because potential bad actors won’t know which 2% of precincts could be audited. If discrepancies are found, a larger audit follows, and potentially a recount.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF AUDITS FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. The purpose of the Holt audit is, in his own words, to "ensure proper functioning of a voting system by spot-checking its tally against the voter-verified paper records." NOTE: NOT TO DETERMINE THE WINNER OF THE ELECTION, or to verify the results of the election. This type of audit will not do this, but this was never its purpose. A different type of sampling is required to verify the outcome of the election.

Holt says this is the purpose of a recount: "A recount seeks to determine the actual results of an election."

That being said, there can, and must be, audits specifically designed to determine the outcome of the election, which may be more aptly called a statewide verification protocol. THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF the Holt audit, and this distinction must be made to avoid talking at cross purposes with each other. Obviously, we must not rely only on recounts to determine the actual results of an election (we all know how far we get with recounts in the current poltical climate); we must have an audit process that serves to determine the accuracy of the election results.

I am not arguing for or against the Holt audit but making the point that we must distinguish the type of audit, what its limitations are, and what its purpose is BEFORE we start arguing the merits of any particular protocol and its effectiveness if we are to make any headway in this discussion. An audit protocol cannot be evaluated without consideration of the purpose and what one is trying to determine.

We most likely need more than one type of audit protocol,at least for the present, since there is so much variation in political climate and conditions from state to state. Again, it all goes back to purpose, but also to what the political climate of the state will allow. The climate and conditions are so different from one state to another that what is feasible in one state at this time (such as OR, NH or MT) may not feasible in another. One thing we do know for sure: without paper, there is no way to determine if votes were counted accurately.

[garybeck]

1. is this semantics?

I don't care what they call it, really. Let's just look at what it IS... if they are checking the ballots by hand, that's what I care, and I am in favor. And what is the possible outcome? If they find a discrepancy, there will be a larger audit. that is good.

bottom line - the PURPOSE might not be to catch fraud, but that doesn't mean it won't.

I can see, that because the INTENT of the procedure is not explicitly to catch fraud, that the forumulas used in determining the 2% amount are not high enough. I also agree with this. The fix is, let's push for a higher number, like Rush encouraged us to do in his letter.

We are fairly organized now. We are in every state. We have connections to many representatives. Why don't we organize an effort to get the bill modified. I would say nothing less than 5% audit will allow me to sleep at night.

Better than standing in quicksand....

[sadjonny]

2. It's Total Deception - Allowing Electronics, Data, And Networks

You folks need to step back.  

What computer have you EVER used that didn't have a problem?
What Operating system have you EVER used that didn't have a
problem?
What electronic device have you EVER used that didn't burn up?
What network have you EVER used that didn't go down?

You can not see electricity.
You can not validate electronics. (Who knows what is in each
component? Who's to say something that looks like a capacitor
isn't really something else like a RX/TX transmitter.) The
only way to check is destructive reverse engineering. 

You can not validate data. 
A binary "0" can be flipped to a "1" . And
it's invisible. With a logic bomb, a time delay, or millions
of different techniques such as above (the fake capacitor) a
component that isn't what it really is, any one of which could
be remotely activated. 

You can not validate networks.
Just look at all the wire-tapping. All the man in middle
attacks. The Social Engineering. Between any two points
anything could happen, a man on top of a telephone pole could
proxy fake data. What are you going to do, watch every wire,
box, vault, switch for thousands of miles? Are you going to
destructively reverse engineer each wire, box, vault, or
switch?

Now lets get to the Auditing part.
When the FUCK have you ever seen a paper vote election results
compared to electronic votes 100% audited?  

YOU HAVE NOT AND YOU NEVER WILL!  5% 2% 20% bla bla bla.. you
better go drink several shots of whiskey.

Folks your right to vote is gone. PERIOD.

Anyone pushing electronics, digitized data, and networks is
your ENEMY.  

If you want to clean up the corruption in this administration.
 

YOU BETTER START BY VOTING ON PAPER!  
It's costs trillions less and more accurate. 
And if you buy into what any of these DOMESTIC ENEMYS say,
then you are either corrupt yourself or you are an idiot, and
soon to be a prision slave.

Good luck in 2006, I will be watching, I won't waste my time
voting electronically when my vote disappears into the ether.

So get ready for more war, more chaos, more war profeteering,
more murder, death, mayhem, and corruption, nothing is going
to fix this problem; NOTHING!

[garybeck]

4. welcome to DU,

but I can do without the "you folks need to" lecture.

we've been at this for a long time. we don't like the machines anymore than you do. but they are here. we need to everything we can - we try to get rid of them completely, and we also try to improve the security on the existing systems. all of the above.

before you start telling us what "you folks need to do" consider that there are many people here who have been working on this for years. we would love to get rid of the machines but it's not that easy as snapping your fingers and making it happen. in the meantime, any new rules that increase security on the existing systems are a good thing, at least that's the way some of feel.

[Land Shark]

9. yeah, garybeck's doing great work, but gary i think you might want

to read my comments on what holt really says, above.

With respect to DREs the holt paper records are NOT ballots

with respect to opscans the holt paper records ARE the ballots, but only because the ballot is already paper....

[sadjonny]

22. Construction vs. Destruction

note: I don't HATE anyone here. I HATE the FACT my RIGHT TO VOTE is GONE!
I am not a diplomat, or a fucking word-smith.
bold is quoted from several folks.


welcome to DU,
Posted by garybeck


but I can do without the "you folks need to" lecture.

we've been at this for a long time. we don't like the machines anymore than you do. but they are here. we need to everything we can - we try to get rid of them completely, and we also try to improve the security on the existing systems. all of the above.

before you start telling us what "you folks need to do" consider that there are many people here who have been working on this for years. we would love to get rid of the machines but it's not that easy as snapping your fingers and making it happen. in the meantime, any new rules that increase security on the existing systems are a good thing, at least that's the way some of feel.

Then do without the right to vote.

You say you been working on it for years. But all I have seen is more machines.
You yourself say, "we need to everything we can." Don't play "holier than tho" with me when--you yourself--say you need to try everything you can.
You need a new stratigy that goes directly at your local secretary of state.
Your legislation ain't going to work against physics.


BeFree (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr-14-06 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. Mostly...

...you are correct. Welcome to ER.

Question: Do you think the election in 2004 was stolen?

I know it was. While some have talked about working on these problems for years, I have been developing software and electronics for years. Folks like me have TOLD YOU there is a problem. Yet if you look at the responses and answers back, and the ACTION taken by local secretary of states *in each state* then you can only come to the conclusion that nobody wants their vote to actually be counted. Given the media hasn't helped, but just like diebold they are corporate, why would they go against themselves?


Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr-14-06 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. yeah, garybeck's doing great work, but gary i think you might want

to read my comments on what holt really says, above.

With respect to DREs the holt paper records are NOT ballots

with respect to opscans the holt paper records ARE the ballots, but only because the ballot is already paper....

Regarding the OPSCANS, If it's already paper why not just count it manually? Why waste more money on equipment that can not be VALIDATED and therefore has 100% failure.
Regarding the DRE's - Electronics signals can not be seen OR VALIDATED, they are 100% failure.

FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr-14-06 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. sadjohnny - you raise some GREAT points

I agree with pretty much everything, except:

So get ready for more war, more chaos, more war profeteering, more murder, death, mayhem, and corruption, nothing is going to fix this problem; NOTHING!


TO which I would say: Power concedes nothing unless it is contested. We are Contesting, whining, bitching, moaning & screaming.

Holts bill, as written does put paper in 50 states for Nov '06.

Which is a point I like. HOw about you? In General terms?

I don't like half measures. Just like I do not like being ignored.

You've already seen war, chaos, war profeteering, murder, death, mayhem, the destruction of the Geneva Convention *veteran's can relate to this*

You've already seen several elections stolen. The president was NOT ELECTED. You have seen where he's going and the lies they spew out.

Folks have already said elections were rigged, tampered, hacked, cracked, but do you say, "okay this election was bad, let's recall the candidates, and re-do the election?" No. You see half measures.

I hope, you can remove these voting networks, the data, the electronics, and the corruption before these fake politicians get us all nuked in WW3!

I say you, because I am done. I contacted our SOS *Both of them, it's Bruce now*, and they on both sides Democratic first, then Republican, ignore me. I am spreading the word through the last few remaining pieces of spectrum left.

I won't vote on those fucking machines again. You can not VALIDATE an invisible electronic signal, they won't count the actual paper, HELL THE SOS WON'T EVEN COMPARE (AS A SANITY CHECK) THE PAPER AGAINST THE MACHINE COUNT. Seems even like the FCC could have a word in edge wise, but no.

So I will not waste my time anymore. These corrupt folks laugh at me when I waste my time to vote. god knows they can't seem to lock down databases any more either, why should I even participate ever again? I have served my country, I am already a veteran.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!

So if you want MY vote to get progressives into office, you better get the Diebold Optical Scanners OUT OF MY LOCAL PRECINT!!

I have only a few options left I can do now.

And I suggest others press to do the same.

[FogerRox]

6. sadjohnny - you raise some GREAT points

I agree with pretty much everything, except:

So get ready for more war, more chaos, more war profeteering, more murder, death, mayhem, and corruption, nothing is going to fix this problem; NOTHING!

TO which I would say: Power concedes nothing unless it is contested. We are Contesting, whining, bitching, moaning & screaming.

Holts bill, as written does put paper in 50 states for Nov '06.

Which is a point I like. HOw about you? In General terms?

[BeFree]

8. Mostly...

...you are correct. Welcome to ER.

Question: Do you think the election in 2004 was stolen?

[Land Shark]

10. I appreciate the specific recitation of various threats

there are more than can be added

one of our problems is the difficulty in keeping all of this in mind at the same time.

thanks for posting, looking forward to hearing more because your ideas are interesting. (and then there's the emotion, which shows you care!)

[Amaryllis]

17. Not JUST semantics; people are arguing that it doesn't do this or

that, and my point is that different people have diffferent ideas of what an audit should look like, and that you have to go into a discussion knowing what the purpose of the particular protocol is to have a meaningful discussion about it. Otherwise, what I've been seeing a lot lately is people are saying this or that one is good or bad without taking into account that different methodologies have different purposes, and then they are arguing at cross purposes with each other.

[garybeck]

20. true but

i agree with much of the criticism of the bill, including as you say, the intent of the audit.

however I still think the bottom line is what it says in the bill, not how it got there. and as citizens, we are better off with the bill than without it.

having said that I would support any efforts to improve the bill before it comes to vote.

[Amaryllis]

21. I was not criticizing the intent of the audit. Many people are criticizing

the audit because the protocol doesn't verify the outcome of the election, without understanding that this protocol was never intended to verify the outcome of the election. If they wanna criticize it because it they think it should have a protocol that WILL verify the outcome, fine, but don't criticize this particular protocol because it doesn't, becasue it was never designed to do that. People have been criticizing an apple because it isn't an orange.If you want an orange, then say you need an orange instead of an apple, but don't criticize the apple for being an apple when that is what it was designed to be.

[FogerRox]

18. I dont think it is entirely semantics.

I think some folks have their own idea of what HR550 should be doing, and some others here @ DU may be agrueing about HR550 without trying to establish a base of understanding.

There are enviroments where a 2% audit is capable. And then if A VVPB law called for an additional --- one machine per jurisdiction, audit. That is a plus.

HR 550 does put paper in 50 states for Nov. '06.

If we win in Nov.'06. we will have the luxury of lobbying for a better mouse trap.

If not, we will truly effed as sad johnny has stated.

[Einsteinia]

3. Excellent! And. . . .

We cannot open the audit process to government contracts, despite the bone they've thrown us that we can also bid.

And we cannot consolidate power under the EAC, despite the fact that PRESENTLY it is not a commission with power.

[kster]

5. We need two

counts on election day, They get to use their machines, we get to count the ballots by hand. Prior to the election we should be able to put together counting teams and count the ballots if we so choose. Their is absolutely no reason why concerned citizens shouldn't be able to do that.

[BeFree]

7. If

...we get paper ballots, then a citizen organized count is the only way the citizens will have confidence restored to some degree.

If only we could get DU behind a citizen's count............

[Land Shark]

11. Thus, if the Sponsor admits the audit is irrelevant to outcome

THEN WHAT THAT MEANS IS:

(1) the count will not be on paper, it will be on DREs (conceded by the Holt bill all along)
(2) the "recount" will not be on paper, it will be on DREs (state law hasn't been changed to recount via Holt VVPRs)
(3) if state law is changed later on to recount via Holt VVPRs or to make the paper the BALLOT OF RECORD and not just the "paper record", it may be preempted by federal law as to federal elections, because state law can not contradict or alter a federal law on point
(4) the audit is only as strong as its statistical methods and its scope, is doubly defective because it can by its own admission as to scope, never say anything against the election result over all.

It creates paper, makes it a joke.

It creates audits, makes them a joke too. Election officials will learn to hate "useless, wasteful, irrelevant" audits of their machines, or if not they will make sure each DRE serves 5-10 precincts (as they often do anyway) so that the 1-2 precincts audited per county will not audit a single DRE, in its entirety.

[FogerRox]

12. please

recommend the ERD NOW . . here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=nominate&forum=203&thread=422803

[Land Shark]

13. it was done, right around the same time you posted this

[FogerRox]

14. OK-- your DSL is better than mine- now get your mother in law to recommend

the ERD.

DO IT

[robinlynne]

15. recount on DrREs?

We passed a bill here in California, which says recounts are done from the paper. Debra Bowen wrote it. I don't remember the exact language but it said clearly that paper served no purpose unless it was used for the recounts, and mentioned how obvious that is. It would make no sense to use DREs for a recount. It was very simple.

[Amaryllis]

16. Say what?

(1) the count will not be on paper, it will be on DREs (conceded by the Holt bill all along)
(2) the "recount" will not be on paper, it will be on DREs (state law hasn't been changed to recount via Holt VVPRs)

I totally dont get what you are saying here.

The audit does a handcount of the paper. And the paper is the ballot of record, and the paper takes precedence over the machine, even with DREs, in the case of a dispute.

[FogerRox]

19. I see it as.

Verification.

Audits look to the accuracy of the voting equipment.

If Audits show that a machine tally does not match the Paper --- Then count all the paper in the effected race. By counting the paper in the effected race, you are then trying to determine the Winner of the Race.

By the way, if Audits show a probelm, I am not for a larger audit, I am for counting the friggin paper, all of it.