Why doesn't Bo Lipari get a job selling Optical Scan?

[Wilms]

Bo Lipari http://www.nyvv.org has built his little cottage business, er, advocacy on favoring electronic voting using Optical Scan.

Here's yet another bit of his writing where he advocates the use of Optical Scan over the levers currently used in NY.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bo_lipar_080120_breakthrough_at_the_.htm

Oh, sure. He says he's anti-DRE. But there's little difference between being anti-DRE and being pro electronic-voting (OpScan) when levers or hand-counts are the system in place.

NYVV can tell me I'm wrong. I'd like to here an explanation for his glee that the DoJ is hassling NY over it's levers.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. WTF are you talking about? New York...

has been trying to get rid of the lever machines for years because the maintenance costs are astronomical and parts are nonexistent. Now, we have to.

Other than that, they're great-- easy to use and error/fraud free.

So, what to replace them with? Because of the requirements for handicapped voting, DREs are slipping in as the easiest systems for compliance, but that means some, maybe all, counties will go all DRE to avoid having to buy two systems.

Optical scan machines would be best, but, yeah, there's a lot of bullshit going on,and there's that handicapped problem... And NY's counties have only about two weeks to make their decisions. It's still ultimately a county choice so far.

[Wilms]

2. "...they're great-- easy to use and error/fraud free."

We agree!

OK, there can be errors in programming a given machine but that wouldn't be a system wide problem like it can be with a programming error on an e-voting machine.

It's not at all clear the costs of maintaining is high. Nor am I sure the parts can't be fashioned if they're not available.

I'll bet they're expensive to ship around. But they require no heat for storage, unlike e-voting equipment.

And just WHO is trying to get rid of the levers other than Bo and e-voting vendors? Don't tell me the BoE.

Why not use the ballot markers for those needing an accessible machine, hand count those ballots, and let all else use the levers? Oh wait! That's what NY is already doing!

So why does Bo advocate e-vote counting????

[TreasonousBastard]

3. To our county BoE it is very clear that...

the maintnenance cost is high, and parts are rare or unavailable. Of course those thousands of gears could be copied by any decent machine shop, but at great cost. And then there would have to be testing set up to make sure the gears and gadgets worked exactly as the originals did. Our machines are over 40 years old, and manufacturers are either out of business or not carrying a parts inventory. Not that they are all at the end of their lives, though, and many machines are still working just fine. But, the counties aren't happy about spending tons of maney to fix a problem that isn't exactly urgent, while they do see problems down the road when it will be urgent.

Most lever machines are handicapped accessible, albeit clumsily by having a huge crank to lower the machine. I haven't seen one lowered yet, though, as people in wheelchairs can request assistance reaching the high levers.

But, all else is irrelevant, as we are under a court order to replace the machines, and I hope it's with good scanners. Bo seems to hope so, too, although it's not always easy to tell from his writing.

Optical scanners are not DREs, although each could be considered E-voting. As I have said before, optical scanning is mature technology, going at least as far back as those IBM puchcards, and as error-free as it gets-- if the scanner is designed properly.

[Wilms]

4. So what scanner, if any, do you have in mind?

You make a suggestion, and I'll provide links detailing the problems with the model you suggest?

Not trying to be a pain, but the DoJ IS. And the NYS BoE has done a great job bobbing and weaving.

I hope that continues.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. I don't have any in mind because...

I have no input into which one they're gonna order. 'Tain't my job, and no one's listening anyway.

I'm a'feared they's gonna stick us with DREs, but I'll find out some more in a few days.

[Wilms]

6. DRE's are not off the table.

So, I hear you.

I do wonder, are hand-counts a possible part of the mix for the state? There are lots of small towns Upstate NY that could easily hand-count and use a few bucks doing it.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. I wouldn't be surprised if a few places...

still hand counted, but can't be very many, if any at all.

Our two Long Island counties are adamantly against handcounts. Pollworkers don't even count absentee ballots by hand in a heavy year and send them off to the county office for counting the next day. They want us to do the count as quickly as possible so we can report it in by 10PM.

Thje EDs I usually work have about a thousand or so voters registered, and 60-70% turnouts are not unusual. It's not simply counting 600 or so ballots, but as many as 10 offices and 5 or 6 party lines on each ballot. No way the county wants us up all night dealing with the miscounts, and no way do we wnat to be up all night dealing with it either.

Everyone wants a clean system to automatically count the votes, with a way to get an honest recount if needed-- just like the lever machines do. It's up in the air whether or not we'll get it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

12. levers verses HCPB verses optical scan

I tried to do a study of the 3 hand counted paper ballot counties in North Carolina.
Using their Net annual expenditures divided by the number of registered voters, HCPB came out
to cost more than DREs or optical scan, so I didn't go further with the study.

Frankly, I didn't want to make HCPB look bad. Our OS were about $3.5 per reg voter, and DRE about $5.50 per registered voter per year.

I have been told that NY's net annual expenditures average out to about $9.00 per registered voter.

That is high compared to NC costs, although I am sure ours have increased since buying new equipment.

That is low compared to costs in Florida counties, with Miami Dade spending about $20.00 per registered voter and Broward spending about $10.

[Wilms]

13. Links please.

Seriously. Do you have any resources?

BTW, there probably aren't much in the way of heating costs in the south.

[Wilms]

15. Here's a "higher cost" story.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=496028&mesg_id=496047

[kster]

44. Smoke em while you got em, the vote count scam is over

so how is Hand Counted Paper Ballots more expensive than the million dollar electronic vote/counting machines,

Please explain it to us ONE MORE TIME. :)

[Bill Bored]

8. Well, at least he's not pushing LHS and Diebold and calling it "the Accuvote"

like they did in this film:

http://www.nyvv.org/bsevny.shtml

[Wilms]

9. I've found out that's an edited version not including it.

But I admit I was impressed with the work that they did and Bo's presentation skills.

[Bill Bored]

10. He's a tireless advocate against DREs. That's not a bad thing.

But he still needs to come up with a solution for counting votes. Give him time. We are all on learning curve. The problem is that once someone invests a lot of time in pushing a particular solution, it's hard to make the necessary adjustments.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. Why?

Wilms, this post just doesn't seem like you.

The fight in NY was always going to be about keeping DREs out.

That isn't Bo's fault.

[Wilms]

14. As I've said before...

Bo helps me realize there's a fine line between being anti-DRE and being pro-OpScan.

There are others in NY who have advocated continuing to dig in heels and hang onto levers.

[Land Shark]

16. Opscans use electronic ballots too (they image the paper and count THAT IMAGE)

so the voter never sees their final ballot with opscans either, just like DREs

[bernesebernese]

17. We owe Bo Lipari, NYVV and activists across the state a big debt of gratitude

Everyone needs to deal with their own situation in their own context. Opscans are not more vulnerable than DREs, if that is your point.

NY law mandates the use of DREs or optical scanners. It was a 3-year battle just to get optical scanners into our law, because as written originally it required DREs. Now our county commissioners must choose new equipment from a list provided by our State Board.

NYVV has worked for 5 years to prevent DREs from being mandated by our state legislature and selected our individual counties, and we appear to be on the road to optical scanners but we will not convert to paper ballots until 2009, after the November 2008 election. There is plenty time for DRE forces to make a comeback.

Suddenly there is an outcry including anonymous personal insults on Democratic Underground targeted against Bo Lipari, our state leader, criticizing New Yorkers for Verified Voting and the future use of voter-marked paper ballots and scanners in New York.

I do not see personal attacks on Judge Sharpe, or Mr. Heffernan the attorney for the US Dept of Justice, both of whom raked NY over the coals in their effort to force us to replace our lever machines with electronic equipment. Andi Novick's brief put the idea of handcounted paper ballots before the court, and the judge ignored it except that he did sneer at the amicus briefs.

I do not see personal attacks criticizing federal legislators who passed HAVA in 2002, and who refuse to rescind or amend it, or the many federal legislators who have submitted legislation that would make it worse.

I do not see personal attacks on the public officials across this country who defend the use of paperless DREs, or Doug Lewis of The Election Center who opposes audits.

I do not see insults for the reporters who consistently misrepresents HAVA requirements, or individuals like Jim Dickson who have also misrepresented not only the law but the functionality of the equipment being sold to comply with HAVA.

I do not see insults for state legislators, governors, and election officials in states with DREs and no voter-marked paper ballots at all.

If optical scanners are the devil, would people please attend to your own devils.

If anyone succeeds in converting their own state to handcounted paper ballots, they can come to New York and tell us how they did it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. oh, they've been insulted too...

Just about everyone gets insulted sooner or later. Sorry to be droll, although I'm also telling the truth.

That said, I thought Wilms was kind of harsh -- but frankly I haven't paid close enough attention to exactly what Bo has said to know exactly what I think about this. I do like your concluding sentence.

[Wilms]

19. Largely what OTOH said.

That, and chill out. It ain't personal. If it was I'd say I didn't like his eyeglasses or somethin'.

And no, I didn't argue that OpScan is more vulnerable. It's merely just as hackable as DREs. Though some reports will say it's in fact the other way around.

Spare me the "paper can be recounted" argument. We know they can...and aren't.

And yes, I'm sorry Bo wasn't more about defending levers like the the state BOE, in effect, has been doing, or pushing as hard for a real audit to go along with those wholesale hackable "Accuvotes" he promotes.

Oh. And one more thing. Welcome to DU. :D

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. the OP makes a personal attack on Bo

The title says it all. But while you are busy attacking Bo, he is busy fighting
of DREs.

Liberty filed a TRO to try to force their machines on NY.

If you want to just deal with facts, thats one thing, but Bo is trying to solve a problem,
not perpetuate a problem.

There ARE some who justly deserve to be labled as using this issue, in that the fires are stoked
but no solutions allowed.

[Wilms]

21. Obviously, I disagree.

And I explained why.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

22. DU - the Anti Activists and The Election Reform Forum

Those who make a cottage industry out of hurting activists and helping the touch screen vendors have
converted DU from Democratic Underground to Depleted Uranium.





This forum has become a place where the same people continually try to promote the money changers
and simultaneously attack the sincere advocates.

Would make for a good COINTEL PRO Cottage Industry.

[Wilms]

23. What? It's OK as long as it's an activist who YOU think is headed in a wrong direction?

I won't name them. You and I have seen many of those in the same light.

We differ here. So that you know, from here it seems that you are traumatized, understandably, by paper-less touch screen. Optical Scan Paper Ballots, the promised land. Hand Counts less likely to succeed. In that space, of course I'm wrong. I don't deny the importance of preventing DRE deployment, but without audits Optical Scan is no better.

Where I am, it's Optical Scan Paper Ballots. Not adequately audited. Nor the Ballot Definition Files reviewed. I see places where Optical Scan Paper Ballots are used, and a 2004 Election is lost. I know levers have low undervote rates, no overvotes, and are immune to wholesale attack. Except those of Bo decrying they don't provide a paper record of individual votes when he might argue that the "system" is HAVA compliant as evidenced by the paper record produced by poll workers at the end of voting.

Even conceding levers in NY, and there are those who may well fight that idea in court, there may be hundreds of Upstate NY rural towns, and townships, and villages that would do well with handcounts. And that would do well to have the money spent there.

[Ellipsis]

24. It's all relative.

OP could have been a bit harsh. Overall ...just another day in the trenches.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

30. proof?

i.e "cottage industry".

If you want to criticize Bo's push for optical scan, you could base it on facts, unless you have evidence that his motives are financial.

If you have proof that this is a cottage industry for Bo, i.e that this is a money making business for him, please show us that proof.

Now, cottage industry could more appropriately apply to activists who have raked in nearly $1 million in their first year, and whose livelihood depends on big headlines and continuance of the problem.

Because of the accusatory tone of this OP - that this is a "cottage industry" for Bo, this Op and subsequent replies become about Bo and not about what is best for New York.

[Bill Bored]

31. The jury's still out. See post #29. nt

[Wilms]

32. You're listening right past me.

Actually, you make "subsequent replies become about Bo and not about what is best for New York."

Bo makes his argument favoring Optical Scan. I've made the obvious arguments criticizing them. I've made clear why I disagree with the raison d’etre of his organization, and in post #26 why I'm weary of "trademark mantra". It's a business. That doesn't mean anyone is doing anything immoral. It means he's selling the brand he's built. He's entitled.

You seem to frame this in terms of Bev. That's fine. But I don't. I don't like the brand. I think it's the wrong prescription for the state. You've made abundantly clear your opinion of one of the phrases in the OP.

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. well, you know...

Honestly, I was bothered by the "little cottage business" bit. I sort of let it go, but it doesn't seem like a very pleasant way to start a conversation.

I'm optimistic that if New York ends up with scanners, it will also end up with non-awful audits. I don't know a lot about Bo's views on that (and it's not for me to channel him anyway), but I know he made a point of participating in the auditing summit.

[Wilms]

26. No. It isn't pleasant at all.

Nor is it pleasant to suffer activists who have a sort of trademark mantra.

It doesn't really matter if it's Exit Poll True Believers, Black Box Antics and Road Show, or HCPB Jihadists. To them all, other views are background noise to be masked as it is not the party line and dilutes the value of the name-brand.

There is a bit of difference between maintaining brand loyalty...running a business...and advocating for transparent elections whatever that takes in a given jurisdiction. Bo/NYVV's anti-lever position is not inconsistent with the DoJ effort to bulldoze NY. There's a comment upthread suggesting the approach was best given the jurisdictional situation. Pardon me, but there were and are lever machines enjoying fairly wide support in that state. And then there's Bo & Co. selling Optical Scans with the aid of LHS execs.

That's a bit weird.

Above, someone has the nerve to suggest the TRO Liberty filed has to do with the Optical Scan Evangelism. Really? How about Doug Kellner?.

There are those so bent on stopping DRE's that they ignore the peril of OpScan, and run rough-shod over Hand Counts and, in this case, levers.

That's the cottage to which I refer. I see this one has a chimney.

[Bill Bored]

27. The reason the Liberty DRE was NOT certified is that the machine is NOT ACCESSIBLE enough

for the disabled voters -- NOT because it was a DRE being used as a ballot marker.

See Bo's Blog:
http://nyvv.org/blog/2008/01/paper-ballots-for-ny.html

But this morning, when the Board reconvened it was immediately obvious from the commissioners opening statements that those who were pushing for the DREs had conceded defeat. No small amount of thanks is due to Commissioner Doug Kellner (D), who firmly held the line yesterday and during a long night of backroom political maneuvering, vowing he would never approve the DRE submissions which did not fulfill the requirements of New York State election law regarding accessible voting machines.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. eh

This seems to sum up NYVV's position on lever machines pretty well. My freehand paraphrase: it's not likely that we'll be able to keep them indefinitely, and they aren't that great anyway (not entirely reliable, not verifiable). It doesn't really strike me as masking other views.

This sums up NYVV's position on optical scanners versus DREs. Again, it strikes me as pretty reasonable, but what's missing is a clear statement that audits are crucial. Here is an interesting statement about that (from January 2006) :

...While some would prefer a system of hand-counted paper ballots over optical-scan counting, we need to remember that politics is the art of the possible and to seek to discover “what can and cannot be accomplished politically at a given place and moment in time” (Bo Lipari). Most of the election commissioners who have been given the power to choose our voting system in New York have deep reservations about managing elections based on paper ballots. Advocacy of the PBOS system is politically wise inasmuch as it answers the public’s interest in rapid preliminary counts at the same time as it promises the commissioners that they will need to count paper only for the 3% required audits and whenever problems arise.

NYVV joins the Government Accountability Office in urging improved standards and testing of all electronic voting equipment, including optical scanners. Adequate testing should be able to close some of the doors to hacking. Careful procedures and audits of hand-marked paper ballots will take us the rest of the way to voter confidence in the paper ballot-optical scan system.

That's a bit dodgy about the 3%, but we can do pretty damn fine auditing with 3% if it's spread around sensibly.

Or here is Bo from earlier this month:

As far as I'm concerned, audits are ALWAYS warranted, regardless of the reason. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why NYVV has worked so hard for paper ballots in New York State - so we can audit and recount.

I note that Bo often expresses his position as support for paper ballots, not for optical scanners. I agree with you in principle that in much of New York, hand counts could work. But then I watch that little film and see an election official from Essex County (with about 20,000 voters in the entire county) express his fervent support for DREs, and I think, of all the reasons that New York doesn't have hand counts, Bo Lipari's putatively excessive enthusiasm about optical scanners is not in the top thousand.

I know that Bo and NYVV came out politely but firmly against the proposal to hand-count all federal votes in the 2008 election. Should it have stayed neutral? I couldn't honestly say that I think it's imperative for New York to do that; I think the lever machines are good enough for at least one more election.

[Bill Bored]

29. NY election law requires cut-and-drop VVPATs. They are just as auditiable

as scanned paper ballots. They would probably even be full-face ballots, except that propositions could be on the back as with scanned paper ballots. This does NOT mean I'm in favor of DREs, because DREs have other serious problems.

But the whole idea that somehow because we have scanners there won't be a need for more than a 3% audit is a non sequitur. Yet NYVV has tried to take this position with election officials to placate them and push scanners.

They have also deliberately and consistently misread both HAVA and the NY election law with respect to NOT banning lever machines, feeding the popular media frenzy about this and effectively blunting State efforts to argue vigorously against the DoJ in court to retain levers, based on the law, despite the fact that none of the so-called "HAVA-compliant" electronic systems can be certified under NY law or regulations. Now they say levers are OK until 2009, as if the certification process or the new e-vote counting systems will radically change by then. WTF? Bo has even suggested op scans in 2008 if the courts ruled completely in favor of the DoJ this year. This borders on fundamentalism in my view.

Let's see what happens if NY caves on its source code escrow provision and allows Windows and other unmodified Commercial Off The Shelf Software to be used in voting systems without any disclosure requirement, even in the event of a contested election in a court of law. Up until now, NYVV has been completely opposed to un-escrowed software, in agreement with the NY election law, which even the Republicans say includes ALL software used in voting systems. They have correctly said that vendors had years to come up with an open-source solution and have all failed. See Bo's blog:
http://nyvv.org/blog/2007/06/voting-machine-vendors-we-wont-comply.html
http://nyvv.org/blog/2007/04/microsoft-says-we-wont-escrow.html
http://nyvv.org/blog/2007/06/citizens-1-microsoft-0.html

But now, because scanners are on the table, I would wager that NYVV will cave and support vendor scanners and EMSs with proprietary operating systems. Why, when NY has a perfectly acceptable voting system in place today, with no software whatsoever to worry about? Hiding behind the DoJ's illegal mandate is no excuse.

My prediction is that while it was OK to blame Microsoft for seeking to weaken NY election law (which the legislature had NO interest in doing by the way), NYVV will cave, now that scanners are on the table. Hope I'm wrong!

The point is, Bo may not only be pushing op scans; he may be pushing proprietary op scans. I think this is what Wilms is getting at, in kind of a roundabout way.

And no one is smart enough, besides you, to realize that a 3% audit can be "spread around" in such a clever way, esp. when there is a mandatory 3% minimum in the election law that prevents this from happening! I doubt this is what NYVV has in mind, especially since it's against the law!

No, I think when NYVV says 3%, they mean a flat 3%. And that's just not good enough for many elections run on software.

So what exactly does the first "V" in NYVV stand for anyway? I sincerely hope it's not "Vendor." There is still time for them to get with the program. A wake up call every now and then is not a bad thing. Everyone needs to be held accountable -- not just vendors and the government.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. whoa

If I tried to tell people that cut-and-drop VVPATs were "just as auditable" as hand-marked ballots, I would be strung up. I'm just saying.

It's all subject to debate. I know your legal arguments about levers, but NYVV isn't alone in being unconvinced. That isn't to say that anyone has to defer to NYVV's view. But I can tell you, I haven't yet seen an argument among activists improved by injecting innuendo about vendors, so I understand WYVBC's reaction.

[Bill Bored]

37. The point is that somehow election officials have the idea that a 3% audit

is all they'll ever have to do if they go with optical scan.

This is what NYVV were selling, according to your own research.

When I say cut-and-drop VVPAT is just as auditable, I mean in terms of the workload on election officials. They dump the ballots on a table somewhere and count them. No paper rolls. Individual paper records. So why limit op scan audits to 3% just because most of the voters marked their ballots with pens?

For NYVV to suggest that somehow optical scanners will reduce the need to audit more than 3% of machines is ludicrous. If anything, they would increase the need because they have more ballots per machine than the DREs, and this leads to lower statistical confidence.

NYVV seem prepared to accept vote counts from software, as long as it's scanner software. So the question of what the first "V" stands for is a valid one. If it's really "Verified", then they need to define what that means. Seems to me they may only mean that the voter marked the ballot and "verified" it. That's nice but it doesn't get the votes counted as cast.

As far as the lever business, in 2007, the Legislature changed the law to remove any ambiguity. Now it says levers shall be replaced...someday. So what's the rush? And why is NYVV still saying they are illegal, even after the law was changed specifically to clarify the Legislature's intent?

The most prudent path, short of HCPB or levers forever, would seem to be open-source op scan, owned and operated by the citizens and government of the State of NY in the usual bi-/multi-partisan manner, with a real statistical audit so we don't have to trust that software either. If that takes another year or 2, or 3, so what? The Legislature and the Board of Elections have both said there's no hurry. The only ones in a rush are the DoJ, NYVV and of course, the vendors.

So why kowtow to the DoJ when the law is on our side if anyone would bother to go to court and argue it?

Innuendo aside, I said the jury's still out. Let's see what happens if nothing can be certified without changing existing hard-fought-for laws and regulations now that scanners are on the table.

[Wilms]

33. Feh.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1792&Itemid=113
To me, this seems to sum up NYVV's position on lever machines pretty well. My freehand paraphrase: "Surrender. The Law says you have to drop levers by September of 2007." Well, the BoE didn't get the memo. (You know...those "corrupt politicians".) You're right though, it's not masking other views. It's dismissing them as "chimera".

Keep in mind I don't lament anyone warning against DREs. But I've argued there's a fine line given all the circumstance.

But for you to quote someone talking about the auditability or recountability of PBOS I must beg relief.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. I think there is more to it

It's not that the BoE united to defend lever machines. It's that the BoE deadlocked over DREs. I don't see how that would vindicate Levers Forever! as a strategy. NYVV made a judgment call, and you don't have to agree with it, but I can't say it is obviously wrong.

Now if by stonewalling on levers for now, we could keep the vendors out, that would be cool. I don't think anyone has quite worked that out.

If the ballots are secure, even a flat 3% audit hand-counting hand-marked ballots will more than suffice to confirm the outcomes of the vast majority of New York's federal elections, and a bunch of others as well. Doesn't mean we should settle for that, but it would go a long way in the right direction.

[Wilms]

36. Did I say the BoE was/is united?

Did I say they've vindicated levers forever?

But stonewalling may well be what has, effectively, occurred.

A 3% audit is better than nothing, but you don't need me slapping you upside the head with a slide rule to know that the outcomes a 3% audit can't confirm are the ones we most worry about.

[Bill Bored]

38. The Election Commissioners Assn. of the State of NY wanted to keep levers

and the Legislature changed the law in 2007 to make that possible, indefinitely.

I think this is what Wilms is referring to.

[Wilms]

39. Kick

Because Lipari still doesn't get it.

Greetings from a "faction".

:hi:

[Einsteinia]

40. DRE and Optiscans are equally evil? Not true

Yes, Optiscans can be hacked at least five different ways, but if they are precinct scanners they make GREAT paper ballots that can and SHOULD be hand counted at the precinct, and then their totals may then be crossed checked with whatever the Optiscan tabulation software claims.

Therefore on the hierarchy of evil they are infinitely better than DREs IF used as described above.

[Bill Bored]

41. But no one is using scanners the way you suggest Einsteinia.

In fact, the trend is to accept scanner tallies as gospel, or just rescan the ballots on ANOTHER scanner and call it an "audit" or "recount." There are jurisdictions in the country right now that will HAND COUNT DRE VVPATs, but only RESCAN mark-sense ballots. That's NOT where we want to be!

So alas, what can we do?

In NY, we now have a state with virtually NO electronic vote counting, NO software running our elections, and not a lot of paper ballots either (only absentees and provisionals which may only be about 6% of the vote).

To move to paper ballots under current law, we would have to go with virtually 100% electronic vote counting, only 3% hand counts about 2 weeks after the election, and no real possibility of a recount unless a discrepancy happens to exist in the 3% delayed hand count, or perhaps if the margin is razor thin.

So, while I have nothing against proper audits of electronic vote counts, there is nothing yet on the the table in NY to ensure that this will happen.

So in that situation, what would you do? Throw out a working, transparent, non-software driven, non-electronic voting system, just so you can have scanned paper ballots with 3% random audits? I don't think so.

So the best answer I can come with, until such time as the scanner jockeys can come up with a plan to tell us who really won our most important elections, is to live and let live. Let Bo and his Bots kill the DREs while the other factions figure out how to make computerized electronic paper ballot scanners safe for democracy, or how not to have to use them either.

[kster]

42. "and not a lot of paper ballots either" walk softly Bill

Demand that any and all paper ballots be Hand Counted, OOPS Levers have no Paper Ballots.

A bit of a dilemma for your state, Go with DRE's. OOPS DRE's, like the Lever machines have no paper ballots to recount, How to explain away the paperless voting problem, you can't, not Anymore you live in the age of the INTERNET, maybe you should go with optical scanned paper ballots then all you have to do is convince the people that hand counting only a certain % of the machine counted paper ballots, is a perfect security measure,

Yeah, Yeah thats the ticket...



Optical scanned paper ballots, the people get what they want, Paper Ballots, all you have to do is convince them not to Hand Count all those Paper Ballots

Yeah, Yeah thats the ticket...

\

GOOD LUCK!!!

[Bill Bored]

43. I think once those scanners are in place, with all those paper ballots,

we will have one hell of a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY!

It would be different if we had paperless DREs, or even VVPAT DREs now, but we don't. So it's more like the frying pan into the fire, and I don't think the pan is even hot.

[kster]

45. I think you are crazy to support

anything less that Hand Counted Paper Ballots, but thats just me, why? in order to support anything less, you have to always bullshit, all while you pretend to tell the truth, what would your kids, cousins nieces or nephews think?

Hand Count the Paper Ballot before they are allowed to leave the polling place, its simple, the truth rolls off the tongue real easy and its not that complicated, now look at what you had to say

"I think once those scanners are in place, with all those paper ballots, we will have one hell of a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY!

It would be different if we had paperless DREs, or even VVPAT DREs now, but we don't. So it's more like the frying pan into the fire, and I don't think the pan is even hot".

That doesn't even make sense

One more time...

Hand Count the Paper Ballot before they are allowed to leave the polling place.

[Bill Bored]

46. So we are going to spend millions on scanners so we can HAND COUNT? Get real!

Once those black boxes are in place, elections will be run on software.

Half the folks in this movement don't even realize that scanners are computers, thanks to the exclusively anti-DRE propaganda some have been churning out.

If you want hand counts, you don't count with software unless and until you have laws in place to require hand counting enough votes to confirm the outcomes of elections. No one is going to be willing to do this once they start counting ballots with software. Not even Debra Bowen has been able to make this happen. Not even Nancy Tobi.

Once you go down the software road, it's very hard to turn back.

The sad thing is that those who are pushing scanners have NOT been pushing for verifying what the scanners will be telling us. They essentially trust the software, whether they admit it or not, as long as it's not DRE software.

[kster]

47. For now, YES, let the crooks feel

like they are winning something, Once we have enough people that know and understand why we MUST do a Full Hand Count and all Paper Ballots before those Paper Ballots are allowed to leave the polling place

We win!!

Anything less is, well, JUST CRAZY ;)

[Einsteinia]

48. True but NOT for long --Sign here:

Here's a petition to gain the right to precinct tabulation

http://www.califelectprotect.net/ap/pnum713.php

And then go to the front page at

http://www.caprotect.org and see the petition to upgrade California's paper trails into paper ballots.

or go to

http://www.tangibleballot.org

[Bill Bored]

49. Forced vote by mail? Where's that besides Oregon?

"PETITION: CITIZENS MAY DOUBLE-CHECK ACCURACY OF PRECINCT TALLIES & PLEASE STOP FORCED VOTE BY MAIL"

I get the drift of this and agree with it, but what about no-excuse absentee voting? How do you do that in California? It's not vote by mail, is it?

Who's forcing vote-by-mail?

BTW, Congress may be pushing no-excuse absentee voting too, so it could become a 50-state problem!

[Wilms]

50. Optical Scan = Electronic Vote Counting n/t

[Wilms]

51. It's nice that Liberty Election System is bailing on efforts to sell DREs to NYers

But you got a pretty tough audience over in LBN that knows that the system you advocated for (while trashing levers, I'll add) is just as hackable as a DRE.

Not cool.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3281131

[kster]

52. Optical scanners are the same as a "get away car"

they not only count our ballots in secret, they lock up our ballots and get them out of our precincts, RIGHT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES!

Mom always said (hand) count your change before you leave the store or bankers want you to (hand) count your money before you leave the window.

But yet, we don't see a need to (hand) count our ballots before they leave our precincts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3281131#3283202

[Wilms]

53. If you insist on going off topic, I'd appreciated you not posting on my threads.

This thread is about lever machines, and the possibility of them being replaced by Optical Scan.

HCPB are not what this is about.

So you're spamming...as usual.

[Wilms]

54. Still Lying: Bo Lipari's Deceit on Voice of the Voters

Bo Lipari's Deceit on Voice of the Voters

by Rady Ananda

July 2, 2008

Last night, Bo Lipari hosted Voice of the Voters covering the story I broke about New York's failed certification process of "modern" voting systems. He used his platform to deceive listeners, deliberately providing disinformation that would otherwise bolster his untenable support of software driven voting systems. His misrepresentations also serve to undermine potential litigation being pursued in New York.

New York has been court-ordered to employ software-driven disabled-accessible voting devices in the September 2008 election. The New York State Board of Elections (SBOE) has accepted systems that fail to perform in local tests.

Lipari made two serious misstatements, misrepresentations, or outright lies, one at the top of the hour when he introduced the program. Attorney Andi Novick immediately called the station requesting his first misstatement be corrected. Although Lipari had a full minute at the end of the show, after John Gideon's Daily Voting News report, instead of correcting himself, he unexpectedly threw the final minute back at John, who stumbled briefly to fill the remaining time.

snip

When Andi Novick wrote Mary Ann Gould who heads Voice of the Voters, she stated:

Bo's insisting that the highest court in the land ruled that levers are not HAVA compliant ... is a common misrepresentation that's been made to county election commissioners who don't want to switch to computerized voting systems – to keep them quiet. They've been told the federal court ruled that levers aren't compliant.

Bo referred to the court's ruling that "we're stuck with" several times during the hour... Bo made it sound like not only did the court rule but an appeal wasn't even possible. He misrepresented that the so called ruling came from the highest court in the land, from which therefore there is no appeal. All of that is shameful.

The litigation I'm planning on bringing asks the court to declare that voting on concealed software is unconstitutional- which would be great to have such a ruling in this country. And it asks the court to declare that, now that NY is installing BMDs, levers are HAVA compliant.

snip

This is exactly the sort of deception tactics we are fighting in NY; this is exactly the sort of deception that computerized voting vendors employ, as detailed in these three well researched collections of deceptive practices:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bo-Lipari-s-Deceit-on-Voic-by-Rady-Ananda-080702-581.html


Election Reform Forum Discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x505042


NY State Forum Discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=169&topic_id=8204&mesg_id=8204

[bolipari]

55. Bo's Response to Defamatory Comments

Interesting that you accuse me of lying, "Wilms", but you have your facts wrong. Listen to the tape of the show. My statements were accurate. The article you referenced has now been pulled from OpEd News because of it "lied" (your phrase) about my statements. Please see my statement below. And next time, check your facts before you represent people as liars who you know nothing about.

The article posted by Rady Ananda is false, defamatory, and misrepresents what I said on the Voice of the Voter radio show on July 2, 2008. I’m angry and surprised that a fellow advocate would post such a defamatory post, and that a website which is supposed to celebrate activism would publish it.

What I said on the radio show is accurate and I stand by it- that currently, the highest Court in the land that has ruled on lever machines and HAVA, the US District Court of the Northern District, has stated unequivocally that lever machines must be replaced by 2009. There is a Court order that is clear, and statements made by the judge are clear, and the NYS Board of Elections is complying with the order. As currently no other court in the nation has issued an opinion about lever machines and HAVA, I stand by the statements I made on the radio program - that the highest court in the land that has issued an opinion says lever machines must go. We can nit pick the meaning of Court Order vs. Court Ruling, but the outcome is the same – the Court says no more lever machines.

The other issue Rady notes about a question from Dennis Karius is also false. The question has been posed to me by Mr. Karius in many forms over the last two weeks, and he has been answered repeatedly on the phone and by email, and on NYVV’s private email list, of which Mr. Karius is a member. In response to his question to the VOV radio, I sent a Mr. Karius an email (which was copied to the radio producers as well) answering, yet again his question. So the question was, as they say in Court, ‘asked and answered’. I note also that Mr. Karius’ question, about a potential hand count in Ulster County, had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the show – are NY’s machines ready for prime time.

I have been attacked constantly since January by activists, almost all of whom are from outside New York State, who believe that NYVV’s decision to work for paper ballots and optical scanners in NY was flawed. They are welcome to their opinion, but the attacks on me, which have culminated in this insulting piece on OpEd news, is beyond the pale. How sad that you would waste time and energy attacking someone who has done nothing but work for election integrity for over five years.

-Bo Lipari

[Wilms]

56. Perhaps I should have posted the clarification here, as well as the original thread.

OTOH remarked that Ananda misheard what was said. I agreed. I also had thoughts as to why she may have made such error. Finally, on that thread I corrected my error regarding NYC ballot style issues. If there is anything else posted in error, feel free to point it out.

It seems Rady and Andi heard what Bo wanted everyone to hear.

I heard...barely through the terrible audio quality...Bo make the reference twice, "the highest court in the land which..." and "the highest court in the land that..."

Tell me, Mark, what do you think when you hear, "the highest court in the land"? Also, please tell me if you know, why he may have chosen that phrase. Was there a lower court ruling??? That, I suppose, could be used as an excuse.

Listen to his tone as he says "gonna have to tell it to the judge". Actually, telling it to a judge is exactly what is planned. And Bo probably knows that. Would Bo tell the voters that? And if not, why not? He advocates challenging the judge's timetable...so why dis others who are troubled by and challenging the decision.

Bo also expresses surprise that the ImageCast software can't accommodate NYC ballot styles. Reminding the listener that he's a software engineer he can't believe the vendor wouldn't have taken greater care. Wow! The industry is built-on revision after revision of product and he's surprised!

And while Bo is satisfied with the judges decision to retire levers, he goes on to be critical of the judge not caring that Optical Scans are melting-down nation-wide. I know you can OTOH that to death (I could, too) but you'll appreciate the conflict represented.

Sure sounds like Bo mis-leading the voters. Were it not his intent, he might consider being more careful.

Why, oh why, would anyone assume Bo Lipari being disingenuous or manipulative? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=505042&mesg_id=505061

[Wilms]

57. Bo Lpari insults election advocates wary of his computerized vote counting contraptions.

http://www.bolipari.com/boblog/2010/04/nassau-county-the-dog-ate-my-homework/

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

58. well

New York is unique, but if it were not for ERMA, you'd have direct record electronic machines
spread all over the place.

NY had a gigantic amount of HAVA money, and if you'll remember, Sequoia was pushing hard to
sell their DRES.

Keep in mind, that as a Lever state, your natural transition would be to DREs.

I too was accused by some of being pro computerized voting by the hand counted paper ballot
crew in my state. Oh and here in this forum, remember that?

So, if ERMA were to be repealed, the state might end up with DRES.
Maybe not, but that fear/concern may weigh heavily on some people's minds.

Now if NY passed a law to ban computerized vote counting, say like the Netherlands,
then you could have paper or levers.

Perhaps a "Wedonottrustcomputervoting" campaign would be a good idea?

Its possible that if ERMA were repealed the state might keep levers, but admittedly there
is risk.

While you might not agree with Bo, he is a decent person IMHO.

[Wilms]

59. You can make those arguments but they are as likely to be untrue.

For one, there are plenty of "lever states" that went with Opscan. No doubt there was a big push toward DREs. And no doubt, as I've pointed out, Lipari, but also a dedicated group of people who no longer associate with him, played deciding roles in preventing that.

But there is a difference between pointing out the dangers of DREs, and advocating for the replacement of levers with computers.

From every point of view, the lever is deemed superior by a majority of those who study the issue closely. While Lipari is free to see it otherwise, he shouldn't make misleading remarks. And he does. And he defends them.

HCPB advocates treatment of you might not compare (unless yours was also a lever state). NY HAS levers in place. Lipari advocates their replacement with computerized vote counting while HAVA does not require it.

While you might not want to take Bo at his word without verification, he is a decent photographer IMHO.

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. really?

From every point of view, the lever is deemed superior by a majority of those who study the issue closely.

I think that depends upon who decides what counts as studying the issue closely. If you asked any of a hundred people familiar with election administration issues who are the leading experts on voting equipment, and then you asked those experts to assess your statement, I'm guessing that a lot of eyes would roll. Merits of the equipment aside, I think the factual basis of your argument from authority here is sketchy.

[Wilms]

61. Oh I am absolutely sure it depends "who decides what counts as studying the issue closely".

You think a bunch of computer experts advocates sitting on their hands sway my opinion?

As for "merits of the equipment aside", that's really been the problem. Hasn't it? And "familiar with election administration"? You mean the ones quoted in the newspapers that say "if there's a problem we'll have the paper ballot"? And where did they get that notion?

It's been a fact-challenged debate with Lipari at the center. And that's changing, thankfully.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

62. for what it is worth

I've come to view levers much differently than I did 5 years ago.

We can evolve, ya know. :)

I've expressed my opinion before, that with levers, one big advantage is that
risk/loss is limited, it can be confined to 999 votes at a time.

Bill Bored may remember my posting that.

I guess you can call that limited risk.

With optical scan, which I pushed very hard for in my state, you can flip the ballot on
an entire contest in a given slot if you err in setting up ballot definition files.
And we've seen it happen.

But for NC, pushing for Optical Scan was the right choice. But we had 40 paperless DRE counties
and 13 mixed/lever,punch card and HCPB, with the remainder as optical scan.
NC had already legislated the end of lever and punch card in our HAVA implementation, so that left
us to fight for OS as opposed to DRES.

In the end, WILMs I am not arguing against levers.

I just believe that in this case, the point of attack should be against the technology and degree of checks and balances, rather than against a person.

Its just my opinion, for what its worth.

:shrug:

[Wilms]

63. If the debate was centered on FACTS, that would be the case.

But Lipari continuously makes misleading statements, like he did before this thread was put up.

People in NY may not realize what's going on simply because of the misinformation Lipari issues.

He's not being attacked. He's being called out.

Bo Lipari makes misleading statements about Optical Scan, Lever Voting, NY State Law, and HAVA.

[Bill Bored]

64. This post might provide some insight into the situation in NY:

As I think WYVBC is pointing out, it helps to keep in mind that the e-vote counting problem is really nothing new.

But New York has a unique opportunity that should not be squandered on something as ineffective as "certification" of software-based vote-counting systems. Yet this is exactly what the state has been trying to do. They want desperately to just be able to TRUST THE MACHINES, despite all the evidence that says that's just plain wrong.

Most NY election officials want to avoid hand counts at all costs and Lipari, while advocating for paper ballots that are easy to count by hand, has never come out strongly for NOT trusting computers to determine election results. Indeed, he accepts and advocates for insufficiently audited computerized elections, rather than keeping lever voting machines. Also just plain wrong.

I don't know what he's been thinking, but it seems like he may be expecting New Yorkers to trust him, instead of their own lying eyes when it comes to vote counting. If true, this is in a word, undemocratic.

It is worth noting that at a recent closed-door meeting with state officials and other "citizens", Lipari was the only one to vote NOT to certify the scanners that the State Board of Elections went ahead and certified anyway. Had he voted "Yes" would that mean we would have nothing to worry about when it comes to vote counting? Don't think so.

And since he voted "No" on certification, why is he picking on Nassau County's and other election officials -- who are legally charged with certifying election results, which he is NOT -- who know enough to know that they can't honestly do so under current NY election law and are willing to do something about that in court?

That's a long way of saying that the election officials who are suing the state of New York are the new election integrity advocates. They are walking the walk rather than just paying lip service to election integrity and constitutional rights. They deserve better than to be mocked by Lipari or anyone else.

Also see this post about our constitutional rights and how NY's new system fails to protect them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=515305&mesg_id=515325