2009 Holt Bill. E-Voting: Making a Bad System Worse

[Wilms]

While I have found myself lukewarm to supporting or opposing Holt's e-voting bills, there are a few arguments that are thought provoking. Tobi makes a few, here.

2009 Holt Bill. E-Voting: Making a Bad System Worse

by Nancy Tobi

~snip~

Holt supporters advocate for the bill because it provides incremental progress, in that it requires durable paper ballots in every election system.

But the negative Gore vote count in Florida happened in a system using durable paper ballots.

~snip~

The incremental step of getting paper ballots into every voting system offers a placebo effect to make people feel good without improving the democratic process.

~snip~

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2009-Holt-Bill-E-Voting--by-Nancy-Tobi-090329-832.html

[kster]

1. K&R...nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

64. I see Nancy's losing her touch

I like my propaganda to be more colorful and contain lots of graphs and charts,
plus some nice murder conspiracy theories.

While we're talking about propaganda, did Nancy's buddy, "she whose name will will not use",
send out a fax to election officials this time?

Nothing like aligning yourself with anti paper groups to save democracy, eh?
We know that ultimately/politically Holt's bill isn't going to take away lever machines, and NY will have time and options to decide what NY wants to do. But forget that, lets get on to the nuttieness.

Oh, and I'll try to get some graphs and charts for my next post.

NOW HERE'S SOME PROPAGANDA:

Re: URGENT: EMAIL TO HOUSE ADMIN TO GET ON THE RECORD Message List

Reply | Forward
Message #21499 of 21588 < Prev | Next >

Thank you, Nancy. I will mention here that Black Box Voting cannot do any more
federal legislative (lobbying) faxes for quite a while, because there is a cap
on such activities (we are allowed to do some lobbying, but it is capped in
terms of time and financial investment, so we have to track it). We did do this
second fax as you requested. Here is what I sent to 2,299 elections officials
(we had one remove request last time, from a Vermont official):

Dear Elections Chief, March 30, 2007

This is the last communication from Black Box Voting on this matter, and I
apologize for using your fax lines once again. I didn’t want to, but I believe
this is important.

As you know, Black Box Voting and others have pointed out dangerous provisions
in the Holt Bill: unfunded mandates, for equipment that does not yet exist, and
shifting regulatory power over elections from your state to the federal
government.

I thought you'd be interested to know that your efforts, and those of many
citizens, have now caused the mark up of the Holt Bill to be DELAYED for at
least two weeks. I have been told that congressional fax machines whirred all
day long, gumming up the "fast track" on this bill.

I have learned that there is one additional step if you would like your comments
to be memorialized into the congressional record. Though your faxes stopped the
train (temporarily) it turns out that your faxed comments will not be entered
into the record. If you feel strongly about this and want your opinions entered
into the congressional record, here are the instructions:

The deadline is today (I know; like we have nothing else to do). The procedure
is to e-mail your comments on the Holt Bill to: janelle.hu@...

The instructions we received are: (a) Submit a letter to the above e-mail
address with your comments on the Holt Bill; (b) In the letter, explicitly
request that your comments be included in the congressional record.

The House Administration (full committee) is still planning to mark up Rep.
Holt's Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007 (HR. 811), but
the schedule has now been moved forward at least two weeks.

They’re saying, "Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." We say: "Do
not let the Congress be the enemy of democracy."

While the most pressing issue for many elections officials will be the unfunded
mandate, the reason Black Box Voting believes this bill is the enemy of
democracy is that it contains a Trojan horse. While offering citizens the
glittering promise of a paper trail, the hidden peril in the Holt Bill is that
it makes the EAC permanent and expands its powers. Thus, the Holt Bill
transfers permanent control over the administration and equipment for elections
to the federal level.

Whether or not you like the current administration, please consider this: By
making this change permanent, the Holt Bill requires us all to "trust"
forevermore that every single president will appoint four benevolent cronies to
tell you how to run your elections. The founders of this nation were thoughtful
enough to provide for long-term stability by requiring dispersal of power, and
it was their wisdom that gave power over elections administration to the
states. If the Holt Bill extension of the EAC is passed, at some point in our
future just one goofy president could install very inappropriate people to
specify how elections will be run. But the way it is now, all 50 states would
have to get goofy at once, and Black Box Voting believes that’s a good, stable
safeguard. In fact, the only appropriate use of federal legislation over
elections, we believe, is in the area of protecting civil rights – not federal
meddling with local mechanics and procedures.

The peril of EAC usurping state powers over elections:
"Centralized executive power"
www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/3657

Thank you for your patience with receiving these two faxes from Black Box
Voting.

Bev Harris – Director – Black Box Voting


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:40 pm

Hide Message Option

View Source
Use Fixed Width Font
Wrap Lines

Bev Harris <bev@...>
black_box_vo...
Offline
Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360°


Forward
Message #21499 of 21588 < Prev | Next >

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CASE_OH/message/21499?unwrap=1&var=1&l=1

[Peace Patriot]

2. I don't know why progress has to be "incremental." What the fuck is this matter with

these people? Privatized voting systems, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing, Bushite corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls*, is WRONG, is, UNDEMOCRATIC, is a FORMULA FOR STEALING ELECTIONS for rightwingers, fascists and corporatists, is FRAUDULENT on its face, should NEVER have been spread like a cancer all over the country with the $1.7 billion e-voting boondoggle entitled by me, the "Help America Vote For Bush Act." This was a traitorous act by Congress, was a putrid betrayal of us by the MANY Democratic House members and Senators who voted for it, is a MENACE to our country, and means that rightwing corporatists can easily--EASILY!--'defeat' Barack Obama in 2012, and fill the Congress with Pukes and "Blue Dogs" in 2010.

And that's just for starters. It is also extremely expensive, with initial and on-going maintenance costs, discourages citizen participation, dismantled the system of citizen volunteers who vigilantly watched over the handling and counting of our votes in every polling place, is a system that no one but high tech engineers can understand, and often breaks down during elections requiring the presence of private corporate personnel in election areas where they shouldn't be.

All that said, I'll take a paper ballot requirement, as a gift from our god-rulers, if that's what they're offering, over no paper ballot, any day. It will help in individual elections where the candidate and his/her supporters have the wherewithal to challenge a suspicious result. Unless the Holt bill contains a requirement of, at minimum, a 10% handcount of the paper ballots as a check on machine fraud, that's all that it's worth--help in the rare instance of a recount, and maybe as a mild deterrent in less important elections.

--------

*(In the U.S., half of the voting systems have no paper trail at all. These are completely unverified, and unverifiable elections. The other half have a paper ballot but do only a 1% automatic count--miserably inadequate in a 'TRADE SECRET' code system, which the public is forbidden to review the code. In Venezuela, they use OPEN SOURCE code in the voting machines--code owned by the public, that anyone may review--and they additionally handcount a whopping 55% of the votes as a check on machine fraud--more than five times the minimum amount needed to detect fraud. That is why/how Venezuela got a president who uses the country's oil resource to benefit the poor, to develop the country's and the region's infrastructure, and for other good purposes, and we got Bush, who slaughtered one hundred thousand innocent people in Iraq, and killed or permanently wounded tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers, to satisfy his cronies' lust for oil, and to bust our progressive programs forevermore. Oil for good vs. oil for evil. It all comes down to TRANSPARENT vote counting.)

[gristy]

3. I could not care less how many voting systems have a paper trail

The bottom line is how many voting systems have a paper ballot. It needs to be 100%.

[Peace Patriot]

4. I meant "no paper trail at all." I chose the phrase carefully. It includes paper ballots

with or without real status as ballots, readable and unreadable receipts, or any other hardcopy of the vote. In half the systems there is NOTHING--no paper trail at all. The votes are completely unverifiable and unverified, and are merely whatever the private parties who wrote the code in the electronic innards told the code to do. There is no way to see that happening, or to compare it to anything else.

I did not mean to use the phrase "paper trail" loosely. I agree with you. EVERY vote should have a real paper ballot, and EVERY vote should be counted by human beings in view of the public.

[Yellow Horse]

9. Because if you go for "all or nothing" you will get NOTHING.

Sorry, that's the way our governmental system is currently set up. It is all about COMPROMISE, not "I won't play if I don't get everything I want."

I am sure you will NOT get 100% hand counted paper ballots passed through Congress, not in 100 years. First of all, you have no bill. You have no prime sponsor or co-sponsors. Get all that and then you still will have to fight corporate donors, disability interests, associations of county clerks and other officials, plus many many more groups to get it passed. Fat chance.

The new Holt bill has dealt with most of these groups over several Congresses and is a compromise that has a chance to at least start the reforms we need. This makes a lot more sense to me than waiting around for years (perhaps through more stolen elections that our democracy can't withstand) crying and pissing into our beers that we want a "perfect" bill or nothing.

[Wilms]

13. 100% HCPB ain't going to happen.

So wipe the 'I just knocked over a straw-man argument' grin off your face and look at the audits offered.

Holt's 3,5,10% audits are a total waste of money when they aren't busy being totally inadequate for a close race.

You complain the usual suspects are making the same arguments, yet that's what Holt, in part, is doing.

Meanwhile, he won't push his precinct aggregation bill, one that everyone would probably agree to.

And you want to argue who is running reform into the ground? :shrug:

[Bill Bored]

5. Here come the NYers! (See this comment by a REAL Democrat!)

This is so true!

E-voting is a boon for vendors and a nightmare for taxpayers. And then there's the risk to democracy that it poses! In NYS, we FORTUNATELY still have our mechanical lever machines. Add our new ballot-marking devices at our poll sites, and we're HAVA compliant. But NYS had decided, via a poorly thought-out Election Reform and Modernization Act passed in 2005, that we should dump our levers. We're blessedly behind schedule on doing that. (I'm hopeful we can dump ERMA instead.)

E-voting is too expensive (in terms of democratic principles and dollar costs). And, besides, EVERYONE loves the lever machines--commissioners (I'm one), their deputies, their staff, their custodians and techs, their pollworkers, and ESPECIALLY their voters. The levers work--they're bought and paid for--they allow for transparent vote-counting that's finished on election night. What great machines!

by Virginia Martin
Democratic Election Commissioner, Columbia County, New York

[Stevepol]

6. K&R!!

[Land Shark]

7. K&R we ALREADY HAVE our rights, the govt is violating them, it's their JOB to guarantee them nt

[Yellow Horse]

8. We've all heard this crap before and I for one am sick of it.

We have a chance here for a real reform here and once again the same old same old crew (Tobi, Lehto, etc.) crawl out of their holes and spout the same old garbage they did two years ago to try to run reform into the ground. Ponzi scheme... election night public vote counts..... yadda yadda yadda.

Come up with something new Nancy, oh please, or just SHUT UP, will you?

This bill will give me and millions of others a voter-marked paper ballot and hand counted audits of my elections. This is a HELL of a lot better than I have now voting on a paperless DRE and I WANT THIS BILL.

So does anyone else with half a brain who really cares about democracy in this country.

[Wilms]

12. The rhetoric can be nauseating, I agree.

All the self-styled Paul Revering is enough to make me :eyes: .

Still, when you push past all the enmity, what we have is a bill that will likely provide a lot of people with a nice warm feeling...and unverified election outcomes.

The "at least I voted on a paper ballot" meme is joke. Lots of people think their vote is OK because they didn't vote on a DRE. You know that's wrong, but a majority doesn't. The responsibility for that belongs with the movement.

Poorly thought-out slangineering, law, and the resultant unverified election outcomes is all we get.

[demodonkey]

16. Wilms, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives was decided in 2006 on PAPER BALLOTS.

In general a vote on a paper ballot of any kind is safer than a vote on a paperless DRE. You know that.

The PA House of Representatives went DEM in 2006 thanks to paper ballots. The split ended up 102 Dems to 101 GOPs. We would have been the minority party by one vote (but still the minority and not in control) but luckily the county with the last, closest PA House race was one of our few that has almost every vote on optical scan (only the "accessible" machines are paperless iVotronics.) They were able to hand-recount pretty much everything and in the recount the Democrat won.

If Minnesota didn't have paper ballots for every vote, we would have long ago had Senator Coleman sworn in again.

I WANT A PAPER BALLOT for every vote I cast. No more voting into the ether of a paperless iVotronic as I have to do now. I don't care if my paper ballot is optically scanned as long as it is preserved for any recount (and yes, a meaningful audit too.)

Yes indeedy, I want that nice warm feeling that comes with knowing that it IS AT LEAST POSSIBLE to verify the true will of the voters in an election in my state. With the paperless DREs we have now it is 100% certain that the true outcome of any election will never be known.

[Wilms]

18. Glad the recount happened in that particular case.

I will, uncharacteristically, bite my tongue with regard to a possible remedy for the MN election this past year.

But you know as well as I that recounts don't happen as often as needed, and that the audits on the books are generally unable to offer a high degree of confidence (NJ being the exception, Holt, generally not).

Of course I'm not down on paper ballots per se. But again, you know as well as I that COMPUTERS ARE WHAT DECIDE THE MAJORITY OF ELECTIONS despite the paper ballots and warm fuzzies they offer when the average voter doesn't realize the nuances.


As an aside...what triggered the recount in PA 2006? Was there a specific problem pin-pointed as the cause for the incorrect scan? And, importantly, was it the sort of thing that might not had been an issue had PA been fortunate enough to not lose the lever machines?

[demodonkey]

19. The recount was requested by the losing candidate, as I recall.

Would have been the same with levers, DRE, or paper ballot. Of course with a DRE "recount" they just reprint the results from the so-called ballot images and call it a recount. :puke: That's why in general I will take ANY form of paper over no paper at all.

On edit: PA has an extremely weak audit law (2% or 2000 votes per county, whichever is less) and nothing to meaningfully audit in 50 DRE counties. Recounts have to be requested by a candidate, but with paper are at least possible.

In this case of course, after the paper ballots were recounted the "losing candidate" became the winner, and changed the balance of the PA House.

[Wilms]

20. Looks like it was a count or re-count of absentee and provisionals.

So the precinct voting may not have been at issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2006

[Bill Bored]

21. If there were voter intent issues with the paper ballots, I think lever machines

would have corrected all that on election night, and the Dems would have won on election night.

So how do you know the ballots that were recounted were not tampered with, and why was the outcome different the second time around? If it's because the scanners miscounted the first time, then I wouldn't use them for the first count unless hand recounts were automatic. That said, no one knows where those ballots have been by the time they are recounted.

Landslide Lyndon Johnson won a paper ballot election too. Nothing to be proud of.

Your Dem SoS is the reason the EAC tried to ban lever machines in the first place. It's bad enough we have federal interference in our elections. Now we find that states have indirectly interfered with other states! WTF?

Pedro Cortes is the reason for a good deal of the bullshit we have to deal with today in NY. And he happens to be a Democrat. Maybe you'd be better off with Repugs running things there.

[demodonkey]

28. Well if history follows the pattern we will get a GOP Gov in 2010

Historically the two major parties have switched every time an 8 yr gov is term limited out in PA, going back to somewhere in the 1800s I think..........

Some of the "dems" running are so DINO that it doesn't matter either.

[Land Shark]

15. "Real reform?" that's pretty funny....if you're referring to Holt's bill...

More or less the same bill from Holt, and the complaint is more or less the same response?

I've litigated, both as plaintiff and as lead counsel (both federal and state levels) post-election claims, sued for recounts, etc. I've actually succeeded in a county-wide effort to get rid of paperless DREs. They were replaced by optical scans. Some of us have already seen, and litigated, this dreamy Holt future and it stinks, it's not "real reform."

[Yellow Horse]

17. You prefer the "dreary future" of paperless DREs for millions of voters if this bill doesn't pass??

Well, I don't.

I SUPPORT HOLT.

[Land Shark]

33. I've been a major factor in getting rid of paperless DREs in my county at the time

I know full well what the problems are, and what the "future" is post-paperless DREs, and it ain't worth it. I can understand the position "anything but paperless DREs" because to some extent I once held that position, but it doesn't fool me any more.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. OK, on these two arguments

...the negative Gore vote count in Florida happened in a system using durable paper ballots.

This is with reference to her earlier claim: "This is the industry whose product gave a negative count of 16,022 votes for candidate Al Gore in the Florida 2000 election, delivering the wrong President to America."

Under the rules of ordinary English, this is just bullshit. That "negative count of 16,022 votes" was corrected on election night. It may have contributed to the blown calls (which were soon retracted, for the second time on election night), but it didn't deliver a president. And why would it not be a good thing to have paper ballots to refer to in that situation?

Compare the ED in Chautauqua County (City of Dunkirk ward 2, ED 4) where a candidate for state Senate received 883 votes, although there were only 563 registered voters. The "solution"? Pad the total vote for every race, creating an apparent undervote of 67% in the presidential race. What else were they gonna do: keep checking the back of the lever machine until it gave a plausible answer?

The incremental step of getting paper ballots into every voting system offers a placebo effect to make people feel good without improving the democratic process.

This is an assertion, not an argument. I guess it presumes a certain state of mind, one that I don't share. In real life, paper ballots have been used to correct election outcomes, and that will continue, no matter what Nancy Tobi says about placebos.

[Wilms]

11. ...paper ballots have been used to correct election outcomes, and that will continue...

Really?

How about Ohio 2004 and, er, FL 2000, as the author referred?

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. did I say that paper ballots are ALWAYS used to correct election outcomes?

I doubt that a full recount in Ohio 2004 would have made any difference, but we will never know for sure. We learned some things about what not to do (including: don't impose an arbitrary rule that a one-off discrepancy in a random sample entails a 100% recount, which is a great way of incentivizing even basically honest election officials to cheat).

As for Florida 2000, the authors seems not to refer to the ultimate problem, which was that the U.S. Supreme Court shut down the recount. Actually there are some lessons learned there, too, not all of them about the Supreme Court -- although certainly some. (For instance, automatic recount laws like Minnesota's increase the chances that voter intent actually will govern if the initial count goes awry.)

[Land Shark]

35. We DO know the Holt bill is HEADED toward 100% hand counts, only statistics are used to limit work

needed to be done.

That's a lot of fancy statistical work that few can do to avoid work that anyone can be trained to do (the hand counts)

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. sorry I missed this

I'm not sure that I understand it. Are you saying that it's a bad thing if a few specialists can save thousands of hours of work? Maybe it is. That's a political judgment, and people can disagree about it. If I detected widespread eagerness to do 100% hand counts, I would not spend time looking for alternatives.

[Bill Bored]

22. OK, let's compare!

"Compare the ED in Chautauqua County (City of Dunkirk ward 2, ED 4) where a candidate for state Senate received 883 votes, although there were only 563 registered voters. The "solution"? Pad the total vote for every race, creating an apparent undervote of 67% in the presidential race. What else were they gonna do: keep checking the back of the lever machine until it gave a plausible answer?"

Uh yeah. That's EXACTLY what they should have done. And they should have done it BEFORE the election too.

Finally! A precinct in the state of NY with a problem! I was beginning to get suspicious that things seemed to be running a bit too smoothly here, what with no electronic vote counting and all. ;)

How's this for plausible?:

First of all, in the race you are referring to (NY Senate 57th) the margin of victory in the county was 19,137 votes. For the whole contest, it was 59,366. This ain't exactly a FL 2000 situation! And it's about half of Bush's 2004 margin for the whole frickin' State of Ohio! So I must conclude that you have been doing a rather exhaustive search for lever-related anomalies, or perhaps that you had some help.

That's fine. All anomalies should be investigated!

Your characterization of this as a lever machine problem may be incorrect though. And they certainly didn't "pad the total vote for every race" by adding phantom votes like the ones that appear in the precinct for the Senate 57 race. No other candidates had more votes than registered voters, and all had fewer votes than for President which was 375 out of 563, or a turnout of about 67%.

So based on the other precincts in this ward, what we have in this precinct is an anomaly of about 1139-375=764 phantom votes FAVORING THE LOSER -- NOT THE WINNER, in a contest with a victory margin of 59,366 votes. The correct total for the loser is probably about 883-764=119 votes (or less, because this race would have had fewer votes than for President), which would be entirely consistent with the rest of the ward. The anomaly reduced the winner's margin of 56.6% by about 0.7%. Not exactly a "landslide denied!"

And you don't commit election fraud by giving votes to the LOSING candidate in a very obvious way such as this, so I think we can probably rule out malfeasance in this case. You make it sound like some sort of conspiracy though. Was there an EXIT POLL that said the wrong candidate won or something? ;)

As to the precise reason for the anomaly, it could be an error in transcribing the number on the lever counter. 883 might have actually been 083 for example, which would still be pretty consistent with the rest of the ward. This should have been caught in the recanvass but maybe they missed it. Or maybe the machine was zeroed to 800 instead of 000 and someone missed that. They test lever machines by casting 800 votes per position and no more than that many voters are allowed to use one in a single election. If someone left the counter at 800, thinking it was 000, and there were 83 actual votes added, that would explain everything. So it may very well be simple HUMAN error resulting from diligent testing of the machine.

But you know, the good news is that the 67% undervote rate for President in this precinct is way too high! I guess someone will try to claim that it's the real thing so they can bash and replace the levers, even though you've proved it's impossible!

As to the 1139 total, well, what can I say? The cover-up is worse the "crime" I guess. But it's also quite possible that could just be a SOFTWARE GLITCH, depending on how their system would have dealt with the reported phantom votes. One way might be exactly as we see here: add up ALL the votes in the race with the highest apparent turnout (over 100% in this case!), and use that to calculate the undervote. In that case, your lever error looks VERY much like a computer to me! And I didn't even have to do a "source code review" to find it!

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. you know about the local election

that was overturned because the lever machine jammed, right? Of course, it was overturned a couple of years after the wrong person was seated, but what the heck.

I have no reason to believe that either of these problems, or the other problems I know about, were due to hacks. I believe this anomaly was found by John Gideon, who was curious about why a precinct appeared to have a 67% undervote rate. (As for the local race, I used teh Google.) It's pretty hard to look for lever machine problems, or non-problems, because many counties don't post ED-level data.

[Bill Bored]

24. Local elections can only be confirmed with full hand counts.

Not holding my breath and I never said the levers were perfect.

Of course counties should post ED-level data. That applies to any voting system.

Let's see how NY does with all this stuff if and when they replace their levers. So far they don't have a plan and we are already starting to see things like vendor dependence, outsourcing of ballot programming in violation of laws, etc.

[Wilms]

26. I'm surprised this "lever" discussion is still going nowhere after a week.

Why should I assume the levers are the problem when any number of procedures, just as important to Op Scan elections, may have been the cause. And the act of certifying such an anomalous result is perhaps an even larger problem! So what really happened?

I'm with John. I'd also be "curious about why a precinct appeared to have a 67% undervote rate". But it's not like we have an indication about what part of the election process is really at issue here, either.

So maybe it's inappropriate to sortof classify these as lever problems.

Remind me about the jammed machine story. Sounds awful. Do Op Scans ever jam? Are you really more likely to find out there's a problem with them? As opposed to lever machines that tend to provide evidence that they have either failed or were attacked. And did the lever machine jam cause the two year delay? How about a link?

[OnTheOtherHand]

30. where can it go?

In the case of the local election that was overturned, there is actually testimony that the machine jammed. In the other case, there is only conjecture (as far as I know), but the information given to John indicates that the machine was duly recanvassed, so that rules out several possibilities.

Do Op Scans ever jam? Are you really more likely to find out there's a problem with them? As opposed to lever machines that tend to provide evidence that they have either failed or were attacked.

Umm, yeah, if by "you" you mean "me," I think I have a better shot with a paper audit trail that actually gets audited than with the current system that can't be audited -- although requiring the results from every ED would help a lot.

Wilms, I can't shake the impression that you aren't very interested in this topic, but you're going to post about it anyway. I'm going to have to find some people who actually want to know the answers, or maybe find some other questions to work on, because this is too depressing for me.

[Bill Bored]

32. "...a paper audit trail that actually gets audited?" Yeah that. nt

[Wilms]

34. I'm not not interested? Pardon?

That's not you. I asked a number of reasonable questions. And the answers you have are either incomplete, or lead to more questions.

I appreciate the answers you have offered...such as, "there is only conjecture (as far as I know), but the information given to John...".

I needn't tell you, however, that "rules out several possibilities" doesn't fit well with "there is only conjecture (as far as I know)". And you know that I will descend on that like a crow on roadkill.

Perhaps John will share more detailed info with you that you can share with us. In fact, at this point I'd like to know who was the source of "the information given to John". It's OK that someone may be gathering information about lever screw-ups. If I were of NYVV's mind-set, I'm sure I'd want to do the same. But guys like me and, er, you, generally prefer links and logic to conjecture. Else it's just another "Urban Legend".

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. maybe I'm misreading the posts, then

What I've been reading for weeks seems like your transmitter is stuck in the On position. And the whole thing is pretty spooky, because the fact is, we have very little basis for assessing the accuracy and reliability of the levers -- or anything else about New York elections. One good thing is that the residual vote rate appears generally to be pretty low (compared to punch cards), at least in presidential races, and with a big historical caveat about NYC. So that tends to put an upper bound on some forms of failure.

Yes, of course, all my statements lead to more questions. I can post some links, but they'll get nowhere near answering the questions. All I can do is point out that some people are running around my state talking as if the non-auditability of lever machines is a matter of indifference -- or an outright benefit, just like paperless DREs -- and I find it bizarre.

At some point I'll try to write up what I've found so far.

[Bill Bored]

37. Slow down.

No one's saying non-auditability is a matter of indifference.

What they are saying is:

1. There are simple methods to audit lever machines that CAN NOT be applied to software-based systems. Even election lawyers know how!

2. The only way to audit the latter effectively is by doing lots of hand counts and using probabilistic methods that few will understand or comply with. What happened in CA CD-4, where the statisticians said there would almost certainly be a full recount? 10% is all they got, as far as I know, and I don't see any torches and pitchforks folks (or rationalists for that matter) in CA trying to find out who really won that election, do you? So what good are the audits if they don't hold the public's interest and the candidates go ahead and concede anyway with 90% of the vote left counted only be computers?

3. Lever machines place lots of upper bounds on the amount of miscounts, not just undervote rates, which are readily detectable if reported properly. For one thing there's no vote switching possible on lever machines. For another, there are fewer combinations of votes that have to be tested. For another, fewer voters per machine are allowed. And finally, the vote counts are recorded on election night, without the use of ANY software. Computers cannot even come close to this level of safety, at least not the kind of off-the-shelf crap that's being peddled by the voting industry today. Would you run an election Windows? Give me a break!

And don't even get me started on Ballot Definition Programming, outsourcing, virus propagation and all the rest!

To suggest that ANY of this is equivalent to the situation with DREs or scanners is JUST PLAIN WRONG and you know it.

4. The other concerns is that no one knows where the ballots go after the election when the audits are to be conducted.

5. And finally, there's a real chance that no one will comply with the type of auditing that will be needed to find out who won the scanner elections, even if there are laws about that. And I bet you know that too.

All that said, of course we have to try anyway, IF we are stupid enough to replace the levers in the first place! But frankly, I have not heard jack shit from those who think we should take that leap, and so far, they have been the ones LEAST involved in trying to make e-vote counting safe. They just want to get there and worry about the details later.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. mmm

What does it mean to say that there are simple methods to audit lever machines? We don't even know if all forms of lever machine 'failure' are (practically) detectable after the fact, and there is reason to think not. Even detectable failures may not be correctable. I imagine this isn't likely to be consequential in statewide races except for the very closest, but the data are pretty sparse -- and that in itself makes me very unhappy.

I'm not sure what your point is about CA-4. I guess you're saying you would be more sure who won if it had been conducted on lever machines. I don't know why. Apparently it has to do with a priori confidence in the levers. I don't have a priori confidence in the levers.

You say no vote switching is possible on lever machines, which may be true of the AVMs -- I wouldn't know. According to Gumbel, there have been live demonstrations of how to switch votes on Shoups. Is this material? Depends on the subject.

Dunno. We have a basic difference here. Basically, it seems to me that scanner error is correctable and lever error isn't. Scanner error could be much larger, but bigger errors are easier to detect. And as much as I enjoy voting on lever machines, I don't think they score high on usability, and I don't think it's ideal to have two voting systems. Also, I think all this is moot. If Andi Novick has a winning legal argument, we'll have lever machines; otherwise, not.

[Bill Bored]

39. I think I said vote switching DURING an election is impossible on levers.

If not, that's what I meant. You're not going to say it's impossible with software I hope!

With levers then, pre- and post- election procedures handle the rest. And they are VERY SIMPLE and do NOT rely on statistics, flawed software certification processes, or I.T. security that most people have no idea how to implement. The fraud is contained if the lever machines are tested and inspected and the totals are copied immediately after the election. This is how it works in NY. It's only when SOFTWARE enters the mix that things can go horribly wrong.

And you have proved it with Chautauqua, thank you very much! Software was used to fix those results, although there may have been an easily explained lever glitch because someone didn't follow a procedure. That gave a candidate a clearly impossible number of votes, which had NO effect on the electoral outcome, but should NOT have been certified.

But the software error (or fraud) raised the perceived undervote rate for the entire county by 300%!

As to lever hacks, accounts of what may be possible, that do not take into account FEASIBLE procedures that may be used to prevent it, do not impress me and they should not impress you either. I'm NOT convinced, that what we need to do to keep scanners and paper ballots safe, is at all FEASIBLE -- and it's not yet even on the table in NY. It's unconscionable to be advocating for lever replacement until those laws and regulations are on the books and we have a reasonable expectation that the counties CAN AND WILL comply.

The point about CA-4 is that there was an audit and no one seems to know what the results are or why there wasn't a full recount in an election with such a narrow margin, even though statisticians said that with Bowen's "emergency" regs, a full recount was imminent. So where is it? And does anyone actually know how to read those regs in the first place?

Finally, in NY, you cannot correct precinct scanner errors after the election, if the courts say the ballots have NOT been proven to have been "preserved inviolate." In the State of NY, there is a legal PRESUMPTION that they have NOT been so preserved, and before you can recount post-election, that presumption has to be disproved to a court (except for absentee and emergency ballots).

I'm sorry but you don't know the case law on this in NY and because of that, I think you are putting too much blind faith in the whole post-election audit/recount paradigm here. You are also allowing your frustration with the Exit-Poll True Believers (EPTBs) to cloud your judgment about Novick's expertise in other areas where she is probably more qualified than most of the attorneys in the State at this point, because unlike them, she has done the legal research. That's NOT just reading the Election Law that's currently on the books, even though there are MAJOR contradictions therein as a result of ERMA. The fact that she might draw incorrect conclusions about the meaning of an exit poll is utterly irrelevant!

You don't like it when the EPTBs tell you that you don't know how to read polls, do you? So try not to suggest that Novick doesn't know how to read law. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, and on edit: I forgot to mention that HAVA does NOT ban lever machines.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. mmmmm

The Chautauqua results shouldn't have been certified -- so should they have rerun the election in that precinct? What's your remedy?

What reasoning supported the conclusion that Bowen's regs would lead to a full recount in CA-4? What does that have to do with anything anyway? You seem to be making a kster argument here.

What case law are you referring to? Are you suggesting that it's impossible for a court to find that the ballots have been preserved inviolate? I assume that if Novick could support that point, she would. So, I'm relying heavily on her reading of the law when I express skepticism about her conclusions.

What on earth do exit polls have to do with this? Yes, I raise an eyebrow that Novick has gone from embracing the exit poll results to repudiating them -- and that she has gone from saying that she doesn't support levers to her present vocal advocacy. But ultimately the courts won't rule on her internal consistency, and I have no way of knowing whether her position remains tactical or whether she has convinced herself. The question is whether she can win the argument. I am not holding my breath. At any rate, it will not depend on me.

You don't like it when the EPTBs tell you that you don't know how to read polls, do you? So try not to suggest that Novick doesn't know how to read law. That's all I'm saying.

Well, it obviously isn't all you're saying, it doesn't have much to do with what I'm saying, and it's fundamentally misdirected. Otherwise, great point, right up there with the stuff about "blind faith."

[Bill Bored]

41. Couple of points:

Remedy for Chautauqua:

First, fix the bogus inflated undervote rate. Then I would say, since outcome of the election was nowhere near in doubt, there probably does not have to be a legal remedy. But I would find out if the counter on the lever machine was properly zeroed pre-election, read properly on election night and in the recanvass, or if someone just mistyped an extra 8 instead of a 0 or a nothing into the reporting system. That could correct the tally to 83 votes which is plausible.

Had this been a close enough race for this to change the outcome, in addition to the above, the remedy would be to check the public and protective counters, along with the poll books to see exactly how many people voted on the machine. Since no vote switching was possible and the counters can't increment by themselves, we can tell almost exactly how many votes were cast for each candidate, with the exception of the one who got 883. There were about 375 voters altogether (we would know this exactly from the above checks). If we accept that the other candidates got at least as many votes as the machine says, we know how many votes the remaining candidate could possibly have received. It's obviously not 883, but we could set an upper bound of 119. If that's not conclusive, and no one concedes, you go to the court, have the machine tested, inspected, etc. to see if it could have miscounted with enough REAL undervotes. Depending on those results and whether someone concedes, you then start collecting affidavits from voters who used the machine saying how they voted. There were only so many who could have possibly done so and we know who they are from the poll books. I don't see how this is any worse than relying on paper ballots that may have been tampered with post-election when so few votes could change the outcome. And it eliminates all the other software-based risks which are far worse.

Bowen's regs / CD-4:

VERY close race. 10% hand count. A 10% margin discrepancy was supposed to lead to audit expansion. This would have only been a few-vote discrepancy, which led some to suggest that it would expand to a full hand count (or at least a larger audit). Never happened. No one seems to know why except that Charlie Brown conceded. So the question is whether the audit process worked, or was permitted to work. And that has a lot to do with the future of NY, and any other state that thinks they can get recounts that might reverse incorrect election outcomes by finding discrepancies in audits. I'm not saying that Brown would have won. I'm saying we don't know and the audits were supposed to tell us. So did they? Why is it so hard to find out, and why doesn't anyone in CA seem interested? (I guess Prop 8 may be more interesting.)

Case Law:

Yes. It's very difficult to get courts in NY to make the determination that the ballots have not been messed with (absentees are different however and there is good reason for that). The recent Staten Is. recount was only allowed because a claim was made that these were "Emergency Paper Ballots." But in fact, it was illegal because this was a paper ballot election. The levers could have been used; they had not broken down; so it was NOT an emergency. We'll see how easy it will be to get actual recounts if the levers go away. But I suspect in the end we will be heavily dependent on scanner software just like Florida.

Exit Polls / Novick:

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have previously intimated to Wilms that because Novick cut her teeth in the E.I. movement by hanging out with the usual EPTB suspects, that this somehow means she's not sufficiently capable of critical thinking or something. I don't think she ever said she doesn't support levers. In fact, she first tried to get HCPB for federal elections in NY to comply with HAVA and RETAIN levers for state and local elections. That's hardly anti-lever. And it's probably a lot more than someone like our friend kster has ever done to get HCPBs too!

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. mmmmmmm

You're assuming that the lever counters weren't checked? I think they probably were, although one would have to check with the officials, and even then one might not be sure. Tinkering with the candidate's vote count might have been a better idea than tinkering with the total vote, but I don't know that election boards have the authority to start taking votes away from candidates, even impossible votes. It's an awkward situation -- luckily not consequential in this case.

I'm sure you're smart enough to argue the other side of your own argument, and no one else is reading this, so I won't bother with a rejoinder.

You could, y'know, examine the PEMT results. You apparently haven't, which makes me think this is a red herring, especially with regard to New York.

Your assertion about NY courts seems pretty labored, considering how few paper ballot elections there are. (WRT Staten Island, you seem to be conflating the standard for declaring the ballot boxes secure with the mechanism for ordering a 'recount.') But if Andi Novick knows how to fix election law to make it as safe as possible for the systems the state is currently under court order to purchase, I trust she cares enough about the state to offer any ideas she has.

On the subject of Novick, there's really no need to make stuff up about my own views. But I'll quote Novick again: "On a personal note I am not an advocate of levers (although I do prefer them to computerized voting systems) however I will argue they are HAVA compliant as a matter of law because if the Court accepts this legal analysis then the DOJ's motion and request for a magistrate to take over our elections would have to be denied." It's quite possible that she has changed her mind.

[Bill Bored]

46. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

PEMT: My point is that Californians haven't examined it! That's who ought to be doing this if a system of post-election audits/recounts is ever going to work. All I know is, Brown conceded after a 10% hand count. But I would think that at least ONE of the many California activists we know and love would have taken enough interest in this to find out what happened. If they didn't, what hope does NY or any other state have, esp. when they are fed the BS line that we can trust scanner software because it's not DRE software? (I won't waste your time explaining the context of this one, but take my word for it that it's been put forth by scanner advocates on many occasions, even as scanner elections have melted down for various reasons.)

Novick: Yes I think she has changed her mind because she knows that HCPB on a large scale, on election night, is not going to happen, and because she has read the history and case law about paper ballot fraud, which the levers were designed to prevent.

What you have shown is that she has NOT changed her mind about the interpretation of HAVA, unless at some point she said levers do NOT comply (other than for accessibility reasons). All of this shows a willingness to think critically -- not the opposite which I think you may have implied with respect to her acceptance of the exit poll arguments to which she was initially exposed.

[Wilms]

50. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I win! :D

[Bill Bored]

63. You win only because long subject lines have to separated with spaces. nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. well, you don't know that

The silence of Californians is consistent with the hypothesis that some have looked and are satisfied. But if you expect me to lose sleep over your notion that no one in CA cares enough to look, and therefore you won't care enough to look -- c'mon.

Since you're still talking about Novick: you probably are aware that she has made public statements endorsing exit poll fundamentalism. And you surely are aware that a logical corollary of exit poll fundamentalism is that the 2004 election in New York was wildly corrupt. How this might reflect upon her, you can say at least as well as I can.

[Wilms]

54. Hmmm. Exit Polls. Andi Novick.

That's a major point reduction for Andi Novick AND levers. (They're forever tied at the hip.)

It seems the real decision on levers rests on ones opinion of Andi Novick. I sure hope Pfaffeneberger takes off the gloves and addresses the issue of Andi Novick squarely. For no discussion about lever machines is worth a damn without a thorough bashing of Andi Novick.

Should we start a new thread about Andi Novick, exit polls, and levers?

How about one JUST about Andi Novick?

By the way, did you know that Andi Novick drowns puppies?

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. Wilms, why are you blowing smoke about this?

Basically, it looks like you are trying to make this all about personalities by accusing me of making it all about personalities -- without engaging the actual substance of what I wrote. That's a time-honored approach here, to be sure, but it's also a remarkable waste of energy.

[Wilms]

56. Me?

I making this about personalities?

Search "Novick" on this thread to see where, and by whom, she is referenced and get back to me about it, a jammed lever story, and whatever else we ought to waste time on.

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. sure

I referenced her to express doubt that her legal strategy will succeed (and if there is a cunning alternative political strategy, it's still below my radar). After all the sound and fury, that's still what I think. I think it's probably a waste of time to talk about lever machines at all. But, unluckily, I'm always curious.

[Wilms]

60. And your doubt about Novick's legal strategy has been noted, repeatedly.

Of course there's the case the DoJ isn't really pressing...but that's not discussed. The lack of certification of an Op Scan...never mind that. The four counties and the Associations of Towns resolution...nothing to see there.

Then there's Watera, Stanislevic & Hommel. They're "running around" your state, too. No matter.

None of that has anything to do with exit polls...so is it all below "your radar"?


I'm still waiting to hear more about the lever machine screw-ups being alleged and who the source of those stories are (apart from your link-less ascertain--most unlike you).

Any luck with that? Or is another case of an urban legend? I'm always curious.

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. huh?

Maybe you know something about the state board that I don't. I honestly don't see what the four county resolutions have to do with anything. Are they supposed to impress Judge Sharpe? What is it that any of us could say about Wahtera, Stanislevic, Hommel, or all the people on the other side that would have any bearing?

As for the gripe about links, I can't help but notice that if you actually cared, you would already have this information yourself. So the hollowness of your complaint is noted. I'll get to it when I can.

[Wilms]

65. It's not the state board. It's ERMA.

A way to keep the levers is for the legislature to amend ERMA. That's what the counties resolutions called the legislature to do, even if you don't "honestly" see that.

As far as the case goes, one point is we haven't heard much from any party except the state saying they aren't going to make the deadlines...again. I don't see the Court or the DoJ wringing their hands over that.

Why do you assume that I don't care about a jammed lever story just because I haven't found (or been offered) a cite? You don't yet have the info, either. When either of us do, we can see about the actual details.

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. how is that a way to keep the levers?

The state is under federal court order to replace the levers. Changing ERMA doesn't affect that at all.

I guess you need to change HAVA, change Judge Sharpe's mind, get a higher court to overrule his interpretation, or find a way to ensure that the state can never comply with the order. So far the last one seems most hopeful, if the new systems are bad enough -- although even at that, I think some progress would be needed on one of the other fronts, since Sharpe isn't bound by the state's certification requirements. Or maybe the EAC could yank Systest's credentials again. (I think Judge Sharpe accepts that that wasn't the state's fault.)

From what I've seen, Sharpe is doing everything he can think of to get compliance at the earliest possible date, while trying to avoid simply demanding the impossible.

I think you're pretty proficient with Google, but maybe not.

[Wilms]

74. That's not how some see it.

You are suggesting that the court order to replace levers is based on Sharpe's opinion of HAVA. I don't think even Lipari believes that, and that's why he went out of his way to make misleading statements on Voice of the Voters last summer. That you assume as much would explain your vigorous defense of Lipari's "highest court in the land" stunt.

Changing ERMA, not HAVA, is one idea. Giving back the money NY had agreed to spend replacing levers, another.

[OnTheOtherHand]

75. nu?

The order of 1/16/08 states:

1) This Court agrees fully with the United States and finds that the defendants have failed substantially to comply with the voting systems requirements of this Court's Remedial Order and that New York remains in noncompliance with the voting systems requirements of Section 301 of HAVA, 42 U.S.C. 15481;

2) As this Court made clear at the December 20, 2007 hearing, noncompliance with HAVA is not an option for defendants and, to the extent that State law and procedure stands in conflict with full compliance with HAVA's federal law mandates, such State law and procedure must give way to federal law requirements;...

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NewYorkBOE-SUPPLEMENTALREMEDIALORDER1-16-08.pdf

So, yeah, I'm suggesting that the court order to replace levers is based on Sharpe's opinion of HAVA. I can stipulate that you believe your counterarguments, but I can't pretend that I do. Maybe you should try to change the sub-- oh, I see you already thought of that.

[Wilms]

78. How many more times do you want to go around this issue?

301 calls for an accessible system. NY didn't have that way back then but has since delivered. That's the ballot marking devices at each polling place.

You don't buy that. NYVV doesn't, either. Noted.

[OnTheOtherHand]

79. so, your view is that the federal case is closed?

Have you checked this with Judge Sharpe? Because it's, like, untrue.

If you must continue to post on this subject, could you try to make sense?

ETA: Maybe you mean that the federal case would be closed if NY just gave the money back. But as far as I can tell, that is no truer -- and anyway, why am I supposed to guess what you mean?

[Wilms]

80. That's a bit rude.

And we have covered this ground over and over on other threads. You didn't like the answers then. Dragging it up again is your choice.

But you can see there is no ruling that HAVA requires lever replacement. And no one is arguing that NY is off the hook having taken money to replace levers. That's a separate compliance problem.

And so the case is not complete.

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. I'm a bit frustrated

I do not see "there is no ruling that HAVA requires lever replacement." All the evidence available to me indicates that Sharpe thinks it does.

[Wilms]

82. How many more times to you want to go around that same point?

I got it that you don't see it.

I got that last summer.

I am not responsible for your frustration.

[OnTheOtherHand]

83. you're only responsible for the weakness of your argument

which ought to be clearer by now, since Plan B has been implemented yet New York is still in court.

[Wilms]

84. And I already told you there is the issue with the money NY took. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. what part of "Section 301" do you find ambiguous?

The court didn't say that NY was out of compliance with Section 102, did it? It said 301, right? And the court called for Plan B by the fall of 2008 and "Plan A for the deployment of fully HAVA-compliant voting systems" by fall 2009 if not sooner, right?

Wilms, you are really reaching. It is hard for me to accept that you don't notice.

[Wilms]

86. What part of I went over this with you last summer don't you get?

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

Now quit stalking me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

87. you linked to nothing in particular

And what you linked to in general is, in my opinion, defamatory. But hey, what the heck.

With respect to this issue, you ditched it amidst handwaving around post 67, so as far as I know, you had nothing and still don't.

If you think I'm stalking you, by all means take it up with the mods.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. links

State of New York Affirmation summarizing Hockley/Delgado (White Plains 2001), in which a machine in White Plains ED 18 jammed.

Westchester Co. canvass, November 2001 election -- the return in question is on page 863. Note also the results for EDs #25 and #30 on the same page, and the undervotes in the mayoral race in ED #30 on page 860.

Chautauqua Co. canvass, November 2004 election -- "CONG" tab row 149 shows 233 undervotes in congressional race in Pomfret ED #2.

Chautauqua Co. canvass, November 2008 election -- "PRES" tab row 43 shows 764 undervotes in Dunkirk Ward 2 ED 4, while "ST SENATE" tab shows 0 undervotes in state senate race.

"Geneva politician calls for voting machine probe" alleging that the outcome of a 2007 council race may have been affected by a jam in Geneva Ward 4, District 1 -- and recalling a similar controvesry in the Victor town supervisor race in 2005. (I don't see ED-level results for the 2007 election.)

Dutchess Co. recanvass, November 2007 election -- page 296 shows 129 undervotes for Fishkill town supervisor in ED #6.

[Wilms]

73. Nice work.

Is it correct to assume that the links to election data represents elections that weren't close enough to warrant newspaper reporting of the perceived anomalies?

Are the undervotes something that wouldn't happen in a Op Scan election...particularly the down ticket races?

Meanwhile, the "Geneva" story says that the complaint was a result of the response to the problematic machine. Like emergency ballots weren't offered.

The Hockley Delgado race...and possibly the "Victor" race were really close. In the former, the difference was 67 votes...1/10th of 1 percent. Do you think 1/10th of 1 percent of paper ballots are ambiguously marked?

Could much of this have to do with deferred maintenance?

Is it likely that a similar, down ticket, problems in an Op Scan system would be caught by an audit?

Do these examples, in your mind, suggest the voters would be safer with an optical scan system?

[Bill Bored]

76. CORRECTION! Hockley-Delgado's margin was 47 votes -- not 67 votes. (Pretty close race.) nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. lessee

1) Yes and no. It's true that those elections weren't very close. Any implication that if they had been, there would have been "newspaper reporting of the perceived anomalies" is poorly founded, since newspaper reporting isn't a good measure of importance.

2) Assuming that you've looked at the election data, you already know that the undervotes I cited are anomalous within the elections. They 'shouldn't' have happened on any technology.

3) True. Presumably true in Hockley-Delgado as well. Quite possibly true in the other cases I've discovered.

4) It depends on what you mean by "ambiguously." Based on the audit and recount results I've seen, on average about 0.1% of paper ballots might be interpreted differently by hand counters than by the optical scanners. In the Minnesota recount, the canvass board divided 3-2 on about 14 ballots out of over 2.4 million votes counted.

5) Maybe.

6) Any pre-certification audit that allows for scrutiny of anomalous results should be able to catch and correct such problems, if they can be corrected.

7) I don't know. What I know is that some kinds of lever problems can't be corrected after the fact. When we try to draw bottom-line conclusions, we have to make assumptions -- often implicit assumptions -- about other aspects of election administration. My impression is that people tend to assume the best about their own favored systems and the worst about other systems. I viscerally don't care that much, so I'm stuck not knowing.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

61. Wilms isn't -blowing- smoke

its exiting out his as$

:}

[Wilms]

42. Now I get it. In fact, you'd trust your vote in an inadequately audited computer tabulated election.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong about that or about your saying otherwise just a matter of months ago.

It's ok. People change their mind.

But I'm disappointed that your position lacks the rigor I've enjoyed in your posts. You're reaching deep with arguments acting as if a perfect alternative is offered...as if a ballot that could be legibly marked, is...as if an election who's individual ballots can be audited, are...that anything correctable is set aright. I could go on. YOU could go on. But, for now, you seem happier with contrariness.

Still, I'm surprised you argue as though you're unaware of the vulnerabilities of computerized vote tallying, the futility of testing evoting equipment, or the lack of adequate audits (if only on the local levels). Meanwhile, not once do I recall you mentioning Bryan Pfaffenberger, who's work is an analysis of the technical and political aspects---clearly your area of concern. As a result, your commentary on Novick, who you've noted on a number of occasions, seems especially awkward and misplaced given her work is centered on a legal argument you aren't taking issue with. You've not challenged the position she has taken with the levers over evoting. You've just commented on the ones she's made with regard to HCPB over evoting, and exit polls.

Further, Novick prevailing in a Constitutional Law case against lever replacement is but one way New York State could retain them...but there are others.

That I'd need to point that out--to you--strikes me as remarkable.

[OnTheOtherHand]

43. I sometimes wonder

if some of the people in this movement ever, ever thought about elections before 2000, or even 2004.

Yes, of course you're sticking words in my mouth, and you're standing my entire belief system on its head. As long as I can remember in my life, I've never believed in a perfect anything. The fact that I object to posts that bang the drum for levers doesn't entail that I'm agitating to melt them down, just like the fact that I object to exit poll crap doesn't mean that I believe in the inerrancy of the vote count. I'm sort of amazed that I have to write this. But I do think that the drum-banging has reached pathological levels, yes.

I don't think Pfaffenberger's work is on point, but it's hard to tell, since he hasn't published it. I checked with him to see if he would share it, but he isn't ready yet, which I respect.

OK, there are ways to win the legal battle other than a constitutional lawsuit, but I'm pretty fuzzy on what they are supposed to be.

[Wilms]

45. Obviously there's no perfect system.

When has that kept you from pondering how many activist can dance on a dislodged chad?

If you were fair, your musings about hypothetical failure modes for levers would be accompanied by examples of actual failures of optical scan.

What made you think I refer to Pfaffenberger's unpublished work? I'm talking about what he has published. Sorry I didn't make that clear. :eyes:

Meanwhile your distaste for and obsession with Novick is noted. Can we move on now?

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. grunt

This is the sort of post that really worries me. I haven't been posting about "hypothetical failure modes" -- I've been posting about actual failures that I have never seen any lever advocate mention. And your response is that I'm not being "fair." Seems like projection to me.

As far as I know, what Pfaffenberger has published is an op-ed, with which I don't disagree. I don't know if you're suggesting that somehow I am trying to suppress the op-ed, or what. As for the last bit, again that looks like projection.

[Bill Bored]

48. When was the last time a scanner jockey mentioned anything about a scanner failure?

No system is perfect. They will all fail on occasion. The question is: which has the lowest overall risk? And that includes the ability of those responsible to manage that risk.

I think it's the levers, esp. given the current state of election auditing, etc. The reason is the design of the machines themselves.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

66. BB, Im not trying to take your levers, but a fact or two here please

If the optical scanners F up, you can get the paper ballots.

Of course, if no one knows the ballots were counted incorrectly, the paper ballots won't help unless
you have a really good audit and really good lawyers.

Regardless of whether federal legislation passes or not, NY is going to get to keep
their levers. Your US senators won't let them get taken.

Then, NY can decide later on if they find better alternatives.

Not for or against, just saying that if levers mess up, no recouping.
But the good thing is if levers mess up, damage is limited.

[Bill Bored]

67. I spend about as much time on federal E.I. legislation as Bush spent on Bin Laden!

Where did you hear that our US Senators are so lever-friendly?

The problem is, as long as vote switching is possible during elections with the scanners, the shifts could be too subtle to notice. So it comes down to the audit and the paper ballot chain of custody (unless the audit can be done on election night).

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

88. maybe you should take the time to get to know your own US senators

Its not like they are going to issue a press release on this.
It would happen during the sausage grinding.

Its not like I want to see my state get any more federal money,
I wonder what on earth my SBoE will spend it on next. Sheesh.

As for US Senators - get to know yours.

its not like I have any in my state worth knowing, oh thats right, we did get rid
of Liddy Dole, but heck, one more face lift and she WOULD have eyes in the back of her head.

Yeh, then we got Senator Hagen, who wants to pretend she is a blue dog.

She rode in on Obama's coattails and now is showing her gratitute to him and to
we voters by being a conservative dem.

Whoopee. At least Liddy was entertaining, she was so useless.

[Wilms]

49. Don't worry. Be happy.

And the actual failure you reference is of undetermined origin.

Glad you found yourself in agreement with Pfaffenberger's "op ed".

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. that's incorrect

I've mentioned two failures (I think -- I know of more than two), and one -- the one that actually altered the election outcome -- was attributed to a jam.

[Wilms]

53. I am mistaken. You did mention a problem attributed to a jam.

And we should discuss that once we have some better information.

How's that going?

[garybeck]

25. This is misleading.

paper ballots is only part of the proposed legislation. it also calls for mandatory audits. There were no audits for Gore 2000.

I can't seem to find the text of the bill at the moment, but I'll tell you one thing. Any law that requires voter marked paper ballots and mandatory audits on every federal election is a good thing. while it might not be everything that everyone wants, it is a million times better than what we have now.

I believe any election rights activist who would turn down a bill that requires paper ballots and mandatory audits would be shooting themselves (and our democracy) in the foot.

[Wilms]

27. Holt's 3/5/10% audit will not give a high statistical confidence in close elections.

(ie: the ones we're most concerned with.)

In most other elections, it's overkill that wastes money.

While Holt's proposed bill doesn't prevent states from conducting better audits, it doesn't compel them.

A false sense of security could result. Conversely, a disrespect for the process could creep in.
As it is, many believe their vote is counted as a result of them having marked it on a paper ballot. :rofl: Others are giddy when Diebold gets the boot, only to be replaced by another vendor's insecure equipment. :eyes: But it's impolite to point out that paper ballots aren't any safer than a DRE given the way they are generally processed. You'd think the fact that the same GEMS system configures both Diebold's DREs and OpScans would be a massive clue. But no.

Many know Andy Stephenson called for paper ballots. Few recall that he advocated meaningful audits. The former, without the latter, is a is an unworthy goal.

[demodonkey]

29. Andy wanted voter-verified paper ballots with meaningful audits, but he was also a realist...

...he understood my state's plight and many times told me that in his opinion any progress toward the goal was better than the status quo.

[Wilms]

31. Andy wasn't alone in getting your "state's plight" wrong.

The status quo in PA was lever machines. THAT was better than what you wound up with.

HAVA does not require the replacement of levers. And that should have been vigorously argued.

But back then nearly EVERYBODY thought HAVA doomed levers, except Doug Kellner, NYS BOE, who...perhaps not ironically...has been under court order (with the threat of being jailed) to replace them, and now finds the judge easing away from that position. Compare that with a vocal activist appearing in videos with an "Accuvote" vendor.

It's OK. Again, nearly everyone got it wrong back then. But to continue to hold on to erroneous beliefs serves no honorable purpose.

Accepting Holt's half measures is no different than accepting the Cortez/EAC condemnation of levers.

Meanwhile, coming from a state that would be among those to most benefit from this bill, you are uniquely positioned to argue with Holt for a better bill...one providing high confidence and low cost is something you could feel proud of. Among other problems, your current advocacy threatens secure elections in NY State (just as it did little for them in your own state and CT). That's not appreciated.

You have told a judge you agree with Cortez/EAC. You argued that PA was at risk for theft in '08 though Obama's wide margin was not lauded as a surprise. Upthread you, perhaps disingenuously, tried suggesting it was a "paper ballot" election that overturned an election when it seems the factor was the absentee/provisional ballots which would be paper regardless of polling place equipment. You're smart enough to know the difference.

I grow tired of having to come in here and be the bad guy pointing out the specious arguments of respected activists.

Whatever it takes for you to drop the dated rhetoric, download the updates, and get on board would be much appreciated. It's 2009. DREs are are on the way out despite Holt's legislation not passing.

[demodonkey]

69. Enough of this. I grow tired of being called a liar, and doing so is beneath you Wilms.

Saying that I posted something "perhaps disingenuously" is basically calling me "perhaps" a liar, and this is not called for. All the ballots that were meaningfully counted in that election were paper, including, yes, the absentees which the margin of victory finally came down to, making them mean something for a change. But having lived all my life in this Commonwealth, I stand firm in my belief that things would have been handled differently in that county if there was not a paper ballot for almost every vote. If the bulk of the votes in that election were on DRE or even levers, I think things would have gone differently. JMO.

FYI, pre-HAVA, the status quo was that out of 67 PA counties only 24 were on lever machines. There was another 23 on central count optical scan, one on precinct-count optical scan, 11 counties on punch cards, and 8 already on various DREs, with a few areas of hand counted paper ballots thrown in. My organization(s) and I made many of the same arguments back in 2005 and very early 2006 that NY state is making now for keeping the levers, in our lever counties. We were well aware that HAVA did not require replacing them, nor did it require replacing punch cards. But once the EAC issued their statement on levers and the DOJ was suing PA to get 'HAVA compliant' systems, and we got a PA Supreme Court decision upholding that they had to be replaced, we saw the writing on the wall and knew that levers (and punch cards, in many counties) were going down no matter what we did. We then switched to doing our best to advocating for counties to choose optical scan over DRE and have been doing so ever since. If you feel that is somehow hurting another state, too bad.

I don't know which judge you are talking about (I have testified many times, in many trials) but my position has been and still remains that I definitely prefer levers over DREs, and human readable and verifiable paper ballots (preferably optically scanned with meaningful audit) over levers. From the day I became a pollworker I recognized that levers are not verifiable in that I was always worried in the back of my mind what would happen if one of the odometers in the back of the lever machine got stuck during an election. A voter would never know, and proving a "stuck" election result would be difficult even in an investigated recount. Still levers are preferable to DREs.

FYI, our Secretary of the Commonwealth's name is Pedro CORTÉS. There is no "z" in it.

And now, peace out Wilms. As I said, enough. I will be supporting the Holt bill if and when it is introduced. Further discourse between us on this thread is only going to be keeping me (and maybe even you) from doing productive work.

There are more important things to fight these days than each other.

[Wilms]

70. No.I didn't call you a liar.

And if you want to compare stuck counters to hijacked (or otherwise malformed) ballot definition files, we can go there.

[Bill Bored]

71. NY state is making no arguments for levers; the people of NY State are.

The people of PA made no arguments against levers; the State of PA did.

It's very unlikely that a statistical audit would provide as much accuracy as a properly maintained lever voting system. It's really a poor substitute, esp. for local elections, but it can be good enough to find out who won many other elections if anyone actually does it right. Such procedures are too complex for most election officials and election lawyers to want to get involved with however.

But they know how to run lever elections! Those involve adding, subtracting, and inspecting the machines. And they know how to get affidavits of how voters voted if there are a lot of undervotes in a close election. That's how it's done with levers. Relatively simple.

2+2=4, so if there were 4 voters and 2 undervotes, and the victory margin is 1 vote, get affidavits from the 4 voters, or hold a new election. Simple.

With scanned paper ballots, it's count and recount, and scan and rescan, until the party in power gets the result they want -- and that's if you're lucky enough to live in a state where recounts are even allowed. That's better than DREs, but it's not necessarily better than levers. The voter intent problem alone is enough to change the outcome of a close paper ballot election, and so is the chain of custody problem. I'm just not convinced that when all is said and done, it's any better than levers, and it's probably a LOT more expensive.

[garybeck]

89. the article referenced in the OP is plain wrong

it is not making a bad system worse if you require paper ballots for all elections.

it is not making a bad system worse if you require an audit. i agree the audits outlined are not great, but they are better than no audit.

[Wilms]

90. I'm not defending Tobi, or her rhetoric.

But a paper ballot system that's unaudited (or not recount-able because of law) is what in comparison to a DRE????

And an inadequate audit of an election that can't provide much confidence in the outcomes accuracy is what???

[garybeck]

91. I agree with you. I'm just saying it is wrong to say "making a bad system worse"

it would be more correct to say "making a bad system a little better, but still not good enough."

we still have a ton of DRES out there and we have to get rid of them. We need 100% voter verified paper ballots and we need good audits. I think we agree on that.

I'm willing to take a step by step approach, especially if the alternative is doing NOTHING. Tobi seems to think doing NOTHING is better than making some improvements. That's pure bullcrap in my book.

Tobi and her entourage are partly responsible for ambushing legislation that could have ensured we would have all paper ballots aready, today, as we speak. I'm very tired of the "100% HCPB or DIE" attitude to tell you the truth. It is preventing meaningful steps from being taken.

100% paper ballots and less-than-perfect audits on every election is better than 50% DREs and no audits. Anyone who argues otherwise has lost their sense of reason.

[Wilms]

92. I agree with much of what you wrote.

If Holt merely tossed DREs, I'd be happy.

Again, to me a BS audit is like the "spot checks" some states do.

Finally, the number of DREs in the country have been dropping without Holt. I hope that trend continues.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

57. here's my thoughts on this:

federal legislation, the devil, nancy tobi, blah blah blha, charts and impressive graphs,
accusations, circuluar firing squad, discredit e-voting activism movement from within,
take up with anti paper election officials to achieve goal, blah blah blah,
more hot air, OMG I can't believe we're going through this fracking shit again.

yada ta yada ta yada, oh its about time for the bit long threads on exit polls and
measuring who has the bigger - iq and who is right blah blah blha,

so much fracking hot air in this forum and so much hot air from a state that had
no no fracking chain of custody, even if it did have 20% hand counted paper ballots.

edited to add: oh and Andy, Andy and then oh she whose name will not be mentioned here, and
then lets attack Rush Holt.

Hell, lets throw in communism and fascism into the posts too, and
while we're here, lets accuse people of having sold out.

SATISFIED?

Just FRACK IT.

the frackups can't even dissent without making it into an attack.

just frack it.