Paper Audits Map = Verified Voting Foundation

[L. Coyote]

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6810









More information about post-election manual audit rules can be found at http://verifiedvoting.org/audits.

[Yellow Horse]

1. Paper Records and VVPATs are not acceptable. DREs must GO.

HR 2894 the Voter Confidence & Increased Accessibility Act would have made that happen, stopped internet voting, and allowed you 100% hand-count in the precinct on election night people to work for that in your states.

Nope, wasn't PERFECT enough, was it?

These maps are SO much better.

[Wilms]

2. Sorry. But these maps are VERY misleading.

Not one of these states are implementing audits to provide any significant statistical degree of confidence in the closest of races (ie: the one to most worry about). A few months back I challenged OTOH to prove my contention wrong, asking him to name a single state, and he folded. And he's a guy that knows a thing or two about this stuff.

Now, the NJ law has teeth, but it is, in essence, pending because they're still using paper-less DRE's. MN may be somewhat an exception. Smarter folks may show up to parse that one out.

Sorry to say that VV is papering over the fact that not enough paper is being counted to assure us of correct outcomes in the most serious of cases. And that's just plain wrong.

Feel free to audit this post for accuracy.

[demodonkey]

3. Pennsylvania CAN'T audit.

Pennsylvania does have an audit law (admittedly weak, but at least we have one) however in 50 of our largest counties, we have paperless DREs and there is simply nothing TO audit. So the law is ignored.

Who the hell cares what the statistically significant audit number is, because when paperless DREs are used, there is NO way in ANY case to count ANYTHING that will assure a correct outcome.

And THAT's plain wrong.

We need to get this national DRE disgrace corrected. There is no excuse that anyone in America is still voting on DREs at all let alone 25% of our population (85% in PA) still voting on paperless ones.

[Wilms]

4. I care what the statistically significant audit number is.

Last I checked this was a thread about audits. Not DRE's, national disgrace that they are.

See today's national OpScan disgrace story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x516998

[demodonkey]

5. It's a thread about the VV Map, a map that implies PA somehow does some sort of 'limited' audits...

...because we have a decades-old audit law.

As I said, right now with 50 large counties on paperless DREs Pennsylvania as a state CAN'T audit. Or recount. Period. Our audit law and our mandatory statewide recount law are meaningless.

Nitpicking about auditing minutiae right now is taking needed focus from the fact that one in four American voters are totally dependent on software for their elections, no matter what, unless they get a different voting system. These millions of voters don't even have the basic protection of ANY kind of a paper stating how they voted, let alone the voter-marked paper ballot that is key to ANY remotely decent audit being done.

So yes, indeed this thread and ANY thread about audits IS about DREs because we can't have real audits until we get rid of DREs nationwide.

[Wilms]

9. An unaudited, unrecountable OpScan system is no better than a paperless DRE.

It's about time we put an end to the drivel you speak. LOOK at what just happened in NY State. Their very first, Lipari inspired, paper ballot election was inadequately audited with no course to a full recount in a razor thin margined race that handed state senate control to the repubs with judge's blessing. FL2000/OH2004 much?

Nationwide, audits are BS. And so is the rhetoric from the various, self-proclaimed, "verified" election types. You've got lots of people all warm and fuzzy about their UNVERIFIED paper ballot vote when it's effectively the SAME AS a DRE.

Quit muddying the waters with your Liparian snake oil. You don't "first" get paper ballots and then cross your fingers they're properly audited. You have the paper AND the audit/recount laws IN PLACE or you've got a DRE and a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about because they believe liars.

Everyone knows your hair's on fire. And those who STUDY the ENTIRE system know your pants are aflame as well. Get off your meme. You're a danger to democracy.

Computers and judges decide elections in NY State thanks to people like you.

[Bill Bored]

14. If VV got PA wrong, maybe you should ask them to correct the map. nt

[saras]

6. Whatever...

My state uses 'paper' ballots, but they're only ever counted by machine, even in so-called audits.

And during the protests about implementing the machine-count system, the officials only talked about protection against outside hackers, while the protesters mostly were concerned with manipulation by people inside the vote-counting system. At which point they (quite literally) just grinned and said "you'll have to trust us".

[demodonkey]

7. You have paper ballots and you can work for more in terms of how it is counted.

Do whatever it takes to get change. Lobby for hand-counted audits of the paper. Run for office yourself, if you think you can help get needed changes passed. Our late friend Andy Stephenson, a great election reformer and advocate for voter-verified paper ballots, did just that before he died. In YOUR state, BTW.

[Wilms]

8. What audit laws are there in PA?

Are they adequate? Or, upon getting OpScans in place state-wide, will you then have to start a campaign for audits and recounts?

That's how Bo Lipari left New Yorkers, particularly Democrats, high and dry. After selling them on OpScans over levers, the very first election using the Lipari/ES&S Computer Tally System resulted in the state's senate being turned over to Republican control, by a court, and without a much needed audit. He was repeatedly warned for years that he was putting New Yorkers at risk of this very eventuality, but kept up his "my way or the highway" attitude alienating many serious advocates. He, apparently, couldn't care less, except for the cover your ass blogging he does after the fact.

Arguing for OpScans without adequate audit and recount law is a half-measure that'll lead to the very problem NY, like FL2000 and OH2004, had in an important election.

Don't Lipari PA voters with lies or half-truths. Tell them the whole ugly story about how you get VERIFIED tallies.

[demodonkey]

10. It's a weak 2% or 2000 votes in each county, whichever is less, and a mandatory recount in close...

...statewide races where the margin is one-half of one percent or less.

As I said, Pennsylvania as a state cannot currently enforce these laws because of paperless DREs in 50 of its largest counties comprising over 85% of its voters.

Without paper ballots in place statewide, providing something TO audit or recount, there is no use wasting the huge amount of time and effort it would take to improve these laws. Improving an unenforceable law is worthless no matter how good the improvements are. When it comes to election auditing and recounting paper ballots are the necessary first half, otherwise you end up like NJ. You may not agree with this strategy, but frankly I don't care.

I have never, ever said here or anywhere else that paper ballots without audits are OK. Of course audits are needed -- once something is in place to audit. Your allegation that I have lied to Pennsylvania voters about this or anything else is FALSE. Along with your crude and inflammatory statements upthread, this is nothing less than an uncalled-for personal attack against me.

I am also tired of your uncalled-for attacks against another DU member because you don't personally agree with his strategy for election reform. Lipari is someone's name, NOT A VERB.

Finally I am damn sick of the constant pissing and moaning about lever machines, and about NY State in general, from you and several others on this forum. Lever machines are gone. They are a moot point; NY has paper ballots now and yes, it certainly does need to audit them better. So if you live there, get the hell off these boards, get the hell off your butt, and get whatever the hell audit law you want passed -- if you can.

Otherwise please just shut up because constant attacks and bickering are wasting everyone's time.

[Wilms]

11. In other words, if the margin is greater than 1/2 percent you don't get a recount.

Nice.

And you say working for better audit and recount law while advocating your alternative computer voting system is a "waste of time"? Seems fighting for paper ballots alone under such circumstances is quite dubious. What, in fact, is needed is both at the same time. To say otherwise is lying to voters. Why is that SO hard for you to admit. (I figure you're smart enough to recognize it.)

An "uncalled-for attack" is precisely what's perpetrated on voters AND democratic values when systems, such as you and Bo Lipari peddle (and that VV covers up with their bullshit audit maps), are held up as a standard--golden or otherwise. Another one is your call for me to "get the hell off these boards" because you seem sooo unwilling to admit the obvious. New York just had the first paper ballot general election and control of the state senate was handed over to Republicans by computer tally, inadequate auditing, and recount blocking judges...just like in FL2000 and OH2004. And it's the EXACT system YOU and LIPARI advocate. And you scream at me for decrying that? Talk about personnel attacks...

I know you, and the other Liparistas, cringe at the reality of the pro-lever lawsuit that NY Nassau county election officials have been trying, but that's another fact you all like to gloss over--your scolding of me notwithstanding. What makes me cringe is the fact that those election officials and the ones in Columbia County are left out in the cold by "advocates" such as you and Lipari. You could learn a thing or two from them.

I don't tell you to "shut-up". Considering the damage done, I think it's just fine that you all stand up and identify yourselves.

You've served well the Harris/Blackwells of the world giving them precisely the tools they need.

[demodonkey]

12. You are putting words in my mouth. Please calm down, and stop this.

In other words, if the margin is greater than 1/2 percent you don't get a recount.

That is NOT what I said. There are other ways a recount can be triggered in Pennsylvania. If you are interested, look it up. I don't have time or inclination to copy the entire PA Election Code for you. The point is still that the recounts and audits our laws already prescribe are meaningless and moot in Pennsylvania as a state because until we get rid of paperless DREs and get paper ballots statewide, as a state we can't meaningfully follow these laws.

I did not tell you to "shut the hell up". I said that you should quit wasting time on computer bulletin boards, get the hell off your can, and get out there and work for the audit and recount laws you want. IF you are unwilling or unable to do that then yes PLEASE shut up with these attacks and this bickering that is wasting everyone's time.

Yes it is correct that you didn't tell me to "shut up", but you DID say, "it's about time we put an end to the drivel you speak" which is just about as good. You also called me a "danger to democracy" and accused me of serving Harris (the former SOS of Florida not Bev with BBV I presume) and Kenneth Blackwell. Nice. Classy stuff.

Why would I cringe at any pro-lever machine lawsuits in NY state? I live and vote in Pennsylvania. We already went the lawsuit route here back in 2006 to try to at least buy our lever machines some time (Google Kuznik v. Westmoreland.) Nonetheless Pennsylvania's lever machines were long ago sold for scrap and our situation is currently not at all like NY State. I really could give a rat's ass about any lawsuits over lever machines up there.

You sure have your panties in a terrible wad about NY State's situation, but if NY is your state (and who knows; you hide behind a screen name here) you need to respect that other states are not NY. It would be a lot more productive if you would figure out what you can do to improve things in YOUR state, and leave my state (and me) alone.

It's a holiday; calm down. Have some eggnog.

[Wilms]

13. I'm quite calm. Nice try. Were you, perhaps you'd avoid the flawed logic underpinning your position.

Do you really need the "entire PA election code" to explain recount triggers? If that's the case, lawyers are salivating...and ballots are sitting somewhere having who knows what done to them. And it's emblematic of the problem you'll still have once the state is rid of DREs. Think the entire thing through. People in New Jersey have. They have an audit law that likely the nation's toughest. The fact that they don't yet have paper ballots didn't stop them.

And yeah, you did tell me to "shut up"...more than once. Some rejoinder. You also have no idea about what I do for election integrity when I'm not here cleaning up the misinfo resulting from half-baked notions and lawsuits. But it's standard internet slurring you rely on in response to my charges.

You say that you "really could give a rat's ass about any lawsuits over lever machines up there." Wow. Further upthread you also said, "Who the hell cares what the statistically significant audit number is..." So I'll repeat myself. You're a danger to democracy.

[Bill Bored]

15. Kuznik v. Westmoreland may not have made the right arguments.

For one thing, the EAC has NO rule-making authority over the states, regardless of what your SoS and the EAC may have said. Nassau County, NY finally got that clarified in the US Court for the Eastern District of NY and even the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. And it's perfectly clear from reading HAVA. Your lawyers may not have read HAVA.

Also, we know that levers comply with HAVA, except for Accessibility which could be provided by any number of voting devices for disabled voters, including the ones that mark paper ballots by machine, or the VotePAD. That's a HAVA-compliant voting system. And it requires just one accessible device per poll site -- not per precinct. Your lawyers may not have read HAVA.

Finally, HAVA only applies to federal elections. Those 3 races max. could easily be hand counted 100% if lever machines were used for all other elections in a state. So even if levers were NOT allowed to be used in federal elections, there is NO reason to entrust ANY vote-counting to software. Your lawyers may not have read HAVA.

Finally, I'm sure there's something in your State Constitution to protect voters. So to the extent that a software-based voting system violates that protection, it's unconstitutional. Since HAVA does not require such a voting system either, no state should have to implement one. Maybe your lawyers didn't read your state constitution, or HAVA.

Let's stop beating around the bush with audits that will never be conducted and recounts that winners will always oppose and losers will only want unless they're seen as "sore losers" like Gore and Kerry. That system has been shown not to work, time and time again. At best it allows the courts, and sometimes incompetent election lawyers -- and of course the computers -- to decide our elections -- NOT THE VOTERS.

Even in MN, if you have a margin just a wee bit higher than 0.5% (according to the software count mind you), you're back to roughly a 3% hand count instead of a Franken hand count. And Minnesotans are calling for the 0.5% to be lowered but WITHOUT a risk-limiting audit to compensate for that! That's another example of jumping off a cliff without a rope -- just like New York has done by switching to computers without effective audits or recounts which was in FACT NYVV's POLICY.

It's time the VV crowd came up with another plan. I know it's not easy, which is why some of them say it will take DECADES to fix this problem. I'm not willing to wait that long -- are you?

[demodonkey]

16. The whole case was based on my State Constitution. Please read it before you release your hot air.

The case had nothing to do with the EAC. And yes of course our lawyer read HAVA before filing the case, as did I. For you to suggest otherwise is just posting inflammatory bullshit in a public forum. The case was based on the Pennsylvania Constitution and the PA Election Code. My lawyer knows a hell of a lot more about our State Constitution, the PA Election Code, and election law in general, than you do Bill. (And yes, I know who you are in real life.)

The point is we were the first post-HAVA lawsuit against electronic voting in PA, and one of the first in the nation. This was in early 2006 during the national HAVA purchasing orgy, not late 2010 where we are now. We took our best shot at the time, won in Commonwealth Court, lost in the PA State Supreme Court after the PA Governor and the US DOJ meddled, and since then we've moved on to other strategies.

If you and certain other people on this board and in this movement spent half the time focusing on realistic strategies that you do taking up bandwidth and people's time on this board (and on other forums and email lists) with blah-blah, nationally we might actually arrive at a solution. And a lot sooner than decades from now.

And that said, given changing technology I believe that voting systems, auditing, and related election law are things we will need to revisit frequently pretty much forever. Any solution we come up with these days isn't going to last for 80 years like the lever machines did.

Peace out. I have no further time for this crap, as I am going now to try to celebrate a little Christmas with my family.

[Wilms]

17. Did someone just threaten to out someone?

:shrug:

[Bill Bored]

19. My recollection of this case is that some judge decided that federal law trumps a state constituion.

While this may be true, there's nothing in federal law that bans lever voting machines or that requires software-based voting machines or that is intended to keep voters from knowing that their votes are being counted as cast. Not even the Hack America's Vote Act.

So what do you consider to be a realistic strategy to get actual verified election results in the foreseeable future?

Peace to you too, and I mean that. It's almost Christmas!

[Bill Bored]

24. Crickets.

Also see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=517188&mesg_id=517211

[Wilms]

18. Bill, why assume the VotePA atty didn't read HAVA? Lot's of people read it...and still get it WRONG!

Perhaps when DemoD is finished having eggnog, visiting with family, and trying to subvert our First Ammendment rights, she'll let me know if I got something wrong.

My sense of what happened in that ill-fated case was that their argument was that voters had to approve the new system. I don't think they argued that HAVA didn't require replacing levers. In fact I think they conceded that! I don't see anything wrong with what they DID argue...it's what they didn't include that might have been a bad calculation.

And something tells me I ain't the only one who feels that they blew it. Kudo's for trying, but what's the point...especially if you set a bad precedent that has to be overcome in a successive case.

[Bill Bored]

20. I didn't mean that their attorney litterally didn't read HAVA.

But my recollection of this case is similar to yours Wilms.

[UnitedVoters]

21. Bullies and thugs on this thread are the real danger to democracy...

Do not listen to these people, Demo Donkey. To me and many others you are one of the true heroines of election reform! It is a disgrace you were attacked like this, especially during the holidays.

The holidays are when elves abound. And elves are similar to trolls except trolls are destructive -- REAL dangers to democracy -- and they abound all year. Now I'm NOT saying specifically that anyone on here is a troll -- I'm just sayin'.

Wilms, Demo Donkey absolutely did NOT do anything to injure your first amendment rights. She -- rightfully -- challenged you to quit harping about the dissatisfaction you claim to have with elections in New York and elsewhere, and get out there and actually DO something about the problems. And I will add that IF you are doing something now (which personally I doubt) then simply have the courage to tell us what it is. Without that disclosure, it is understandable that people might doubt your motivation for participating in this forum, especially when you attack the motivation of others for no good reason.

The DU Election Reform Forum was one of the most productive at one time. There was real organizing here during the aftermath of the 2004 election. But now, we have the barage of attacks against some of our most productive activists, the relentless tag team circular posting like we see on this thread, the overattention to New York and lever machines (which are now gone in the rest of the USA) -- all this is nothing more than a denial of service attack that has turned this forum into an echo chamber for handful of posters, especially since the departure of WYVBC and Voting News.

Sad and disgusting how low the forum has sunk.

Demo Donkey, please keep fighting for what you believe in. Hugs to you and best wishes for a good year in 2011.

[Wilms]

22. Some editorial framing.

My activities off this forum aren't at issue, nor subject of disclosure, despite your integrity lacking frame.

My activities on this forum are self-evident...and subject to a disdainful opinion by you and DD. That's your right. Make your arguments over and over, and they'll be challenged here in this OPEN forum. Telling me to "shut up" is not a post-worthy rejoinder.

Unlike your occasional hit-piece posts, and DD's typical refrains, no one here is attempting to silence anyone. She too, makes her argument and it is subject to response. "Quit harping", as you write, is indeed an attempt to silence.

Despite the self-satisfaction NYVV Bo-Bots have with the computerized EMS they advocate, there are plenty of New Yorkers who press for a reliable system. The NYVV crowd loathes the active lawsuit Nassau county is trying in order to return to levers. And they are shamefully silent about Columbia County, who's election officials HAND COUNT the vaunted paper ballot in order to bring some level of integrity back to NY State. You'd think you guys would be cheering them on. But your not.

New Yorks State Senate has just changed hands in the first state-wide general election using computers sold by people like you. It was an extremely close margin. The inadequate audit revealed hair raising discrepancies, but the courts thwarted efforts for a hand to eye recount and senate control was handed over. And you want to talk about Denial of Service? Own it. Everything Bo Lipari, NYVV, DD, and you have sold turns out to be a lemon.

Stick it in your eggnog.

[Bill Bored]

23. Hang on a second: Wilms merely commented on the MAPS in the OP. Then all "hell" broke loose! Read:

Wilms wrote in post #2:

Not one of these states are implementing audits to provide any significant statistical degree of confidence in the closest of races (ie: the one to most worry about). A few months back I challenged OTOH to prove my contention wrong, asking him to name a single state, and he folded. And he's a guy that knows a thing or two about this stuff.

Now, the NJ law has teeth, but it is, in essence, pending because they're still using paper-less DRE's. MN may be somewhat an exception. Smarter folks may show up to parse that one out.

Sorry to say that VV is papering over the fact that not enough paper is being counted to assure us of correct outcomes in the most serious of cases. And that's just plain wrong.

Feel free to audit this post for accuracy.

This was followed by DD's understandable but misdirected frustration over the situation in PA. She wrote:

Who the hell cares what the statistically significant audit number is, because when paperless DREs are used, there is NO way in ANY case to count ANYTHING that will assure a correct outcome.

And THAT's plain wrong.

DD did not address Wilms' concerns and the concerns of MANY in "paper ballot" states such as FL, MI and now New York, who are really having a devil of a time getting our votes counted -- just like in PA and the other "DRE states." In fact, I would say that our concerns have been TRIVIALIZED because the DRE bogeyman is a more conspicuous, but no less dangerous, problem than computerized ballot scanners.



The high court ruling in New York that denied a hand count of the paper ballots in a close and crucial election is deplorable. It's no better than Bush v. Gore, and in many ways worse! At least they counted some of the undervotes in FL 2000!

Now, either we find a way to deal with this, or dare I say, spend time on another worthy cause (which I think I suggested up thread). Merely getting paper and toothless spot-check "audits" is not the solution. It never was. So we damn well better "care what the statistically significant audit number is." And by the way, there is no such thing because it's a different "number" for every contest, and depends on the election results, which should be unofficial until the audit is completed, unlike election results in New York, Florida and elsewhere.

Making personal attacks, threatening to out people, ignoring the science, accusing those of us who choose not to be self-promoters of NOT working on the problem, when they might be doing more behind the scenes than we can imagine, is plain wrong too.

Finally, I still have not received an answer to my request for "a realistic strategy to get actual verified election results in the foreseeable future." But I do realize it's the holiday season.:party: