California today issues proposed criteria re Electronic Voting

[musiclawyer]

Secretary Debra Bowen
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
ATTN: Voting Systems Review, 6th Floor

... The clause that caugh my eye was as follows:


DREs. Each direct recording electronic voting system (“DRE”), as defined in Elections Code Section 19251(b), must incorporate, as part of its design, hardware, firmware and/or software program features that effectively secure the DRE and all electronic media used with the DRE against untraceable vote tampering or denial of service attacks by any person with access to the DRE, its firmware, software and/or electronic media during their manufacture, transport, storage, temporary storage, programming, testing and use, including the electronic ballot definition or layout process.


My local elections official thinks that this is the beginning of the end for DRE's in California. She says that if machines are not certified by end of August, they can't be used in February 08.

[shance]

1. As long as optical scans allowed in tabulating as well, there will continue to be electronic fraud.

Secretary of State Bowen knows that, as does her appointment Llowell Henley (Sp?).

It is a nothing but a ploy if optical scans are not included in the decertification.

[musiclawyer]

3. Actually the optical scan machines here scan a real ballot

If there are suspected prolems, there can be a hand count of the ballots. I think that's why there are omitted.

[Land Shark]

4. Recounts are rare, expensive, legally problematic, OPSCAN first counts are secret electronic

so, you're placing all electronic integrity hopes in a basket that is rarely effecitve, always expensive and risky.... Without that recount being actually completed, it's just as hackable and unreliable as DREs.

[shance]

9. Hello?? And what counts the ballot ML??

The OPTISCANNER!!!

[Land Shark]

13. For more EVIDENCE on why FIRST COUNT is the only count that really matters?

and with optical scans the first count of the "paper ballot" is a secret first count.... very very bad. That's usually the ONLY count ever done, too. Look at this election, nobody has been able to recount a single "paper ballot":

See how a congressional seat was lost to optical scanning secret first counts followed by a swearing in 7 days after the election while the congressional record says 68,500 ballots were still uncounted.... and the whole thing is "all good" according to the first appellate opinion in a chain of opinions to come because the whole term was over in 6 months before the appellate court could get around to giving an opinion, even though we pressured them to set oral argument prior to the 11-06 election.

BradBlog's intro sentence pretty much says it all though:

"Need more evidence for why election results need to be right on Election Night? Look no further than the now-infamous CA50 Busby/Bilbray Special U.S. House Election to replace Randy "Duke" Cunningham last June"

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4313

[AikidoSoul]

5. Optical scan ballots are much more secure than DREs

the ballot is the evidence.

Optical scans are much cheaper than DREs

Optical scans are not a complicated to operate and have fewer incidences of failure

Next step is to MANDATE manual counting OF RANDOM precincts in each state.

Right now the recount laws in each state do not guarantee any kind of verification if someone wants to screw around with the tabulations.

[Land Shark]

6. As an election lawyer and lead counsel in the Busby/bilbray election contest in CA50

we are STILL trying to get at the optical scan *paper ballots* from the June 6, 2006 special election where there were all kinds of anomalies especially in absentee voting on the face of the initial official returns.

Recounts and audits both mean you have to navigate legal statutes and/or courts (always hazardous) in order to have any hope of your check and balance working.

The FIRST COUNTS on any system are 99% chance to be the only one who matters. It's hard to find lawyers to take up election contests and recounts sometimes cuz they are expensive and hazardous, but that is the ONLY place you get the benefits of the paper ballots you are talking about.

[AikidoSoul]

8. You're right about the process of recounting being difficult

if not highly tedious and dangerous to navigate legally. Getting in and getting the recount done quickly is key as you state. Because the statutes differ from state to state it makes it extremely difficult for legal teams to work quickly. I wish there could be a fairer system for all the states. I kinda like the way Kentucky conducts recounts and makes it easy for candidates to challenge the vote.

Despite the difficulty in most states I would never trade paper for DREs -- and would never accept the argument that it makes the process "simpler".

Paper evidence is the only system that has the possibility of fairness.

There are too many potential security problems to EVER be able to trust DREs. Even top computer security experts agree that if computers/software/firmware/ tabulation channels are compromised -- that the potential SCALE of the fraud is much, much larger than with paper ballots.

Absentee ballots have always posed problems, but if I'm a criminal and want to steal elections, it's much easier to do it and get away with manipulating those invisible electrons than having to physically mess with penny-ante absentee ballots.

Since elections can have several groups attempting to steal at the same time -- it's possible to have it all going on at the same time. The method that has the best chance of succeeding is DRE manipulation.

I disagree with computer scientists Dave Dill and Dan Wallach (last time I communicated with them), but I do agree with Aviel Rubin, Rebecca Mercuri and Chuck Herrin. Get rid of computers altogether!

If you dig into the stance that Dill and Wallach took you will see their positions are tainted by special interests.

Paper and messiness. Democracy is messy and it should stay that way for as long as possible.

[Land Shark]

12. You make some good points, but don't address optical scan, just as dangerous

or even more dangerous because it induces a lot of false confidence via "paper ballots" that at best come into play marginaly or not at all. Sure, they run the paper ballots through a computer counter called an optical scanner, but we've no idea what happens with the count and nobody will tell us. The recounts are rare, expensive, and unlikely to be completed on time. IN A CORRUPT district, which is the type that is most relevant and matters the most, you will PARTICULARLY have problems getting that backup paper ballot information.

The first count is pretty much the be-all and the end-all. And it's corporate, secret, and electronic on both opscans and DRE touch screens, and the Holt bill not only doesn't change that, it institutionalizes the secret counts in the name of progress.

For the full picture I highly recommend this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x459022

[shance]

10. Thank you LS*** Recounts I have concluded are essentially a joke and a smokescreen.

And for those who are "pro" optical scanner, with all due respect, please wake up and grab an expresso.

Guess what counts the paper ballots?

The Optical scanners.

Guess what can be manipulated and has been manipulated as much if not more than the DRE's themselves?

The OPTICAL SCANNNER.

Just because someone is a Secretary of State or in some position of authority, trust your own common sense, use your brain, and stop listening to those who might stand to make millions promoting disinformation about the benefits of electronic voting equipment, whatever it may be.

[shance]

11. Nothing could be further from the truth. Optical scans cause just as much fraud.

If not more.

Even attorneys who are not fighting optiscan know they are instruments for TOTAL UNCENSORED FRAUD, and yet they don't try and block their usage.

Why is that?

[stellanoir]

2. I'm callin' out Land Shark on you LOL

Nice to see you and glad you're payin' attention.

best

[Land Shark]

7. But this reg does seem to make life very difficult for DREs, yet

opscans have all the bad features of DREs except that they let you see the ballot. Yet, opscans count it in secret, and it's very hard to get past that. Secret counts are the only things that make the papers. A nationally ranked gubernatorial candidate in my home state of WA state just BARELY raised the millions necessary for a hand recount statewide, which made the difference. Most recounts falter or fail to raise the money. And NO RECOUNT protects against a stuffed ballot box, which you can recount as many times as you want and it will match up every single time with the original result.

More details here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x459022 Basically, if you take a voting rights approach to this question of voting rights and systems (duh!) it's inapprpriate to compromise on the point of the total lack of effective govt oversight on the 1st count, which is always the case on ethe 1st count