Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition of insanity

["LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ralph.....

Is there no middle ground?
Everything is black or white?

I'm not saying we should have Corporate control of voting software.
I'm saying that it *is* possible to make technology work for us.
I agree that "secret" software is ridiculous. (I also think it's mostly
secret because only a programmer can read it.....but that programmer should
be one of "us" not one of "them".....;-)

Having a Corporation in charge of *anything* to do with elections is like
having the fox guard the henhouse, and that's not the issue here. This is
about whether electronics can be trusted to count votes.
(I'm having problems with the whole concept of "Corporate" rights and
privileges....but that's another story.)
I think there should be a way to place trusted (not sure how you can be
satisfied of this, tho.......;-( individuals in charge of the process. Like
the Clerk having a Programmer on the staff who deals with it. Do you trust
the Clerk and their staff? Never sure with humans.......think Terry Baker
and the SoS who died with all those registrations and papers in her
office....;-(

I believe firmly that electronics is the only way to count such a massive
amount of *anything* with little error.
(I'm not sure if I believe this can *ever* be accomplished perfectly and
flawlessly.......nature of the Beast.)
But machines *are* impartial and incredibly more proficient at this kind of
task.
We need to ensure the human interface is above reproach.......and there's
the rub.

Saying *all* electronic vote counting/sorting is bad, is throwing out the
baby with the washwater.
HUMANS are the ones to worry about.......
HUMANS are the ones who have a motive for Fraud......
HUMANS are the only ones who will *commit* fraud.....
All the machine "cares" about, is doing it's job the best it can.....an
admirable goal.

If we find a way to remove the "human" factor, once the human's job (voting)
is done, *then* we'll be able to have a truly confident election.
At least that's what *I* think.......

Good thing it's a free country, eh?
<VBG>

Bo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Shnelvar" <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Evan Daniel Ravitz" <evan@xxxxxxxx>; "Paul Tiger"
<Paul.Tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "BCV" <bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "William Crook"
<slayer@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition of
insanity


> Dear Bo:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 00:47:44 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >Evan,
> >Errors are errors.
> >Secret ones and conspiracies and all are a bit paranoid.
>
> Really?
>
> With the results of elections controlling billions of dollars (think of
the
> recently defeated Proposition A), the more compelling it is to control
those
> results.
>
> >Stop being a Luddite.
>
> He's not the Luddite.  I am.
>
> Here's my background: I've been a computer programmer more-or-less
> continuously since 1964.  For 10 years I did complex econometric modeling.
> After that I was a consultant to companies like Exxon doing numerical
> optimization (so that they could keep down their costs when moving oil
> around).  Fascinating stuff.
>
> Since the late 1980's I've had a company that has done nothing but backup
> and disaster recovery software.
>
> Now that you know how much of a Luddite I am, you can understand that I
have
> a technical understanding of both advanced statistics and computer
> programming as well as a fairly good grasp of econometrics.
>
> And I'm terrified of these machines.
>
> >Technology can give us the ability to be error free as well as fraud
proof..
>
> No it can't.
>
> By what argument can you make such an assertion?
>
> >We have to mold it to our purposes, not let it take over our process.
> >This *is* possible.
> >Just because something has been done for a long time is not a good reason
to
> >continue it. In fact, it's probably a good reason to *not* continue it.
This
> >is a dynamic world we live in and everything has to adapt. To not change
is
> >to stagnate and die.
>
> My next door neighbor has been an election judge for many, many years.
> Elaborate mechanisms were put into place in order to minimize election
> fraud.
>
> Those are good mechanisms.
>
> Bo, just because something is new does not make it better. Similarly, just
> because something is new does not make it worse.
>
> Our freedoms hang in the balance.  To do something new with how our votes
> are counted without proper and in-depth thought to the process can and
will
> lead to someone hijacking the process.
>
> If you want to hear about low-tech hijacking of elections just contact
Sunny
> Maynard of the Green Party.  She'll tell you some hair-raising stories.
>
>
>
> One of the questions people sometimes ask me is: We use credit cards and
> electronic transactions every day to move trillions of dollars around.  Do
> you really want to go back to barter and hand-written bank drafts?
>
> The answer: The basic difference between Electronic Funds Transfers (EFT)
> and electronic voting is that voting is anonymous.  When an EFT goes
astray,
> someone gets hurt and yells.  When a vote goes astray then NOBODY KNOWS.
>
>
>
> With statistical sampling of the votes (a la HR2239) you can dramatically
> reduce the probability of fraud.  But there are still problems.
>
> Consider a close election.  Let's say that polling data shows that your
side
> is losing by 6%.  Further, let us say that the stakes are really very
high:
> billions of dollars.  If you get caught then you go to jail.  If you don't
> get caught then you end up being millions of dollars richer.
>
> There are plenty of people willing to make a much less lucrative a deal
with
> the devil.  Just ask your local pusher.
>
> So let's say that there are 300 polling places representing 30,000 votes
and
> that Company X controls the software.  If "your side" is low by 6% then
the
> vote would be 14100/15900.  To win you've got to skew 2000 votes.
>
> Company X knows that 1.5% of the polling places (5 polling places out of
> 300) will be hand counted.
>
> If Company X knows which 5 places then manipulating the election is
trivial.
> I leave this as an exercise for the reader.
>
> If Company X does not know which 5 polling places will be hand counted,
then
> things are a bit more difficult but not impossible.  All that need be done
> is that 30 polling places have their results heavily skewed.  Instead of
> each polling place having a (average) of 47 yes v 53 no, you shift it to
80
> yes v 20 no for the 30 polling places that Company X is manipulating.
>
> Now the total vote is 15090.  Voila!  You've won and the chances of being
> caught are less than 1 in 5.
>
>
>
> No, Bo, hand counting is necessary to preserve the honesty of the system.
>
> >
> >Bo
>
> Ralph
>
>
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Evan Daniel Ravitz" <evan@xxxxxxxx>
> >To: "LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Cc: "Paul Tiger" <Paul.Tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "BCV" <bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> >"William Crook" <slayer@xxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:25 AM
> >Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition
of
> >insanity
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Bo, Canada (20-something million people) and Britain both hand-count
> >> ballots. It's been done for hundreds of years. The journey of 1000
> >> miles begins with a single step, counting a million starts with one.
> >> It's "scalable". I'm sure it's more error prone than computer
> >> counting, but with the proper measures, those are honest errors
> >> instead of secret ones which can never be discovered now.
> >>
> >> Evan
> >>
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, LPBC Chairman wrote:
> >>
> >> > Evan....
> >> >
> >> > Hand counting???
> >> > a hundred thousand ballots???
> >> > (in Boulder County alone....)
> >> > And you think *that* would be more accurate???
> >> > Maybe someday you should volunteer at the Clerks office and see what
it
> >> > takes to just open and sort ballots by hand......let alone count
them.
> >You
> >> > would be amazed at the errors people make.
> >> >
> >> > We need to come up with a way to make technology work.
> >> >
> >> > Bo
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Paul Tiger" <tigerp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > To: "Evan Daniel Ravitz" <evan@xxxxxxxx>; <paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Cc: "BCV" <bcv@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "William Crook" <slayer@xxxxxxxxx>; "Bo
> >> > Shaffer" <bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 6:46 PM
> >> > Subject: RE: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The
definition
> >of
> >> > insanity
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > No, Ben Franklin actually. Go do your homework.
> >> > >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
> >> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:18 PM
> >> > > To: paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > Cc: BCV; William Crook; Bo Shaffer
> >> > > Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The
> >definition of
> >> > > insanity
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Paul Tiger wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
> >and
> >> > > > expecting different results." -- Benjamin Franklin
> >> > >
> >> > > Einstein, actually. State law mandates recounts by the same method
as
> >> > > the original count. That's why I support hand-counting until the
State
> >> > > law is changed; public-source software isn't as good as
hand-counting,
> >> > > but much better than secret software used over and over.
> >> > >
> >> > > Evan
> >> > >
> >> > > ----------------------------------------------
> >> > > Evan Ravitz     303 440 6838     evan@xxxxxxxx
> >> > > Vote for the National Initiative! www.vote.org
> >> > > Photo Adventures:          www.vote.org/photos
> >> > >
> >> > > Kucinich: the ONLY candidate to vote against the
> >> > > "Patriot" Act and the Iraq war:  www.kucinich.us
> >> > > ------------------------------------------------
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>