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

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

Bo,

You compromise AFTER you've asked for what you really want, not
before!

We're not trying to attract flies, but honest people.

I had lunch with Ralph, Jerry & Brian at the Lib lunch yesterday and
nobody was strident, like you are below.

----------------------------------------------
Evan Ravitz     303 440 6838     evan@xxxxxxxx
Vote for the National Initiative! www.vote.org
Photo Adventures:          www.vote.org/photos
Bush vs the Pope!            www.vote.org/Bush

Kucinich: the ONLY candidate to vote against the
"Patriot" Act and the Iraq war:  www.kucinich.us
------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, LPBC Chairman wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> I just fail to understand how you can possibly think that counting 100,000
> votes (Boulder county ALONE) by HAND is going to provide an accurate count.
> didn't you observe *anything* at the Clerks office this election???
> People couldn't even handle opening and sorting ballots correctly, let alone
> count the bloody things......
>
> Instead of fighting the windmills, why can't you work *with* the system to
> provide something that *will* work.....
> It'll *never* be all Ralph's or Al's or even Linda's or Paul Danish's
> way.....
> COMPROMISE is the name of the game.
> You can stick to your guns all the way, without any give at all.....and be
> disappointed when they choose to ignore your rants.....
> OR
> You can work *with* the system to make it acceptable to everyone, including
> us, the voters.
>
> Getting your ass thrown out of the Election process because you're so
> strident does NO ONE any good.
>
> We'll get more flies with honey than we will with vinegar.
>
> I look forward to the Commissioners meeting, and hope to have a Statement
> from the LPBC on the voting system situation later this week.
>
> 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 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition of
> insanity
>
>
> > Dear Bo:
> >
> > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:23:54 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> > >Ralph.....
> > >
> > >Is there no middle ground?
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > >Everything is black or white?
> >
> > Well, when it comes to voting it should be as close to black and white as
> > possible.  Isn't that the point?
> >
> > >
> > >I'm not saying we should have Corporate control of voting software.
> >
> > Frankly, I don't care if the voting software is private or public, open or
> > closed.  If the result of the operation is a paper ballot that can -
> > eventually - be hand counted then I really don't care any more than I care
> > if my Visa card is manufactured by company X or Y.
> >
> > What I care about is that the transactions - my vote and everyone else's
> > vote - is accurately counted, anonymous, and auditable.
> >
> > Any electronic counting system does not guarantee that.  If it goes in as
> > electrical signals then it can be programmatically manipulated.
> >
> >
> >
> > True story: A few years ago, on a lark, I took a picture of my youngest
> > daughter.  I electronically cut out the image of my daughter from the
> > background, flipped the image left-for-right, changed the color of her
> shirt
> > from blue to red, and pasted the flipped picture back into another portion
> > of the picture.  It looked real cool.  There was my daughter and standing
> > next to her was a picture of her non-existant twin.
> >
> > I called her into my office and showed her the picture.  "Who is that
> > standing next to you?"  "I don't know," she said.  "Isn't that you?"
> "No."
> > "Why do you say that?"  "Because I don't own a shirt that color."
> >
> > Honest.
> >
> > Anyway, the point is that I could make a picture of my daughter and her
> > nonexistent twin and create that illusion electronically and easily.
> >
> > How hard do you think it would be to create phony images of ballots?
> >
> > No, Bo, I want something that can be touched and not easily altered.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that they can't be counted electronically.  It just
> means
> > that the hand count trumps.
> >
> > >I'm saying that it *is* possible to make technology work for us.
> >
> > Of course we can make technology work for us.  I am certainly not opposed
> to
> > technology.  I make my living off of technology.
> >
> > Sitting on my desk are:
> > 5 computers
> > 3 monitors
> > 1 hand calculator
> > 1 notepad and pen
> >
> > I trust computers to some extent.  As a Republican president said: Trust
> but
> > verify.
> >
> > Hell, I don't trust the code that I write until it goes through extensive
> > testing and even then bugs show up years after the code has been running
> on
> > thousands of computers.
> >
> > That's me trusting my code.  How do you think I feel about other people's
> > code especially when it comes to something as ephemeral as an anonymous
> > vote?
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > The electronics can be trusted as far as a machine is more able to repeat
> an
> > action over and over again.
> >
> > But as someone else has pointed out here: the machines do what they are
> told
> > to do.  At least some people have a conscience and so if there is a
> massive
> > conspiracy ...
> >
> > >(I'm having problems with the whole concept of "Corporate" rights and
> > >privileges....but that's another story.)
> >
> > Love to talk to you about it some day.
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Bo, that's the point.  No one can be trusted and so the system has to be
> set
> > up so that there are multiple redundancies.
> >
> > There's an old rule in business security: the person who writes the checks
> > should not be the person who balances the checkbook.  To allow the same
> > company/person to record the vote to be the same company/person that
> counts
> > the vote to be the same company that reports the vote is an invitation to
> > fraud and disaster.
> >
> > I wouldn't allow my bookkeeper to balance my checkbook no matter how much
> I
> > trust them.
> >
> > The parents of a well-known Libertarian did exactly that: the bookkeeper
> > took in the money and balanced the checkbook.  The bookkeeper skimmed
> > $100,000 off the top.  Bad, bad business practice.
> >
> > I don't want that happening to the voters of Boulder, Colorado, or the
> > nation.
> >
> > >Like
> > >the Clerk having a Programmer on the staff who deals with it. Do you
> trust
> > >the Clerk and their staff?
> >
> > I trust them no more nor less than I trust any random stranger.  Have they
> > earned my trust?
> >
> > >Never sure with humans.......think Terry Baker
> > >and the SoS who died with all those registrations and papers in her
> > >office....;-(
> >
> > Yes.  Imagine if Vicki Buckley had all of those ballot initiative
> signatures
> > (it was medical marijuana) on a computer disk instead of paper.  We would
> > have never known.
> >
> > >
> > >I believe firmly that electronics is the only way to count such a massive
> > >amount of *anything* with little error.
> >
> > Bo, it is an old bumper sticker joke: To err is human.  To really foul
> > things up requires a computer.
> >
> > >(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.
> >
> > THey are much more proficient at repetitive tasks.
> >
> > >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.......
> >
> > You have identified the major glitch in computer voting: the human factor
> > when it comes to fraud.
> >
> > I like things spread out.
> >
> > If I were king of the voting world, the sequence of events would be:
> >   1) User uses touch screen to create a paper ballot.
> >   2) User validates paper ballot.
> >   3) User deposits paper ballot in ballot box at polling place.
> >   4) At end of day, paper ballots are scanned at polling place.
> >   5) The precinct count is recorded, publicized, and transmitted to
> >        county clerk's office
> >   6) The ballots are transferred to the County Clerk's office.
> >   7) The ballots are scanned again and matched against the values
> >        recorded at each polling place.
> >   8) The totals are recorded and publicized.
> >   9) The ballots are then hand counted over the next several days/weeks to
> >        validate that the machines where not in error.
> >
> >
> >
> > Today I had lunch with a new friend: Evan Ravitz.  Both Evan and Al
> Kolwicz
> > have proposed - in one way or another - that votes be centrally counted.
> I
> > want that, but I also want the votes "disbursed counted".  The more
> > redundancy we have and the more people we have doing the counting and the
> > more ways we have of doing counting, the happier I will be.
> >
> > Trust but verify, verify, verify.
> >
> > >
> > >Good thing it's a free country, eh?
> > ><VBG>
> >
> > Freedom is not free.
> >
> > >
> > >Bo
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > >----- 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
> > >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> > >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>