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

["LPBC Chairman" <chairman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>