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

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Bo:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:01:24 -0700, you wrote:

>Ralph,
>
>I just fail to understand how you can possibly think that counting 100,000
>votes (Boulder county ALONE) by HAND

Bo, I have sent you, privately, an attachment of a picture of 1,000
envelopes piled on the floor of my office.

Those 1,000 fund raising letters were stuffed by _me_ during my run in the
last election.

If I can print, stuff, label, and stamp 1,000 envelopes in one day I can
certainly count 1,000 votes in a day.

Ten people could easily count 100,000 votes in ten days.

Is that too much to ask to verify that the machines haven't been tampered
with?

> is going to provide an accurate count.

You completely miss the point.  It isn't supposed to provide an accurate
count; it's supposed to provide a baseline count against which machine
counts can be measured.

The only time accuracy is needed is in close elections at which point the
hand counts can be slowly and carefully done with the appropriate observers.

>didn't you observe *anything* at the Clerks office this election???

Yes.  I observed that there were several places where fraud could have been
injected.  The lack of controls nearly made me barf.

>People couldn't even handle opening and sorting ballots correctly, let alone
>count the bloody things......

Except that the hand counting would/could be measured against the machine
counts.  There would be an incentive to be accurate because - assuming that
the machines are accurate - someone can measure how accurate the hand count
is.

It's a fundamental check-and-balance.

>
>Instead of fighting the windmills, why can't you work *with* the system to
>provide something that *will* work.....

I have provided an outline of what can and will work: A machine count
followed by a hand count.  I have no idea why this is so hard to understand.

>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.

COMPROMISE when it comes to fair elections is a recipe for losing your
fundamental right to a fair election.

COMPROMISE on any fundamental right is a recipe to losing that right.

>You can stick to your guns all the way, without any give at all.....and be
>disappointed when they choose to ignore your rants.....

Oh, they will be ignored.  They will be ignored because most people are like
you: "Let's compromise.  It's not worth making a fuss.  Let's work within
the system to try to change it."

Bah. 

>OR
>You can work *with* the system to make it acceptable to everyone, including
>us, the voters.

The voters already don't care.  When I tell people what is going on all I
get is a bunch of blank stares.  "I don't want to get involved.  It's not
worth it.  Someone else will take care of it."

This little group of voters and activists should be ringing alarm bells.
Instead, all I hear is "Let's compromise."  "Udall's a good man."  "What's
this about banging pots?"

There are times to work within the system and there are times to work
outside of the system.  This is one of those times to work outside of the
system because the system is seriously broken.

I presume that 2239 didn't make it out of committee.

>
>Getting your ass thrown out of the Election process because you're so
>strident does NO ONE any good.

a) It wasn't _my_ ass that got thrown out.
b) Sure it does.   It puts the powers that be on notice that there is one
lonely man (Al Kolwicz) willing to stand up for the law as written.

I admire Al.  He's been singing a lonely song for a very long time.  Al
happens to be right and, Bo, you happen to be wrong.

>
>We'll get more flies with honey than we will with vinegar.

If we're going to banter homilies, here's mine: You get a cleaner floor with
vinegar than you will with honey.

[BTW, a spray of 3% hydrogen peroxide followed by a spray of white vinegar
makes a great disinfectant. I wish cleaning up the electoral process was as
cheap and easy.]

>
>I look forward to the Commissioners meeting, and hope to have a Statement
>from the LPBC on the voting system situation later this week.

If I understand, the Commissioners are going to grant 10 minutes to this
issue.

Think about it: ten minutes and our political freedom and the way elections
in Boulder County are conducted hang in the balance.

Yeah, Bo: work within the system.  Maybe you'll get one minute to present
the LPBC statement.  Of course, you'll be grateful for that minute.

I'm ready to barf.

>
>Bo

Ralph Shnelvar

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