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

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Paul:

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:36:28 -0700, you wrote:

>Hoopla! But where's the accuracy Ralph? If we let postal employees do the
>work we'd really be screwed.
>
>We're going for accuracy, not speed.
>
>Betcha don't get it.

At one of the BCV meetings I made the point that the highest priority of
this group is that the election be fair.  This was such an obvious point
that many people laughed.  Then they stopped laughing because a fair
election is the absolute point of an election.

Speed is irrelevant and 'accuracy' is also irrelevant.

I put 'accuracy' in single quotes because the word is really very loaded.

As many/most people should have learned in 5th grade (but most people didn't
because most teachers don't understand basic science), "accuracy," as used
by competent scientists means: "how close our measured values are to the
true, or accepted, value."


All of the double quoted text, below, comes from
http://www2.truman.edu/~jmccormi/LabManual/StatisticsFundamentals_files/StatisticsInChemistry.pdf
but you'll be able to find similar text in any basic introduction to
science.



Note the bifurcation: 'true' or 'accepted'.  Accuracy can mean either or
both.

If I have a tape measure that is manufactured to be longer than a "standard"
tape measure by 10%, then I can get highly accurate and highly repeatable
results that just happen to be 10% more than the 'true' results.

- - - - -
"The other types of ?errors? that are encountered in science might be better
referred to as ?uncertainties?.  They are not necessarily mistakes, but they
place limits on our ability to be perfectly quantitative in our measurements
because they result from the extension of a measurement tool to its maximum
limits. These uncertainties fall into two groups, systematic errors (or
determinate errors) and random errors (or indeterminate errors)."
- - - - -

So a black box computer (a computer into which you cannot see the hardware
of software) can easily produce highly 'accurate' (where 'accuracy' means
'repeatable') results that just happen to be grossly wrong.  This is
systematic error and it is the one that I am far more concerned with than
the random errors introduced by human counters.



I absolutely adore Al Kolwicz.  He is one of my heros.

But there is at least one place where I disagree with him: the requirement
that results be absolutely accurate (in the sense that the results reflect
the actual (true) number of ballots cast).

To me - and I imagine most other people - it doesn't matter if the result of
an election is 33/67 or 34/66.  Where absolute perfection is required is
when elections are close and it is at that point where hand counting can be
done very, very carefully with the observers carefully examining each paper
ballot and each paper ballot is digitized and ...

Thus if the (unofficial) machine count says that out of 100,000 votes that
30,000 voted for Amendment XYZ and 69,000 voted against it and 1,000 didn't
vote at all and the hand count was 30,400/68,500/1,100 who the hell cares?

What we have is a demonstration that the black box is working in this
instance.  Any systematic (machine) error and random (human) error are
irrelevant.


I also don't give a rat's ass about open source.  You can have all the open
source in the world but as long as the physical control of the machines is
out of my hands then the machines are more-than-suspect; it is just too
trivial to load "the wrong software".

Ralph

>
>paul
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 5:34 PM
>To: bo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Evan Daniel Ravitz; Paul Tiger; BCV; William Crook
>Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition of
>insanity
>
>Dear Bo:
>
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:43:37 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>You are better than the average poll worker, Ralph......no question.
>>;-)
>>
>>But stuffing and stamping and labeling is NOT pulling out a piece of paper,
>>looking it over and recording up to a dozen (or more) different pieces of
>>information in the proper places.....
>>WORLD of difference, Ralph......
>>This year at the Clerk's, just about everyone (including
>>myself....once.....;-) made errors in sorting three different things
>>(ballots, receipts, envelopes) into piles of 25......
>>And these people are supposed to count over a million votes correctly?
>>(100K voters at 10 votes each......conservatively)
>>How likely is that?
>
>
>Why is it so hard to get this across to you?
>
>A postal employee can _key_ about 1880 5-digit zip codes in an hour (see
>http://www.cedar.buffalo.edu/pub_docs/article62.html): roughly one every two
>seconds.
>
>A human election counter has to do a lot less: for each election all that
>person has to do is click a button that says "yes the voter voted for this
>item or no the person did not.  A little click "thumb counter" could be used
>as the ballots are streamed across the human counter's field of view.
>
>Let's call it one per second.  I'm overestimating but let's say that there
>are 20 election issues, with an average of 4 selections each.  That's 80
>ballot things to count yes/no.
>
>Let's say that there are 100,000 voters and 80 ballot items for a total of
>8,000,000 things to say yes/no to.
>
>It will, thus, take a total or 8,000,000 person-seconds to hand count all of
>those ballots.  That's 2,222 hours.  For 50 people that's a little over a
>single 40-hour week.
>
>>
>>
>>So, to change the subject just a tad.......
>>What do you think of David Chaum's concept?
>>Probably not doable in the next couple weeks, but something to consider,
>eh?
>
>I really don't know enough about it to make a really in-depth intelligent
>comment but I'm willing to shoot from the hip.
>
>I don't like it.
>
>>From http://www.politechbot.com/p-03187.html
>- - - - -
>"A lotto-like draw selects which items must be decrypted, but never enough
>to compromise privacy."
>- - - - -
>
>What this tells me is that if enough items are decrypted then privacy can be
>compromised.
>
>For many years I worked as a consultant to such organizations as NORC
>(National Opinion Research Center) and the U.S. Department of Labor.
>
>I can't remember the exact details of the "Bionic Survey" but during that
>time a "time series" study of some issue was commissioned.  That is, some
>people were tracked over time.
>
>By law and contract the personal details of the participants were supposed
>to be secured.  Unfortunately for the researchers some of the early years of
>the study had been (you guessed it) accidentally deleted by some inept
>programmer.  Thank the lucky stars that that programmer was not me.
>
>In any event, the study was "important" and the researchers spent $6,000,000
>(hence the "bionic study" from a TV show called "The Bionic Man") mining the
>supposedly private data so that they could identify individual participants.
>
>In other words, where there is a will there is a way.
>
>Can you imagine what this world would be like if, for instance, unscrupulous
>politicians could eventually figure out who did or did not vote for them?
>
>Brrr.
>
>Maybe Chaum has figured out a way around this.  I'm suspicious, though.
>
>More to the point: The procedure is not transparent to those who are not
>familiar with number theory and encryption.
>
>>
>>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: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 2:45 AM
>>Subject: Re: recounts in Colorado (under present law) -- The definition of
>>insanity
>>
>>
>>> 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
>mass
>>ive
>>> >> >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
>>> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------
>>> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> > >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>