RE: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?

[Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>]

This sounds fine to me IF the files created in step 2 & 3 ARE
public. "Should be" doesn't do it. Did True Ballot share these
files in previous elections?

Evan

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, alkolwicz wrote:

> Evan,
>
> I don't know if True Ballot will share their source.  To me this is not
> important since the processes are transparent and the data between processes
> are open.  Keep thinking copier machine.  Do we ever need to inspect the
> source code in a copier to know whether or not it is working?  I don't think
> so.
>
> Does this make sense to you?
>
> 1.  Every voted ballot is uniquely identified after it is cast and shuffled.
>
> 2.  Every ballot is scanned to a WORM.  This process is like a photocopier -
> a commodity, off the shelf system.  It has nothing to do with voting of
> tabulating.  This file should be made public.  Verification of this process
> can be absolute -- look at the scanned image and the original document and
> see if they are the same.  The must be NO errors.
>
> 3.  Interpret the votes on each scanned image and create one record per
> image -- including the unique identifier -- into a WORM.  This file should
> be made public.  Verification of this process can be absolute -- look at the
> image and the resultant interpretation and see if they are the same.  There
> can be misinterpretations.
>
> The solutions to this problem include:  (a) design and implement better
> interpreter software, or (b) design a better ballot that reduces/eliminates
> ambiguities, or (c) tighten the rules so that ambiguities are "defined out",
> or (d) OVERRIDE THE INTERPRETR'S DECISION (I do not like this solution).
>
> HART uses method #d and commits several transparency violations.
>
> Aside form trying to improve the algorithm, there is no need to inspect the
> code.  All defective interpretations are discoverable on the open external
> interfaces.
>
> 4.  Once the file of interpreted ballots (#3 above) is frozen. A tabulating
> program summarizes the votes.  Additional counting programs can be
> inexpensively written to verify the tabulation.  Differences in totals can
> be scientifically resolved.
>
> Al Kolwicz
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 5:02 PM
> To: alkolwicz
> Subject: RE: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?
>
>
> Do any of the companies allow anyone to view the software? I can't
> see Neil's email because I'm not on the info group
>
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, alkolwicz wrote:
>
> > Evan,
> >
> > Your assumption about ALL "" voting systems is not correct.
> >
> > HART tries to open up the process, but fails.
> >
> > TrueBallot offers a fairly open machine counting process.
> >
> > Neal is correct.  We should not demand hand counts.
> >
> > We should demand verifiable counts.
> >
> > Hand count may be the only way for some, but it is not the only way.
> >
> > The reason for learning what it means to hand count a multiple item ballot
> > is so that we are not embarrassed by the clerks and SOS who will claim all
> > manner of hardship.  Facts do not hurt.
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 11:05 AM
> > To: alkolwicz
> > Cc: info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?
> >
> >
> > I don't think we should drown ourselves in detail trying to justify
> > hand-counting on a cost basis. All we need to say is that ALL
> > proprietary voting systems (ALL electronic systems on the market
> > here) do the public's business in secret, whereas with
> > hand-counting, the method is public, spelled out in law ...Evan
> >
> > Here's what current Colorado law says about hand-counting
> > methodology:
> >
> > http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
> >
> > Colorado Revised Statute
> >
> > 1-7-307. Method of counting paper ballots.
> > Statute text
> > (1) The election judges shall first count the number of ballots in
> > the box. If the ballots are found to exceed the number of names
> > entered on each of the pollbooks, the election judges shall then
> > examine the official endorsements. If, in the unanimous opinion of
> > the judges, any of the ballots in excess of the number on the
> > pollbooks are deemed not to bear the proper official endorsement,
> > they shall be put into a separate pile and into a separate record,
> > and a return of the votes in those ballots shall be made under the
> > heading "excess ballots". When the ballots and the pollbooks agree,
> > the judges shall proceed to count the votes.
> >
> > (2) Each ballot shall be read and counted separately. Every name
> > and all names of joint candidates separately marked as voted for on
> > the ballot shall be read and an entry made on each of two
> > accounting forms before any other ballot is counted. The entire
> > number of ballots, excepting "excess ballots", shall be read,
> > counted, and placed on the accounting forms in like manner. When
> > all of the ballots, except "excess ballots", have been counted, the
> > election judges shall post the votes from the accounting forms.
> >
> > (3) When all the votes have been read and counted, the ballots
> > shall be returned to the ballot box, the opening shall be carefully
> > sealed, and the election judges shall place their initials on the
> > seal. The cover shall then be locked and the ballot box delivered
> > to the designated election official, as provided in section
> > 1-7-701.
> >
> > (4) All persons, except election judges and watchers, shall be
> > excluded from the place where the ballot counting is being held
> > until the count has been completed.
> >
> > History
> > Source: L. 92: Entire article R&RE, p. 741,  9, effective January
> > 1, 1993. L. 93: (1) amended, p. 1421,  75, effective July 1.
> >
> > There's more on the website, including relevant court decisions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, alkolwicz wrote:
> >
> > > Evan,
> > >
> > > Hey gang,
> > >
> > > We must have data on what a hand count entails.
> > >
> > > Have you had a chance to review the following pages?  Al
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/counting.html
> > >
> > > http://www.elections.ca/home.asp?textonly=false
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title15/Chapter15/Section360.ht
> > > m
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.sos.state.mn.us/election/Interactive%20Election%20Guides/HTML%20F
> > > iles/Election%20Judge%20Guide%20HTML/HAND%20COUNTING%20BALLOTS.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-21-00.html
> > >
> > > http://people.delphiforums.com/gjc/selective.html
> > >
> > > http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachines-LegalVoting.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods-electorama.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/m
> > > sg01351.html
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 8:17 PM
> > > To: info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul, Marty, Al, Margit, Scott, Kell & other Steering Committee
> > > members,
> > >
> > > Joe Pezzillo encouraged me to ask if enough of you would agree that
> > > we need to change our agenda to get a fair election THIS year,
> > > which means hand-counting because there are no public software
> > > solutions on the market now, and there are no electronic voting
> > > standards yet.
> > >
> > > Al and Dr. Charles Corry have indicated support for this.
> > >
> > > The recent message from Lou Puls asking for certification that
> > > systems have been scanned for various viruses and that windows is
> > > fully (ha!) patched shows just how technical and partial any
> > > electronic solution is now. And we can't expect the vast majority
> > > of concerned voters who don't understand this stuff to learn it or
> > > just to parrot what we say about it to representatives.
> > >
> > > If we all pull together for "hand-counted paper ballots in 2004" we
> > > have a chance of prevailing. Then WE would be setting the agenda
> > > instead of merely reacting to all the stuff the election people are
> > > throwing at us until we tire and give up.
> > >
> > > In case you missed it, here is my rationale for this simpler
> > > approach, which I emailed to the group yesterday.
> > >
> > > Please let me know your thoughts. If enough of you concur, let's
> > > call a meeting and formalize this. Thanks... Evan
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear voters,
> > >
> > > We've been unsuccessful at getting either the Boulder County
> > > Commissioners or the state legislature to do anything significant
> > > to insure fair elections. I was voted "Best Activist" by Boulder
> > > Daily Camera readers. Here's my diagnosis and prescription:
> > >
> > > Various Commissioners and legislators have challenged us to prove
> > > we have wide support. I have personally seen how a packed hearing
> > > room can turn both the Boulder City Council and the Commissioners
> > > around. 2 examples: we stopped the giant Safeway which would have
> > > turned N. Broadway into a traffic nightmare (it was later logically
> > > located on 28th St. at the old K-mart site) and we stopped the
> > > giant Selby "church" in Fourmile Canyon, which would have been a
> > > traffic, fire and erosion danger.
> > >
> > > If we want lots of people to show up for hearings we need to look
> > > at this as a "marketing" problem. It's pretty easy to get everyone
> > > saying the same thing to representatives to stop something. We held
> > > up signs saying "Wrong Way, Safeway" and wore buttons "No BS
> > > Church"
> > >
> > > It's impossible to get everyone to agree on and say we want
> > > "voter-verifiable, full-text paper ballots counted by open-source
> > > software not running on Windows and statistically-significant,
> > > randomly-sampled hand counts" you get the idea. Most people who
> > > care about fair elections don't and won't understand all the tech
> > > stuff and how all the parts interact. So people drift away from our
> > > meetings. The joint CVV/CFVI meeting Wednesday attracted about 15
> > > people, down from 50 who used to attend CVV meetings alone.
> > > Remember, our taxes are paying the County Clerks, etc. to oppose
> > > us, working as amateurs. So we have to be smart.
> > >
> > > Today at the CU Business School, the man who wrote the best-selling
> > > intro marketing text "Marketing Management" spoke. His first words
> > > explained what we need: He said consumers have a need for
> > > simplification and a need for risk reduction.
> > >
> > > My proposal: Until electronic voting standards (like those coming
> > > from NIST and IEEE) are set and implemented in public software, and
> > > inspected and debugged by thousands of programmers, we should
> > > demand the simplest, most time-tested solution, which according to
> > > the recent MIT/Caltech study is also one of the most accurate:
> > >
> > > "HAND-COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS"
> > >
> > > Everyone can understand and lobby for it. It fits on a button. It
> > > makes it possible to motivate enough people to force
> > > representatives to represent us. If we do that, it won't matter
> > > what our group is called, how our web site is structured, how
> > > beautiful our PowerPoint presentations are, etc.
> > >
> > > Dr. Charles Corry of Colorado Springs, who serves on the IEEE
> > > Voting Standards committee, today joined me in supporting this.
> > >
> > > Techies will get their chance to design and perfect the system;
> > > now's the time to temporarily put away the technical debates and
> > > the organizational debates and see if we can agree on a simple,
> > > temporary solution that people understand and support.
> > >
> > > If we get dozens of people to write letters to editors asking for
> > > hand-counted paper ballots, attending legislative hearings asking
> > > for hand-counted paper ballots, talking to their neighbors about
> > > hand-counted paper ballots, etc., we have a good chance. It might
> > > sound trite and boring, but that's politics.
> > >
> > > This is a perfect example of "Occam's Razor," which says the
> > > simplest solution is best.
> > >
> > > If you agree, please respond to this email saying so. If enough do,
> > > let's organize a  short meeting to formalize it and to get started.
> > > You can contact me: evan@xxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Evan
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > Evan Ravitz      303 440 6838       evan@xxxxxxxx
> > > Ratify the National Initiative!   http://Vote.org
> > > Photo Adventures:          http://Vote.org/photos
> > > Bush vs the Pope!            http://Vote.org/Bush
> > > Sins of the father Bush   http://Vote.org/silence
> > >
> > >
> > > "Simplify, simplify, simplify." -Henry David Thoreau
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>