[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?
Pete,
The point is this. As a customer, one would not look at the firmware to
discover an altered image. One would inspect the output.
Even if one were to thoroughly inspect the firmware, because of the
potential for oversight by the inspectors and because of the potential for
defects that are introduced after the inspection one would still inspect the
output.
It seems to me that when a process is transparent, it is not necessary for
consumers to look inside the mechanism to find defects or manipulations.
And, it is always necessary to inspect the output.
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Klammer [mailto:pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 12:58 AM
To: AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx; 'Evan Daniel Ravitz'
Cc: 'Citizens for Verifiable Voting'; 'CVV Steering Committee'
Subject: RE: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?
All photocopiers used to be, and most still are, "analog" optical image
reproduction systems, akin to film cameras.
But many new copiers are really fast digitizer printers, some with hard
drive storage.
So it is at least conceivable, that the firmware of a modern copier or
scanner could alter or rearrange an image.
Sounds farfetched, I know, but I'd attempt it on a bet. To bolster my
credibility, consider the currency anti-counterfeit protection now being
built into some digital photocopiers, e.g.,
http://www.xeroxtechnology.com/ip1.nsf/sedan1?readform&unid=71AF1493335717DB
85256AFC006BF06D&nav=nav_cat_12.
--
Pete Klammer / ACM(1970), IEEE, ICCP(CCP), NSPE(PE), NACSE(NSNE)
3200 Routt Street / Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033-5452
(303)233-9485 / Fax:(303)274-6182 / Mailto:PKlammer@xxxxxxx
Idealism may not win every contest, but that's not what I choose it for!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alkolwicz [mailto:alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 5:44 PM
> To: 'Evan Daniel Ravitz'
> Cc: Citizens for Verifiable Voting; CVV Steering Committee
> Subject: RE: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?
>
>
> 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-mai
> n.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%20G
> uides/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@el
> ectorama.com/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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>