[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?
One possible solution to block vote-selling markings would be a
pre-publication duplication board:
1) Raw shuffled ballots are uniquely marked, and scanned into a file of
bitmap images; file kept on WORM for auditing.
2) Stray-mark screening program compares unmarked image to scanned images,
and splits out all images that have markings outside of voting boxes, bars,
ellipses, circles, whatever. Two files output: "clean" ballots, and
"stray-marked" ballots. Latter kept on WORM for auditing.
3) Duplication board reviews, and produces a file of "masked" bitmap images,
with only the vote-selection markings copied. One file output: "stray marks
cleaned" ballot images.
4) Two files merged: "clean" and "stray marks cleaned". This file could be
published.
It remains a challenge to prevent stylized marking of the selection marks;
this could be resolved somewhat by making the selection area too small to
write initials, and by making the stray-marks mask fairly tight (so for
example the big swoosh tail of a fancy checkmark would be cut off).
--
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: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 7:02 AM
> To: pklammer@xxxxxxx; 'Evan Daniel Ravitz'
> Cc: 'Citizens for Verifiable Voting'; 'CVV Steering Committee'
> Subject: RE: Can we consense on hand-counting for 2004?
>
>
> Pete,
>
> I too prefer that the system do what it can to block vote selling.
>
> It would be good if we can discover a way to prevent ballot
> messages, but
> none comes to mind.
>
> Absentee ballots present the opportunity for voters to so
> mark a ballot.
>
> Since such a mark is detectable, would a legal remedy against
> those who do
> this be appropriate?
>
> Al
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Klammer [mailto:pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 1:08 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?
>
> One question I have been wrestling with "This file should be
> made public" is
> the matter of identifying marks. If I want to convince Al
> that I voted for
> him, I could put scribble "PK+AK" in a stray area of the
> ballot. Or maybe
> just a couple funny marks in funny places that we both agreed
> on. Then Al
> could search the contents of the WORM for our agreed-on stray
> marks, and pay
> me the $0.50 we agreed on for sale of my vote when I found it.
>
> I thought about screening the published version of the WORM
> with a mask, but
> then whoever runs the mask could also move the vote marks around.
>
> Or more subtle, I could make my vote selection marks special;
> maybe instead
> of "X"'s I could fill the boxes with "A"'s and "K"'s. Or
> whatever. Not a
> problem if the ballots are machine-marked; but are we going
> to prohibit
> hand-marked ballots?
>
> Best hopes,
> --
> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>