[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Hand Counting: How Possible Is It for This Year?



Evan,

I appreciate your commitment to the simplest possible solution, and one that is demonstrably considered the most effective by the authors of the Cal Tech/MIT study on voting systems.

I think all of us would like to see a paper-based election in this critical election year, with use of any voting technology deferred until standards are in place that can capture citizen comments and reflect our best attempts to ensure open source codes, audits and verifications of vote recognition and vote counting, whether it is based on hand counts or scanned counts with sampled hand counts to ensure accuracy.

But how possible is hand counting at this late date in this critical year?

I seriously ask your advice on this since I believe you have had success in the past as a citizen activist and I don't know the entire realm of possibilities. If you have any ideas on how to transform our movement into one that advocates a totally paper-based system, and you believe we have a chance of success with such a campaign this year, I'd love to hear your ideas.

Here is what I do know:

HR 2239 is the ONLY bill on the table on the Federal level that could still impact this year's election. It is not good enough for CFVI, and we will state so in a "provisional" endorsement of it to request an Amendment of it to require non-DRE counting of votes, so that counting must either be done by optical scanners with statistically significant samples of hand counts to verify accuracy, or by total hand counts. We will also ask that the Voter Verified Paper Trail referred to in the bills' original language be amended to treat that document as the official BALLOT, therefore transforming that document beyond a recount instrument and gaining it the full legal protections that ballots already enjoy in all states. It is my understanding that passage of federal legislation would trump our CO law of identical counts/recounts methods.

Concurrently with our push to gain an amendment sponsor and campaign for such passage, CFVI is preparing to file a legal injunction in Federal District Court arguing that all DRE machines should be banned from use in this year's election due to their inability to provide consistent vote counting and recounting standards, per Bush v. Gore, as well as other arguments that we are open to consider. We need help in mounting this legal campaign and welcome all citizen input -- especially by legal experts, lawyers, voting law experts, etc. We are in touch with other lawyers across the country to coordinate efforts and compare legal strategies, including the legal staff of FL Congressman Wexler and lawyers involved with Bev Harris and David Dill. It is our hope that one of our legal efforts will result in a precedent that others can leverage. We have contacted Lynn Landes to also ask for her assistance in this regard.

Your expertise, Evan, in mobilizing citizens to achieve change, is welcome. We would like to ask your advice and help in considering mounting an citizen's initiative to put verifiable voting on the ballots for future elections. This would not directly impact this year's elections but could serve to elevate the issues to statewide public discussion, including media attention which has been limited to date in local markets outside of Boulder.

I would propose to everyone reading this e-mail: members of CFVI, members of CVV, and members of CAMBER, to consider joining forces to truly empower statewide coalition building around our desire for trustworthy elections. I would truly invite everyone reading this to consider attending our training workshop this Saturday in Arvada, in order to strategize on next steps and to regroup after some of these setbacks in Boulder. We have particularly set aside open mic time for such strategy planning in our closing session, and this is YOUR opportunity to help shape the future of our statewide efforts. Please go to our website to register or for more info.

Bob McGrath, Director
Coloradoans for Voting Integrity
www.cfvi.org

From: Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>

While I deeply respect Al Kolwicz, CFVI and CVV and their tireless
unpaid work to insure fair elections, I cannot support the
Resolution because it is 1) vague and 2) makes voters defer to
technical experts who understand electronic voting. This does
little to promote confidence in election procedures, and makes it
impossible for the vast untechnical majority to argue for the
Resolution at caucuses or elsewhere.

Until NIST, IEEE, etc. have established standards for electronic
voting it should NOT be used! NO government should spend a cent on
systems which may not meet the standards when set! Hand-counted
paper ballots are the simplest solution until then. Because
Colorado (and Nebraska, and perhaps soon FLORIDA) are unique in
REQUIRING recounts to be done by the SAME method as the original
counts (see law texts below) this is DOUBLY important here. This
law violates the basic principle of ALL accounting: crosscheck
everything.

Hand-counting will also employ many local people in need of work,
instead of enriching a few.

It's no wonder our election officials don't want to have
hand-counted samples which might not agree with the electronic
counts. Then they'd have to reconcile the two. Since none (in this
county at least) are programmers, they can't possibly find bugs in
the election program which might cause differing results.

It's obvious to me that election officials are eager to pass the
buck to private companies to make their job easier.

It's bad enough that unpaid citizens have to educate paid election
officials on the security of electronic elections, but now we're
expected to teach them how to hand-count paper ballots??? Colorado
law already establishes hand-counting procedure. Details can be
learned from countries that hand-count, such as Canada, Britain and
Germany. It behooves OUR EMPLOYEES to research hand-counting, which
the recent Caltech/MIT study show ranks almost at the top in
accuracy.

AFTER standards for electronic voting are set, THEN a PUBLIC (not
proprietary) software solution can be written, and inspected and
debugged by thousands or programmers, as has already been done in
Australia. See the Wired Magazine story at:

http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,61045,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1


RECOUNT LAWS


Most laws in the country can be found at www.findlaw.com

Colorado, then California, then Texas:


Colorado Revised Statute 1-10.5-108. Method of recount.


Statute text
(1) The recount shall be of the ballots cast, and the votes shall be
recorded on sheets other than those used at the election.

(2) Unless otherwise directed by the secretary of state, the ballots
cast shall be recounted utilizing the same procedures, methods, and
processes that were utilized for the original count of the ballots
cast.

History
Source: L. 99: Entire article added with relocations, p. 487,  13,
effective July 1. L. 2001: Entire section amended, p. 301,  4,
effective August 8.

Annotations
Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as 1-10-306.

http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0


California Elections Code:


15627.  If in the election which is to be recounted the votes
were recorded by means of a punchcard voting system or by
electronic or electromechanical vote tabulating devices, the
voter who files the declaration requesting the recount may
select whether the recount shall be conducted manually or by
means of the voting system used originally, or both.


BILL NUMBER: SB 1547 CHAPTERED 09/28/94


	CHAPTER   920
	FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE   SEPTEMBER 28, 1994

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=76483324700+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve


Texas:


§ 214.042. Counting Method for Recount

(a) A person requesting a recount of electronic voting system ballots has a choice of:
(1) an electronic recount using the same program as the original count;
(2) an electronic recount using a corrected program under Section 214.046(c), if obtainable; or
(3) a manual recount as provided by Subchapter A.


Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 59, § 18, eff. Oct. 20, 1987.


http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=ZYDMGPQMUSIQ&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=128157&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES



Evan

Evan Ravitz
1130 11th St. #3
Boulder CO 80302
(303)440-6838

_________________________________________________________________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/