Re: Hand Counting: How Possible Is It for This Year?

[<delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All this "hand" counting and "hand" marking.......
Does it strike anyone else as a pretty Luddite type of stance??

how about coming up with *constructive* ways to make technology work *for*
us rather than agin' us?
I fail to see where a buncha tired, retired and unemployed people (the
volunteers who would be doing the hand counting after polls close) would be
more accurate than an impartial machine scanner.
*That* should be the focus........moving us into the future with secure,
verifiable and accurate technology.
NOT returning us to technology of 200 years ago.

Bo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Mcgrath" <mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx>
To: <evan@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx>; <cmehesy@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <davide475@xxxxxxxx>;
<david.ellington@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <donna@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>;
<mlambie@xxxxxxxxx>; <mlambie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <texico86@xxxxxxx>;
<peter.raich@xxxxxxxx>; <TresCeeA@xxxxxxx>;
<michelle.mulder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <tahommel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <PKlammer@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: 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&WAIS
action=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/
>
>
>