Re: serial numbers, revisited

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Paul:

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:35:20 -0700, you wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 06:02:10PM -0700, Some Guy wrote:
>> Same with me. Ballots handed out in order.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 1:15 PM
>> What I did notice is that the ballots are being given out in sequential
>> order.
>
>I'd like to know some more details, and how you verified this.  For
>example, at my precinct, the ballot judge cut the deck several times,
>and/or pulled a random one from the pile, so there would be only short
>runs of sequential ballots at best.
>
>Did you see just one or two that seemed in order, or did you have some
>way of actually verifying a very long sequence of numbers?

I had a way to verify it.

My next door neighbor was my election judge at the polling place.  I asked
her explicitly why she was not handing out the ballots in random order and
she told me that they could not do so because they would then not know how
many ballots were handed out.  I told her then and there that Salas
testified under oath that the ballots would be handed out in random order.
She shrugged her shoulders.

Her name is Millie Russell.  Standing next to her was the judge (and former
CU economics professor and former next door neighbor, as well) Charles Howe.
I am sure that both would be willing to testify under oath that that was
what happened.

Obviously, both knew who I am.  Millie has been an election judge for many
years.  Both knew about the court case although they didn't know the
details.

>
>For the primary, the manual for election judges said to cut the deck
>or randomize ballots.  The manual for this election left that out.
>After the trial, in front of at least two reporters, I asked Linda
>Salas if the final instructions for pollworkers (handed out to supply
>judges with their packets) would include instructions to cut the deck
>or randomize ballots like the instructions for the primary did.  She
>told me she agreed that they should, and that they would.  They did
>not.  Very frustrating....

Yes, very frustrating.

More interestingly, even if the ballots were randomized, it would still be
possible to determine the _next_ serial number just by looking.

>
>But after looking at lots of aspects of this, I think that even so it
>would be very very hard, and of course illegal, to actually get even
>undocumentable information about how any significant number of people
>voted, even given inside help.

Why is "any significant number" relevant?  All it takes is just one
disclosed vote without the permission of the person casting the ballot to
create terror.

>
>Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
>Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60

Ralph Shnelvar