RE: Re: Write-In Ballots

["Ivan C Meek" <ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxx>]

Robert,

I believe the problems in Boulder County are greater than the ballot
handling of paper ballots.  Here is the response I sent to some members of
the Boulder Election Commission:

--------------------------Forwarded Message---------------------------------

Hillary, Paul, Linda, Mike,

I attended portions of last Friday's commission meeting.  I also attended
the commission meeting in Longmont.  At the Longmont meeting I proposed that
the current HART Intercivic system could not be salvaged and that a
replacement was necessary.

At last Friday's meeting, the flavor of the recommendation seemed to be to
write a specification for printing paper ballots for use with the Hart
system that would result in a satisfactory election process.  It seems, to
me, unlikely that such a specification can be written.

First the history, as I see it:

1.  The Hart system was ill-conceived.  The approach did not appreciate the
technical problems, nor did it meet all of the requirements of a sound
election process.

2.  The engineering was inadequate, both in the design and testing.

3.  (I suspect) the procurement contract didn't hold Hart's feet to the
fire.

The result was the debacle of the 2004 Boulder County Elections.  Hart
blames the printer, etc.  In the recent city election, a smaller ballot was
used with better results.

My conclusion:

1.  The recent election does not prove that future elections will be better
than the November 2004 election.  The Hart system is very sensitive to the
size of the paper ballot and an election with a complex ballot may again
fail.  The system is also sensitive to the quality of the printing but
without Hart's cooperation, it is not possible to even identify the aspects
of print quality affecting the tally accuracy, much less quantify them.  The
accuracy is also affected by temperature, humidity, and maybe even by the
phase of the third moon of Neptune for all we know.

The performance of the Hart System is also certain to degrade as components
wear and deteriorate.  Maintenance and repair may not restore the system to
the original quality.  Exact replacement components may not be available in
the future; substitutes may further degrade the system.

Running test ballots before the election does not tell you how close to the
margins you are; a small change in environment can cause the system to
crash.  Good engineering practice requires that sufficient margins be
incorporated in the design to allow for degraded performance.  Then the
design should be margin tested to assure that it will work in all
circumstances.  The November 2004 election results prove that was not done.
That the recent election didn't crash doesn't mitigate that conclusion.
Without Hart's cooperation, there is no way to know how close to the edge
the system is for any particular election.  It is almost certain to get
worse in the future.

2.  Hart's behavior suggest to me that they have given up on this product.
As a business strategy they priced printing of ballots sufficiently high to
force Boulder to go outside to procure the ballots.  Since print quality
affects the election results, Hart can claim the printing is the problem,
not their system.  Without their cooperation it is impossible to write a
meaningful specification for the print quality.  Since they have given up on
Boulder, the can price maintenance and repair on this complex system as high
as they wish.  We loose; they win.

SUMMARY:  Hart wants this system to go away; so do I.

Sincerely,

Ivan C. Meek
citizen activist

------------------------End of Forwarded Message---------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mcgrath [mailto:mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 9:37 AM
To: attendees@xxxxxxx
Subject: FW: Re: Write-In Ballots


Here is a dialogue going on in Boulder about trying to salvage the Hart
Intercivic paper system vs. dropping it completely to move to total hand
counting (the Swiss method).

The important point I glean from this debate is that even if we move towards
more use of paper, we still have to deal with the ballot handling process (a
human process) which apparently caused the doom of this paper-based system
in the last election in Boulder, and which inevitably involves Donetta
Davidson to rule on appropriate methods for each election.

Why does this matter?

Regardless of whether we succeed with 2% audits, a 2006 implementation date,
etc, it is the oversight and accountability of the election officials that
matters.   This is why I felt so strongly about empowering county canvass
boards as the authorities in making the human decisions (should we recount?
does this ballot count?  do these poll books match?) rather than leaving it
all to the county election official and the Secretary of State.  This is the
true check and balance we lack, and saying poll watchers can observe the
process or canvass boards can participate when these same election officials
and Sec of State do their utmost to obstruct these independent parties from
carrying out their observation and oversight duties is a farce.



>From: "Joe Pezzillo" <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>CC: "Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net" <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Write-In Ballots Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:43:32 -0600
>
>
>
>I have in mind this "crazy" idea that I'm supposed to protect and defend
>our nation from threats both external AND internal.
>
>I have come to the (nearly irrefutable?) conclusion that privatized voting
>machines are a threat from within.
>
>Thus, sorry, unlike everyone else it seems, I've got no plans to compromise
>Our Democracy.
>
>If I remember correctly, "anarchy" means self-rule (maybe you meant "chaos"
>which means more like no rules), and yes, I'll take self-rule over
>corporate rule anyday, but I'd still prefer a world class democracy!
>
>You all want to continue to sell out our community out to HartIntercivic
>because you can't think of anything better, or because that's more
>politically correct than talking about the elephant in the room, fine.
>
>It's still my job to try and stop you, and that's what I intend to do.
>
>I think you're all the ones who are crazy, (especially you Libertarians who
>should know better), for wasting so much time on trying to replace our
>democracy with machines. Two different methods have been provided to you of
>how other Democracies are able to achieve hand counting efficiently. A
>truly independent panel would ignore valuable information like this at its
>own peril, obviously there's no pressure on this panel to do anything other
>than rubberstamp whatever Linda Salas wants.
>
>Obviously, at least several of you feel that instead I am the "crazy" one.
>I guess only history will be able to tell who was right.
>
>There are some issues on which compromise is not only inappropriate, it's
>potentially fatal.
>
>Just remember, any "compromised" election system is unlikely to meet the
>"Trustworthy Elections" criterial that this community developed by
>consensus.
>
>
>We don't have paper ballots, you've got "Ballot Images"
>
>We don't have a non-proprietary system
>
>We don't have any useful auditing mandated (even under the sell-out
>elections bill)
>
>And we haven't passed any legislation, or for that matter gotten any
>polticians to support such measures.
>
>
>So, I ask you, have those four points been achieved, or has the continuous
>compromise from so called Patriots led us down a different, and not so
>trustworthy path?
>
>Where are your backbones people?
>
>Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>On Apr 21, 2005, at 12:30 AM, Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach wrote:
>
>>Joe - I agree with this method and would like to see it used. Barring some
>>unforeseen circumstance - such as Mutant 59 destroying life as we know it
>>-
>>the system we have now will continue to be used.
>>
>>My question regarded Mary's response to write-ins. Mary didn't say
>>anything
>>about what system is to be employed, but addressed the write-ins
>>themselves.
>>
>>One of the things that the committee has addressed REPEATEDLY was the poor
>>planning of how ballots with known issues were treated. Instead of
>>parallel
>>processes with known good ballots and questionable ballots being routed to
>>separate workstations; all ballots were jumbled together. Every time a
>>ballot with issues of anything from a misprint to a write in caused a work
>>slowdown.
>>This was and is a simple process issue. This could have been avoided, but
>>the process design was barely existent. Simply a rework of the past. All
>>of
>>the issues of how to deal with anomalies were based on a system that we no
>>longer have. There was no back up plan. There was nothing inherent in the
>>design that allowed for variance, and no premeditated way to deal with
>>ballot anomalies.
>>
>>Those standing inside of the (non-working) process could not see any way
>>to
>>affect the existing process. Furthermore, the laws and the SoS rules
>>prevented them from altering the process design once it was found not to
>>be
>>efficient.
>>The Clerk submits a ballot handling plan; the SoS approves it; and it goes
>>on from there, with the clerk following her plan. It is possible that the
>>plan might have been altered with an okay from the SoS, but if you will
>>recall - Donetta had left the state and was in AZ during the election.
>>
>>What we hope to see in the future is a quality management system that
>>affects the entire process. A part of that would be to segregate the known
>>bad ballots (and those with write-ins) from the known good ballots and
>>work
>>them in parallel - NOT serially.
>>
>>Joe - At least half of the committee, perhaps all, understand that there
>>are
>>other methods and systems to deal with the ballots. And we want the county
>>to re-examine its dedication to the Hart system. Be that as it may, the
>>Hart
>>system is here to stay, at least for this next election.
>>So rather than to keep suggesting a method that will not be used, we'd
>>like
>>to entertain suggestions on improving what we are using. I know this
>>sucks,
>>but we either fix the processes or promise the voters that this will
>>happen
>>again and that we're just not going to do anything about it. aka -
>>anarchy.
>>
>>I want us to dump this system, but I don't want anarchy. How about you?
>>
>>People like Mary; Paul; and Neal have come to understand that one of the
>>biggest faults in November was of an unplanned process for ballot
>>handling.
>>Like in 03, while Bo and I worked on the election, dozens of undocumented
>>changes were made. They were undocumented not really out of laziness, but
>>expediency. Methods changed so often that a judge come back from dinner
>>and
>>have no idea how things were working an hour after they'd left.
>>To acknowledge change would me asking the SoS for a variance, which is
>>embarrassing. Its human nature for someone who is supposed to be in
>>control
>>to pretend to be in control even when it is evident that they are not.
>>
>>The bottom line concerning write-ins, no matter if you are using the Swiss
>>or the Hart methods, is that they must be handled through a different
>>process. Write-ins should not be processed in the same batches as other
>>ballots. At least that's my take on it.
>>
>>So back to the question of how to deal with write-ins working with the
>>Hart
>>system?
>>Joe - if you don't have an answer that applies to the system that we have
>>and are keeping, then any answer you give is simply an argument.
>>Can we please stick to constructive work, or is anarchy all you have in
>>mind?
>>
>>paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>