RE: Re: Write-In Ballots

["Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach" <outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Interesting Ivan - this is the first time that I have seen this message from
you. I'm not clear whom you mean by Linda and Mike.

I enjoyed your ideas about continuing to use the DataVote system. Many of us
did. History shows that the county repeatedly repaired this system so it
could be used over the years. Now we've been federally mandated not to use
it. HAVA and state laws specifically disallow the use of ANY punch card
system. So we're stuck. It had to be replaced.
After much to do, the commissioners and clerk with a great deal of public
input from a small group of activists, opted for a paper system. And that's
what we have now.
There's lots not to like about this system, but one thing that can be done
with it is that it can be audited on-the-fly. There are not many systems
that can be audited in this way. So there is an advantage.

All of the ERC members have discussed open source. We'd like that very much.
But we're not going to get that from any vendor in the US, and we have no
ability to force the manufacturers to do that.

When I witnessed your presentation in Longmont, I couldn't help but to think
that you were addressing the wrong group. You should join Neal in his quest
to get NIST to listen.

I'd go for the low-tech solution any day of the week. This system is what we
have, and it can be improved. There are legal deadlines that must be met by
our clerk. To replace the system that we have (a nice thought) with
something less proprietary at this date in time seems highly unlikely. From
what I can see of the elections calendar (the law); BC would have to get the
legislature to retro-actively change the laws. If you've been paying any
attention to what's going on in our state house, then you'd know that
there's lots of infighting to change very little.
Technology is not the only issue here. It is highly politicized, and in my
honest opinion - pretty darn stupid.

Also, I believe you and many others have made assumptions about what we have
without either firsthand experience or listening to testimony.
But I would still agree with your summation. It's not likely that we'll get
much support from Hart given recent history.

One thing that we can do is to modify the software ourselves. It is not as
closed as some of the open source advocates have imagined. We own the
software and the source. The question is if the county is willing to deal
directly with the systems and ignore threats from Hart concerning
non-support, which were not getting anyway.

Paul Tiger

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan C Meek [mailto:ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:29 AM
To: Robert Mcgrath
Cc: attendees@xxxxxxx; Joe Pezzillo; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Goef
Cahoon
Subject: RE: Re: Write-In Ballots

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