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

Re: [Fwd: Why we can't trust vote counting computers or mail in balloting]




Dear Commissioners,

I agree with Mary Eberle's and Ralph Schnelvar's statements below.

There's good reasons that Canada, Britain, Germany and most other countries use hand-counting. If we used open rather than secret ballots, it wouldn't matter, as everything would be a matter of record, as with most transactions. But secret ballots preclude safe use of the secret, proprietary software used in American elections.

Hand-counting would solve your system's problems with checkbox registration, paper shrinkage, ballot folds, etc.: Humans innately know how to deal with tiny imperfections like these. Your system needs expensive fixes for all of them.

I will remind you that in 3 days before the previous Commission went with the expensive, secret, insecure solution, that I amassed 132 people who VOLUNTEERED to count ballots FOR FREE. IF the Commission asked the people, via utility bill inserts, etc., it would be easy to find the numbers needed to count ballots by hand.

2 other solutions:

Joe Pezzillo has provided extensive evidence that the Swiss Voting Method is the fast, cost-effective way to use machines as dumb counting machines, without using them in a way that requires trusting secret software. Humans divide up the ballots by candidate or yes or no on a ballot issue, then the machines count each stack of ballots. And their ballots are at least as complicated as ours, as there are far more citizen initiatives there, requiring 4-6 elections per year.

Australia is using public (open-source) software for elections.

I was a programmer analyst in the '70s, doing the first computerization of Xerox's Latin American division, and of UCLA's Medical School.

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

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:

Dear Commissioners,

I agree with Mary's statement, below.

A large and loose consortium of citizens have banded together to correct
problems with voting.  We are all asking you for one thing: hand counted
paper ballots.

I am a computer programmer by profession.  I've been doing it for more than
40 years.  My areas of expertise are disaster recovery, backup software, and
system security.  For instance, in the early 1980's I was involved with the
NSA to provide voice encryption using (now primitive) PCs.  In 1994, PC
Computing magazine named my product, TAPEDISK, as one of the best 115
products of the year.

My years of expertise tell me (and I am telling you) that no computer or
computer system can provide the level of transparency and security that hand
counted paper ballots can provide.  That hand counting is also cheaper
should make the decision to not fund the clerk's request for new and very
expensive hardware utterly obvious.

Please, please, please, let us not use these machines in any way other than
as a tool to do independent audits of the hand count.

I ask you to follow Mary's advice.  I ask you to use Neal McBurnett's
multiple insights into the audit process to insure that Boulder has fair and
accurate elections.

Ralph Shnelvar
Boulder Citizen


On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:36:21 -0700, you wrote:

Dear Commissioners,

The Denver Post article below may interest you as you contemplate
spending millions for scanning devices for voting in Boulder County.
We could use the Swiss Ballot System for much less cost but with much
higher accuracy.

Sincerely,
Mary

Mary C. Eberle
1520 Cress Court
Boulder, CO 80304, USA
(303) 442-2164

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Why we can't trust vote counting computers or mail in balloting
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:43:39 -0700 (MST)
From: Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx>
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:58:14 -0700
From: Dr. Charles E. Corry <ccorry@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Why we can't trust vote counting computers or mail in balloting

Article Launched: 12/05/2005 01:00:00 AM
State's eye on vote scanners
Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis might seek new machines in 10
counties after hand recounts changed two results last month.
By Karen E. Crummy and Michael McCollum
Denver Post Staff Writers
http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_3279155

After a hand recount changed the outcome of two elections last month,
the Colorado secretary of state may order 10 counties to get new
voting machines before next year's high-stakes gubernatorial
election. [EJF note: Why not just do hand counts from the beginning?
Cheaper, more accurate and reliable.]

Secretary of State Gigi Dennis wants "assurances from the
manufacturers that there won't be any problems next year," said Dana
Williams, a spokeswoman for Dennis.

The state will "then decide if we should continue using the
machines," Williams said.

At issue are the Optech III-P Eagle machines, sold by Election
Systems & Software and Sequoia Voting Systems.

A post-election audit in November led Dennis to order a hand recount
in the 10 counties that use the machine. In at least two counties -
Clear Creek and Chaffee - the recount changed the outcome of races.

Election officials around the country have reported problems with the
machines.

On Friday, Detroit officials ordered a recount of about 230,000
ballots cast in the Nov. 8 election. Allegations of voter fraud and
procedural mismanagement, including the operation of the Optech
machines, have been cited.

"The machines have a history of significant problems," said Bev
Harris, director of blackboxvoting.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit
group dedicated to tracking voter problems.

Michelle Shafer, spokeswoman for Sequoia, said many of the problems
occur when mail ballots are fed into the machines.

"They are meant to be used in a controlled environment, like in a
precinct, where people use the right pencils and pens," she said.

When voters mail ballots, they often use a different color of ink or
circle names, she said, leaving the machine unable to read them.

Megan Tauton, the elections clerk in Elbert County, said that's what
happened with the few discrepancies she found between her county's
hand count and the automatic tabulations.

During the manual count, the county was able to discern voter intent,
something the machines can't do.

"The computer only reads properly filled out ballots," she said.

The majority of the 10 Colorado counties said they had faith in their
voting machines and that the difference between the hand count and
the scanning was insignificant.

"We just had a few differences, mainly with people not following
directions," Huerfano County Clerk and Recorder Judy Benine said.
"We've used them for seven years, and we haven't ever had a problem
with them."

But election officials in other counties said they had no confidence
in their machines.

In Chaffee County, Hugh Young was declared the winner of a Salida
City Council seat after the hand recount determined he beat incumbent
Ron Stowell by three votes. Stowell had been declared the winner by
three votes.

Clear Creek County found 97 votes that had not been included in the
initial machine vote. A ballot question regarding a local school
district initially won by six votes but after the hand recount lost
by 18 votes.

"I have no confidence in the machines, and we're looking to have them
replaced," Clear Creek County Clerk and Recorder Pam Phipps said.

In Park County, the outcomes remained the same, but "quite a few"
undervotes appeared during the recount, Clerk and Recorder Debra
Green said.

The 13-year-old machines, she said, are worn out.

The secretary of state's office says it understands the concerns,
which is why it is looking into the matter.

"We would rather be safe than sorry," Williams said.

The 10 counties that had hand recounts are Bent, Chaffee, Clear
Creek, Custer, Elbert, Fremont, Huerfano, Park, Pueblo and Sedgwick.

Staff writer Karen E. Crummy can be reached at 303-820-1594 or
kcrummy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


.