Paul (et al),
Paul C makes a good point. While I was at odds with the unique numbers on
the ballot at the time of the suit, I had already had enough interaction
with the Hart system to understand that it wouldn't be able to operated
without them. And in retrospect, myself and the other ERC members quickly
concluded that we would have had a difficult to impossible time trying to
resolve the errors without them.
Here's some review that might help people understand how unique numbers on a
ballot could be problematic if created on-the-fly.
During *early voting* the ballots were printed for the voter at the time
they showed up. Each location for early voting was given a range of numbers
to serialize the ballots. In this way it was not likely that the Louisville
location would print the same numbers as the Longmont location.
If randomization was done, then one of two things would have to occur.
Either the 'seed' number or formulae used at the various locations would
have to create random numbers in a range OR the computers creating the
numbers would have to be networked to be sure that no two numbers were the
same.
I don't know enough about the mathematics to perform the first idea, but I'm
sure that the byte geeks could figure it out. The second method would bring
about a flurry of activists who think that networking any part of the
elections systems would be an issue. But a real problem for Boulder County
is that IT support for elections is REALLY BAD. I have serious doubts that
BC's IT group could keep a connection solid for more than a few hours at a
time (sometimes minutes at a time). Believe me, I have had insider
experience with BC IT and elections. [ in 03 while posting elections results
the DHCP server renewed my IP lease at 9pm (two hours into tally). The
webserver no longer recognized my desktop as the official poster of tallies,
and an emergency page to BC IT was met with a 3 hour response time. ]
As for pre-printed ballots used on election day or for absentee voting -
they were all sequentially serialize when printed. These could have been
randomized.
Clerk Salas instructed polling place judges to shuffle the ballots and hand
them out out-of-order. Many of us know that this did not happen. I heard
from a number of CVVers that it wasn't happening at their polls, and found
that to be true in my precinct. I was able to see that the person in front
of me and behind me in line had ballots with numbers one above and one below
mine. And of course I heard their names called out, so I knew who had what
ballot number. The place was a zoo and I could have hung out for awhile
keeping notes.
Randomization for pre-printed ballots is doable.
So in part my response is about computer technology, but really it is about
people and BAD support.
All this aside, I still find unique marks on ballots to be unconstitutional.
Yes, there could be an amendment, but there hasn't been one, so we have to
follow the laws that we have until they are changed.
Paul Tiger
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E Condon [mailto:pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:14 AM
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Secret ballot and the Colorado constitution
Paul,
I have a somewhat detailed issue with your opinion about
serialization. I can see how it is used in tracking data records,
such as images, through a computer system, so I appreciate why it is
desired by implementors of computer-based vote counting systems. BUT
wouldn't that use be just as well served by having a unique number on
each ballot? Unique number is something like a random 256 bit public
encryption key. If they are put on the ballots in the order that they
are generated, they are not *sequence* numbers, and can't be used to
put ballots in the order in which they were cast, but they can be used
to check if a ballot has already been scanned into the system, and if
a ballot is a forgery. So, my question: could random unique
identifiers satisfy the techy system developers? And, just as
important, would random unique identifiers satify your concerns about
voter privacy? Please, no flip answer. Think about it.
Others, please also express opinions on this issue, but if your beef is
with computers per se, don't pretend it is a response to this post.
Of course, they may very well not satisfy the letter of the state
constitution, but state constitutions have been amended in the past,
often for trivial or ill considered reasons.