Re: Secret ballot and the Colorado constitution

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mary. You got in ahead of me while I was writing a verbose reply.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 06:26:51AM -0700, Mary Eberle wrote:
> Paul T.,
> 
> Why not have each early-voting site use a site-specific prefix before 
> the random number, e.g., 01-random number for the Court House, 02-random 
> number for the Clerk's Office, 03-random number for the Longmont 
> location, etc.?
> 
> Mary
> 
> Some Guy wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx