Re: Humboldt County plans to make ballot images public

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I looked at Paul W's document. It is important. Without the Ballot
Interpretation Report, the collection of images would be very hard to
interpret. It's been a while since I read the ERC Report, and my mind
has largely shut off remembering the crazy rhetoric of the Hart people
(and the rational suggestions that were intended to deal with it). 

Yes, to Ballot Interpretation Reports. And, they should be attached to
each ballot image that is published on the web. 

Then anyone can check the data, and decide whether or not to trust the
election. In very short order under such a system, the election
officials will clean up their act so that they actually are worthy of
'trust'. As #40 said, "Trust --- but verify."

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 12:51:15PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify, that audit method didn't rely on making scanned ballot 
> images public.  I did have a proposal to post the CVRs without any 
> identification numbers, so that anyone could conduct the tabulation 
> portion of the audit.  I don't believe that such a system would incur any 
> risks of voter deanonymization in Boulder County, where write-in 
> candidates have to be pre-approved.
> 
> Maybe some of the confusion is due to the term 'ballot images.' Veterans 
> of the 2003 voting system presentations may recall that some vendors used 
> that term -- deceptively, in my opinion -- to mean 'electronic cast vote 
> records', rather than 'the scanned bitmap image of the paper ballot'.
> 
> 
> - Paul
> 
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Margit Johansson wrote:
> 
> >Hi Paul,
> >   Did you see Paul Walmsley's presentation of his ballot-by-ballot
> >statistically-valid audit method to the Boulder Election Commission (or
> >whatever it was called.)  I've attached some info on this audit method.  He
> >uses the idea of posting ballot images after the count, if the audit of the
> >ballot images proves they are accurate.  If we can try the audit in Boulder
> >County successfully, it could be a model for other counties and states.  It
> >seems like it might happen, finally. But Paul W. can explain it better than
> >I.
> >Cheers,
> >Margit
> >
> >On 12/17/06, Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>This is a very good idea! I had thought that the Hart ballot scanning
> >>system could be made to do something like this for Boulder County, but
> >>neither Hart nor the County seemed to comprehend the possibility. Now,
> >>with a new Clerk and with somebody else being first, maybe Boulder can
> >>to it, too.
> >>
> >>But can we arrange a way to have the scanning done so that even the
> >>most suspicious conspiracy theorist can accept the scanned images as
> >>a true representation of the physical ballots? Maybe, I hope.
> >>
> >>I can envision public discussions of voter intent for ballots having
> >>non-standard marking --- On-line web 'voting' about the interpretation
> >>of particularly difficult to interpret images. For a while there would
> >>be chaos, but I'm sure things would settle down, and in the long run,
> >>election administration would be much better done, and public
> >>perception of honesty would be much higher.
> >>
> >>On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 10:34:22AM -0700, Margit Johansson wrote:
> >>> *In the name of transparency*
> >>>
> >>> James Faulk / The Times-Standard
> >>>
> >>> Article Launched:12/15/2006 04:22:18 AM PST
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> County pursues project to make ballot images available to all
> >>>
> >>> EUREKA -- Humboldt County may be setting the bar as far as election
> >>> transparency is concerned.
> >>>
> >>> Humboldt County Clerk and Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich is working
> >>to
> >>> develop and implement a system that would have made actual scanned
> >>images of
> >>> every ballot cast in the county's elections available online or on disk.
> >>>
> >>> The program is meant to increase transparency and help to ease people's
> >>> minds about the election process.
> >>>
> >>> "This is Humboldt County only," said Crnich.
> >>>
> >>> Crnich was in Sacramento last week talking to staff members from
> >>Secretary
> >>> of State Debra Bowen's office about getting the program off the ground.
> >>> Bowen is looking to help Crnich and her staff get a pilot project ready
> >>for
> >>> the upcoming November special district elections. They're working to put
> >>> together a request for Proposition 41 funds to pay for equipment --
> >>likely
> >>> two high-speed scanners.
> >>>
> >>> The ultimate vision is that the ballots could be seen and counted by
> >>anyone
> >>> who has an interest.
> >>>
> >>> "Then they could go about counting it any way they want," said Crnich.
> >>>
> >>> It could allow people who favor hand counts to count ballots themselves
> >>and
> >>> comparethe total against the local machine counts, and it could help
> >>people
> >>> developing open-source voting software.
> >>>
> >>> The idea, created by Crnich and Humboldt County elections advocate Kevin
> >>> Collins, has generated excitement among everyone from statisticians to
> >>> election observers and bloggers. Even Harry Hursti, who famously hacked
> >>> Diebold voting machines, has got the bug -- he' s designed software for
> >>> Humboldt County to count the digital images, thereby generating another
> >>vote
> >>> total for public consumption.
> >>>
> >>> The issue was scheduled to be discussed at the Humboldt County Elections
> >>> Advisory Committee Thursday.
> >>>
> >>> "It's not off the ground yet, but I'm really excited about it," said
> >>Crnich.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A call to Collins was not returned by deadline.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Paul E Condon
> >>pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> - Paul

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx