Re: election bills come to committee tomorrow "upon recess"

[Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp@xxxxxxxxx>]

FYI,

I've posted links to comparative cost analysis articles between
optical scan and DREs on http://electionmathematics.org on the Voting
Systems page.

My understanding is that the initial purchase costs of new optiscan
systems that replace DREs is paid back in administrative cost savings
within four years and then save taxpayers very large amounts of money
after that.

Here in Utah we have the same problems as you do in CO only worse,
county clerks and a state election director who oppose any move
towards election transparency, and who like DREs, but in Utah our
press only covers the issue from the side of our officials, and we
have only a few volunteers working on election integrity and
transparency in the entire state.  The predominant culture here is
very conformist and obedient to authority, even if the authority is
corrupt.

I appreciate all the good work you're doing in CO against extreme
difficulties there too.

It seems like sometimes we make one step forward and two back.  We had
a sponsor in the Utah legislature for our election transparency bill
here and then the county clerks arranged a secret meeting with our
sponsor where we were excluded and lied and misled our sponsor on
every fact, so that we do not even know if we have a bill or a sponsor
any more, and Utah's elections are probably the most secret in the
entire US, because our open records laws do not apply to any election
records and some of the election statutes are unbelievable. Even in
the days of hand counted paper ballots, Utah's ballots were counted
out of sight of the public in a back room and only poll workers were
allowed to observe and Utah has never publicly posted its polling
place totals in the polls on election night, etc.

So keep up the good work. I'm currently slaving over an article I'm
going to submit to a poli-sci journal that summarizes several methods
for calculating post-election audit sample sizes and tells when to use
each method, compares fixed rate & confidence audits, and provides a
new method that is simple to use and more accurate for estimating
post-election audit sample sizes, etc.  I'm focusing on trying to
present the recent research on the topic in a more organized
understandable way than it has been previously presented, as well as
providing a new simple estimate.   I hope it gets published after all
the work I'm doing on it.  I have an excellent coauthor who is going
to help rewrite it after I've finished my work on it.

Thanks for all your good work in CO.

Cheers,

Kathy


On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:38 PM, joel Leventhal <jsleventhal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> DREs are expensive-- the budget problems should make them look for cheaper
> ways --- opt. scan and/or hand counted. The budget problems will help us if
> we point them out. The clerks are more concerned about speed and ease, not
> so much with integrity and transparency.  Let's point this out.  It is
> partly driven by the media -- let's point that out too.
> Joel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cliff West
> To: Dr. Charles E. Corry ; media@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; Margit Johansson ;
> harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Dave Larson ; angielayton@xxxxxxxx ;
> ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; joseph richey ; Mary Eberle ; Tmmco1@xxxxxxx ;
> ctlo@xxxxxxx ; amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx ; Al Kolwicz ; jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx ;
> attendees@xxxxxxx ; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: rockymtnmom2@xxxxxxx ; kathy.dopp@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:28 PM
> Subject: RE: election bills come to committee tomorrow "upon recess"
> I agree precinct hand counted paper ballots are best.
>
> Unless we are able to present legislature some credible cost data disputing
> cost of hand counting paper ballots, compared to optical scan, I do not
> believe we will obtain the utopia of hand counted paper ballots.
>
> The Election Reform Commission is packed with Republican party idealogues
> who want to keep DREs and optical scan.  I have heard their obfuscatory
> questions at two hearings I attended in person.  The legislature will be too
> overwhelmed with budget cuts to oppose their recommendations.
>
> Unless we can enlist help from Obama groups, Ron Paul groups or other groups
> who can put people in hearing rooms and letters to editor, in newspapers, we
> will again be vastly outnumbered and overwhelmed again by 64 County Clerks,
> their lobbyist, 100's of paid staff and multi million dollar budgets.  If we
> are unable to sell paper ballots in press, we will not be able to persuade
> legislature or County Clerks.
>
> Hopefully Boulder County Clerk or another County Clerk will provide us with
> something persuasive to present to public and press.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:33:01 -0700
> To: clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx; media@xxxxxxxxxxxx; margitjo@xxxxxxxxx;
> harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; angielayton@xxxxxxxx;
> ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; richey80304@xxxxxxxxx; m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> tmmco1@xxxxxxx; ctlo@xxxxxxx; amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx; alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx;
> jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx; attendees@xxxxxxx; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: ccorry@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: election bills come to committee tomorrow "upon recess"
> CC: rockymtnmom2@xxxxxxx; kathy.dopp@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Cliff,
>      What we desperately need to be doing is making elections more
> transparent, accurate, and simpler. You keep wanting to make them more
> complex. Now even if approval voting can be made to work, and I haven't seen
> that demonstrated in practice, why is it needed in Colorado?
>     You don't like the two party system but approval voting isn't going to
> change that. I can't think of a Colorado election I've seen where approval
> voting would make any difference or help voters. Can you give a practical
> example of where or when it might be useful?
>      We must stop adding every new method that someone dreams up to our
> elections. Hand marked, hand counted secret paper ballots voted at precincts
> have historically worked the best overall. Since HAVA was passed and
> electronic voting introduced, we have had nothing but chaos and ever
> deteriorating voter confidence coincident with every new election scheme.
> Also, electronic voting costs 2 to 4 times as much as before. And added
> complexities, e.g. approval voting, is sure to add to the costs.
>      There is an ancient engineering principle called KISS ‹ Keep It Simple
> Stupid. That is what we need to be working toward.
>             Chuck Corry
> At 2:48 PM -0600 1/22/09, Cliff West wrote:
>
> Kathy Dopp agrees that APPROVAL VOTING can provide some additional election
> choices without requiring computer voting systems or complex mathematical
> calculations.  It appears it would continue to allow exit polling to detect
> variations with official count.  Admittedly it could be cumbersome, if
> voters were allowed to vote for more than 2 candidates.  Ironically, there
> were about 16? candidates for US president, while most contests only have
> three or four candidates, at most on the ballot.  I do not recommend
> allowing voters to vote for more than two candidates, in any contest.
>
> With over one third of Colorado voters registered as Independents, it is
> past time to give voters a third choice, since the Two party system is one
> choice short of a dictatorship.  I have yet to meet a voter who agreed with
> Congress bailing out the speculators, gamblers and thieves who are the
> beneficiaries of the multibillion dollar stimulus program.
>
> Approval voting would likely increase voter turnout by reinvolving some
> skeptical dissaffected voters who have given up on the two party system.  It
> could help break the stranglehold of corporations, and large campaign
> contributions on our governments.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:51:24 -0700
> To: clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx; media@xxxxxxxxxxxx; margitjo@xxxxxxxxx;
> harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; angielayton@xxxxxxxx;
> ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; richey80304@xxxxxxxxx; m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
> tmmco1@xxxxxxx; ctlo@xxxxxxx; amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx; alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx;
> jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx; attendees@xxxxxxx; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: ccorry@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: election bills come to committee tomorrow "upon recess"
> CC: rockymtnmom2@xxxxxxx; kathy.dopp@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
> .ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul,
> .ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;}
>
> At 9:51 AM -0600 1/22/09, Cliff West wrote:
>
> I was suggesting what you are calling approval voting. Colorado Statutes
> allow home rule counties and cities to conduct it, now.  If West Virginia,
> third poorest state in nation can do it, Colorado should be able to.
>
> [West Virginia has long had a reputation for some of the most corrupt
> election practices in the nation. To use them as a model for an election is
> equivalent to putting Enron forward as a model for business.
>
>     I would suggest you review Kathy Dopp's work
> http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/36-Instant-Runoff-Voting-Not-What-It-Seems.html
> on Instant Runoff Voting before making further statements about the method.]
>
>  Admittedly, a patchwork of home rule governments would not be able to
> change outcome of a Congressional or statewide race, but it could make
> county commission and house district reprsentative races more democratic and
> less influenced by campaign contributions.
>
> [There seems to be confusion here. My understanding is that Colorado has
> home rule cities but all county governments are under state control and have
> to follow state law in all respects. Denver is a city and county and is
> probably an exception, as it is to law and order in general. Otherwise, home
> rule cities have no control over county commission or house district
> elections, which are run by county clerks. Conversely, some county clerks
> run elections for home rule cities, but I know of no exception where the
> reverse is true.]
>
>             Chuck Corry
>
>> Subject: RE: election bills come to committee tomorrow "upon recess"
>> From: media@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:22:41 -0500
>> To: clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx; ccorry@xxxxxxxx; margitjo@xxxxxxxxx;
>> harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; angielayton@xxxxxxxx;
>> ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; richey80304@xxxxxxxxx; m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> tmmco1@xxxxxxx; ctlo@xxxxxxx; amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx; alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx;
>> jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx; attendees@xxxxxxx; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> CC: rockymtnmom2@xxxxxxx
>>
>> Clif
>> Approval voting simply adds the votes of first,second,third choices and is
>> easy to count. IRV requires removing specific first choice votes, replacing
>> with second place, and retallying, and very likely repeating this process
>> again. IRV is relatively complex, for auditing surely requires
>> interpretation to be separated from tabulation, and is well suited to
>> computer rather than hand tabulation.
>>
>> There are many flavors of preferential voting. Not much has been done
>> about planning for auditing IRV.
>>
>> I do support preferential methods, but not necessarily IRV.
>>
>> Harvie
>>
>> Cliff West <clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I should have said there were no contested contests in my jeffco
>> > precinct.
>> >
>> >I do not see why instant runoff voting would require computers. It
>> > appears to me totals for all candidates need to be added anyway and instant
>> > runoff voting would just increase totals, by allowing voter to vote for two
>> > of three or three or four candidates, etc.
>> >
>> >Why would this require a computer? People added totals before electronic
>> > calculators.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:34:04 -0700To: clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>> > margitjo@xxxxxxxxx; harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> > angielayton@xxxxxxxx; ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; richey80304@xxxxxxxxx;
>> > m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx; tmmco1@xxxxxxx; ctlo@xxxxxxx; amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx;
>> > alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx; jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx; attendees@xxxxxxx;
>> > cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: ccorry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: RE: election
>> > bills come to committee tomorrow "upon recess"CC: Rockymtnmom2@xxxxxxx
>
>> >
>> >
>> >At 2:24 PM -0600 1/21/09, Cliff West wrote:
>> >I am in favor of eliminating uncontested contests from primary, to avoid
>> > wasting taxpayer money. There was not a single contested candidate in the
>> > Jefferson County Democratic primary this time - what a waste of time and
>> > money!
>> >
>> >[What we really need is to hold fewer special district, municipal, and
>> > elections to replace crooks caught in the act, who die, or resign. These
>> > positions could go unfilled until the next regular election without
>> > significant harm to the body politic.]
>> >
>> >We should try to pressure legislature and clerks to adopt instant runoff
>> > voting, in exchange for agreeing to end primary, which usually occurs too
>> > late to make any difference, in CO.
>> >
>> >[Instant runoff elections are the worst possible choice and no one has
>> > yet demonstrated how to make them work accurately and reliably. IRE also
>> > absolutely require computers to handle them but programming and other errors
>> > have been rampant where they've been tried. DON'T DO THAT! And primaries are
>> > necessary where two or more candidates are running for the same office,
>> > which is quite desirable in a democratic republic. Elections are not about
>> > cost, they are about preserving our Constitution and freedoms.]
>
>> >
>> > The largest potential source of mail ballot fraud is probably disabled
>> > nursing home patients and their low paid staff, who may be amenable to
>> > payoffs. I have not heard any credible proposals for reducing fraud in
>> > assited living centers. I have heard the going rate for BUYING a nursing
>> > home vote is $100, but do not know how accurate the figure is.
>> >
>> >[NO! The largest potential source of fraud with mail ballots is an
>> > insider at the clerk's office who has access to the ballot tabulation
>> > software. Mail ballots are typically counted in a back room at the clerk's
>> > office with little or no public oversight so an insider changing the
>> > outcomes is quite unlikely to be detected.
>> > For more on why mail ballots are a bad idea see
>> > http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-77.htm. Remember, you can have an honest
>> > election, or you can have a mail ballot election, but you can't have both at
>> > the same time.]
>> > Chuck Corry
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:44:18 -0700Subject: election bills come to
>> > committee tomorrow "upon recess"From: margitjo@xxxxxxxxxxx:
>> > harvie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; angielayton@xxxxxxxx;
>> > ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; richey80304@xxxxxxxxx; m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> > clifwest@xxxxxxxxxxx; Tmmco1@xxxxxxx; ctlo@xxxxxxx; amaynard_1@xxxxxxxx;
>> > ccorry@xxxxxxxx; alkolwicz@xxxxxxxxx; jdlwcec@xxxxxxxxx; attendees@xxxxxxx;
>> > cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >Hi All,
>> > A couple of election bills are scheduled to come before the House State,
>> > Veterans and Military Affairs Committee TOMORROW AM, "UPON RECESS", i.e.
>> > when the general assembly recesses after their morning meeting, which is
>> > whenever...9AM? 9:30? You just have to go in early and hang around.
>> > The one that seems of most concern (although I haven't read the others
>> > in detail) is HB1015, which would allow all-mail ballot elections for
>> > primaries. (See attachment.) It is fourth on the list; I don't know how much
>> > time the first three bills will take. There is always the chance they won't
>> > make it to the fourth bill.
>> > (If you can show that mail ballot elections are not as secure because
>> > they don't have the protection of citizen oversight etc etc, then you can
>> > say that this will allow parties, if not others, to favor the candidates
>> > they prefer for their purposes. Citizen preferences for candidates could
>> > lose out to establishment candidates, for example. Right?)
>> > I hope those who can give good specific examples of security problems
>> > with mail ballots will come forward to testify. For Dems, examples that show
>> > monied interests undermining the vote with mail ballots is probably more
>> > compelling than individual vote fraud, given that recent studies have
>> > downplayed the effect of individual fraud. For Republicans, examples of
>> > individual fraud seems to resonate, though.
>> >I hope to see you computer experts, and election reformers all, at the
>> > hearing tomorrow AM!
>
>> >Thanks so much,
>> >Margit
>> >
>> >Margit Johansson, CFVI
>> >303-442-1668/ margitjo@xxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Windows LiveÅ Hotmail(R):Smore than just e-mail. Check it out.
>> >
>> >_________________________________________________________________
>> >Hotmail(R) goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone.
>>
>> > >http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208
>
> ________________________________
>
> Windows LiveÅ Hotmail(R):Smore than just e-mail. Check it out.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Windows Live Hotmail(R):Šmore than just e-mail. Check it out.
>
> ________________________________
> Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. See how it
> works.



-- 

Kathy Dopp

The material expressed herein is the informed  product of the author's
fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a Mathematician,
Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in exit poll
discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at

P.O. Box 680192
Park City, UT 84068
phone 435-658-4657

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/

Post-Election Vote Count Audit
A Short Legislative & Administrative Proposal
http://electionmathematics.org//ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Vote-Count-Audit-Bill-2009.pdf

History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of
Election Auditing Fundamentals
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf