EAC VVSG Comment: Can I get an eWitness?

[yowzayowzayowza]

Yea, I'm kinda slow, but herez my two cents worth:

Subject: Comments on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) draft of Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG)

From our three branches of state to the method we use to hand count ballots, the foundation of this experiment in proxy violence we call democracy depends on opposing forces acting transparently. An election process which forbids "We the People" from evaluating the collected evidence of our will is antithetical to this foundation. An institutional audit of the evidence by partisan governmental agencies will never be sufficient to engender trust in the process. Therefore, the first and most important verification of any election must always come in the form of our ability to manually count the ballots to the maximum extent We wish to perform the task.

Any mechanized process must be based on the same transparent adversarial methodology. To that end We need technical specifications crafted by governmental standards bodies and relevant manufacturing interests for:

I. A standardized ballot layout equally discernable by humans as well as machines from all manufacturers.

II. Classes of counting devices of suitable duty, security and functionality for various ballot counting tasks including -
A. Ballot box device to verify legibility, accept & store ballots, compile the initial count and backup the evidence;
B. Small scale counting device for precinct-level verification; and,
C. Large scale counting device for institutional verification.

III. A process supporting verification by certified and tested equipment owned by candidates, the political parties and voters -
A. On election night in the precinct limited to devices from the parties and a randomly selected voter or two;
B. For a period prior to the manual count or formal completion of the canvas by the candidates, parties and a limited number of randomly selected voters' devices; and,
C. After the election to the maximum extent the evidence can tolerate.

In short, the governmental and manufacturer monopoly on counting equipment must cease in order to provide a counting methodology that matches our values as a nation. We the People will never consider evidence beyond our comprehension and/or our review sufficient for the causes of our union. We desperately need a reliable eWitness to augment and mirror our manual processes.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft VVSG.

Respectfully,

yowzayowzayowza.irl.sig;



Sound reasonable er mebbie it needed more cowbell? :shrug:

[Wilms]

1. What are you asking for in III?

Is that test equipment to be designed?

[yowzayowzayowza]

3. Would have been clearer with...

III. A counting process supporting....

:hi:

[Wilms]

4. But it's the balance of the statement I need help understanding.

"...verification by certified and tested equipment owned by candidates, the political parties and voters..."

[yowzayowzayowza]

5. Any voter should be able to purchase a device and have...

an opportunity to use it to verify the count in varying degrees along the process: election night, canvas period and post election. Literally, "Can *I* get an eWitness?"!!! Democratize the machines. Pit machines from the official count against those from the parties, candidates and voters at large. Utilize the mechanization to end the monopoly on counting by the state. Utilize standardization to end vendor specific solutions. :shrug:

[Wilms]

6. I wouldn't want anyone to be able to hook up to a machine though.

:shrug:

I think hand counting is the only transparent protocol. Risk-based audits of optical scan elections would serve as an eWitness, though.

[yowzayowzayowza]

7. Hook up? I'm talkin own it.

You present your machine to the counting authority

- with certification documentation from the manufacturer,
- for a basic test batch run & inspection, and
- under pain of felony if the machine is altered...

your eWitness counts the votes.

[Wilms]

8. But your machine could have been corrupted.

Just like these emachines we don't trust. They are "certified". That means only so much, to say nothing of security and chain of custody issues.

[yowzayowzayowza]

9. Certainly, but the corruption would have to encompass ...

*all* manufacturers. Machines which produce a variance should be impounded pending investigation. Obviously only official polling personnel should handle the ballots on election nite even on your equipment ... So I'm not sure what you mean by "security and chain of custody issues"?

[Wilms]

10. Let's say I'm a bad guy.

(Some would argue I am...but I digress).

I go buy one of these certified devices, take it home, hack it, bring it to a polling place, plug it in a machine and infect that.


etc. :evilgrin:

[yowzayowzayowza]

11. Your machine will never be connected to other machines.

No 'infection' possible. Upon an anomalous result from your machine, it will be impounded and an investigation will ensue. Ultimately, yule go to jail. Fair enuf?

[Wilms]

13. Sounds good.

Write up an RFP!

(Request for Proposal)

[kster]

2. Don't let the ballots leave your neighborhood, till they

are Hand counted, this is what I will tell my kids and/or your kids, should they ask.

DO NOT allow your ballots to leave your neighborhood before they are hand counted by the people in that neighborhood.

Doing so, you WILL BE ALLOWING YOURSELF TO BE CHUMPED!

K&R

[yowzayowzayowza]

12. As honored as I'd be for you to hand count my ballot,

we both know that there are anti-youze out there who will not bring the same 'honor and integrity' to the task. Indeed in some locales the anti-youze will be in the majority and control the entire process. That'll always leave room to steal sufficient votes to throw a close election. Only a chump would ignore that fact in designing the process.