Are Hand Counted Paper Ballots a Realistic Solution for 2008? Doesn't Democracy Deserve a Debate?

[kster]

Dated!!

by Paul Lehto
May 25, 2007

In this thread, I've previous challenged Dr. David Dill to a debate, her responds with an indication of a lack of interest in presenting different views via a debate, and I in turn respond to that. Given one of the most important bills in the history of democracy, it is odd to me that not only is there not a "Democracy Impact Statement", not only are there no "white papers" in the impacts of each statutory change, not only is there a refusal of Congress to discuss the more observable and transparent voting systems in favor of voting itself secret vote counts in their very own elections -- an unprecedented level of election corruption in America. Even with 92% support in Zogby polls, Congress appears committed to ignoring observable vote counting systems like Hand Counted paper ballots in favor of unobservable and secret electronic opscan and DRE ballots.

Doesn't Democracy Deserve a Debate? There could be 4 to 5 participants, not just David Dill and I. If you can write a polite email to Dr. Dill at [e-mail] and encourage him to debate with myself and others for the sake of democracy that would be good.
Doesn't democracy even deserve a League of Women Voter's pamphlet outlining the various positions on the issues, and given to each voter?
Can't those of us working for fair elections systems, see the fairness in putting out a deliberative debate that lays out the policy choice and lets the voters decide? Why should any side of the debate, 100% of the time, just act like a special interest and further purely its own agenda and avoid debate? The Founders thought public discussion was a political duty. WIthout an informed America, democratic decisions suffer. I can not imagine that any voting activist, if they really reflect on what is important, would persist in resisting what is needed and necessary for a proper airing of the issues in this momentous time for American representative democracy. Indeed, we should all be sacrificing somehow to make an even handed presentation of differing views available so that americans can weigh in on an informed basis.
If it is not so, then money is just going to have its way: those with money can amplify their message more loudly and broadly. Please encourage Dr. Dill and others to agree to a debate in the next 2 or 3 weeks at most.

Paul Lehto
[e-mail]

"Justice Brandeis reminded us that "those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government." His words caution that we must always tread carefully when considering measures that may limit public discussion -- even when those measures are intended to achieve laudable, indeed necessary, goals. As President, therefore, it is my obligation to protect not only our Government's vital information from improper disclosure, but also to protect the rights of citizens to receive the information necessary for democracy to work."


Note also that the First Amendment involves not only speech, but rights (and needs) of the public to receive information necessary for wise choices/for democracy itself to work. As some think this email format not working well, and it being internal to the movement, a more deliberative approach of a debate, which we could broaden perhaps to 4 or 5 parties overall, could serve these needs better.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_paul_leh_070525_are_hand_counted_pap.htm

[Wilms]

1. That's too bad

Seeing Sherry Healy debate on this forum may shed light on Dill's reluctance.

[eridani]

2. I don't actually trust myself to do complex, boring routine operations for hours on end

--without error. Why would I trust other people to do it? As an analytical chemist, I don't trust any of my equipment either, but that does not mean doing all data manipulation by hand--just AUDITING it by hand.

[tbyg52]

4. *Complex* boring routines, absolutely not

But I can do *simple* boring routines all day, though not happily. Surely there's some way to make the counting simple, like one pile for each candidate. (Just a simple-minded example, but I know that people have put out pamphlets and CDs on handcounting, so I'm guessing they must have figured out a system.)

[kster]

5. HERES A LINK...

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/videos/Wilton_WM9_256Kbps_download_NTSC.html

[eridani]

6. NH is irrelevant. My county alone has vastly more voters and ballot complexity n/t

[Wilms]

9. Robo-red herring response we've seen before

1. There are plenty of jurisdictions that are similar to those of NH. So NH is hardly "irrelevant".

2. If your county has more people that means it has more people to count.

3. There's that big scary phrase again, "ballot complexity". Like what? Calculus? Astro-physics? If by complexity, you mean lots of races, say so.

So try not to confuse the message with the spammer...er, messenger.

[eridani]

14. I just said it was irrelevant to me

No election integrity activist in King County WA is pushing for hand-counted ballots.

So, have you ever even been a poll worker in a large county? I have. I've also been a convener of 10 precincts and credentials co-chair for a legislative district caucus with 1000 delegates. Spare me the horsehit about how having more people available to count makes things easier. Tell me how you train large numbers of newbies.

Ballot complexity means that my legislative district is split between three different congressional districts and four different county council districts, five cities and a bunch of unincorporated areas.

[Wilms]

23. Oh. So it's irrelevant to YOU.

Pardon the rest of us, that "No election integrity activist in King County WA is pushing for hand-counted ballots". Does that prove something earth-shattering?

I've not been a poll worker in a large county, but I've discussed the issue with those who are. They don't see the point you're making. I voted in a couple of different precincts and they're about the size of those in NH despite the fact the county is the largest in the US. So spare ME the "horsehit" (sic) about large counties. It's the precinct that's at issue.

Do you think none of that "complexity" you cite is involved in NH?

Any one you can train to fill out a ballot can be trained to count it.

[eridani]

28. Well, Andy Stephenson actually worked as poll worker in King County

--and he agrees with me. We are short poll workers as it is. Besides which, we have 1/3 precinct voting and 2/3 mail in voting. Explain how you'd get the mail-in ballots to the precincts and how an inadequate number of poll workers is supposed to deal with them. And if precinct workers can't do it all on election night, what do you propose for security?

Note that in countries with parliamentary systems they only have to total votes for parties, not a bunch of individual legislators. That's why they finish the precinct tallies a couple of hours after the polls close.

[Wilms]

31. This thread didn't start arguing HCPB for Washington.

So assuming HCPB is a really bad idea for the state, and I don't, let the other states consider it.

You wrote, "Explain how you'd get the mail-in ballots to the precincts and how an inadequate number of poll workers is supposed to deal with them."

That seems like a defeated way to begin. Try this instead, "How do HCPB precincts manage to do it, and how many other precincts in the country are similarly positioned to implement it?" Much better. Besides, why assume you'd need to transport mail-in ballots to the precincts?

There's about a 1/4 million precincts in the nation. Some are/have been doing the "impracticable".

Let's avoid blanket statements.

I don't think Andy would argue with what I wrote.

[eridani]

38. How they manage to do it is by being small and not having all that much to do

If that's the case, hand counts are definitely the way to go.

[Peace Patriot]

102. Give the billions of dollars we now give to BUSHITE corporations to 'count' our votes

with 'TRADE SECRET' code, to HONEST election officials, for training and oversight. Problem solved.

"Follow the money." Always.

They do it in Canada. They do it in Germany. They do it in many places--and we used to do it here--perfectly adequate, involved, knowledgeable, well-trained citizens counting all the votes IN THE PUBLIC VENUE.

And considering what these fuckwads have done to us, with their SECRET CODE, and their HEAVY LOBBYING against a "paper trail," and their corruption of our election system at every level, they really need to be jettisoned, quickly, and the only way to do that--while we develop our own PUBLIC, OPEN SOURCE CODE system (if that's what we want to do)--is to restore hand-counting in the PUBLIC VENUE, like many other democracies successfully manage to do.

It's kind of like bicycles, and public buses and trains--not to mention feet and legs--as a remedy for global warming. It's a crisis--a really, really BIG crisis--for which simple, old-fashioned solutions are needed, while we think of something to get us out of the death of all life on earth. And the two crises--global warming and 'trade secret' vote counting--are certainly related. The 'trade secret' vote counting gives us a president and vice president and congress who don't give a fuck if the planet dies out from under us. We have to find a way to make our representatives give a fuck again. And counting all the votes in the PUBLIC VENUE--however primitive it may seem--is an important FIRST STEP toward achieving that fundamental democratic goal.

[Bill Bored]

76. Ballot Complexity = Number of Contests on the Ballot. That's important. nt

[Wilms]

80. I asked if that's what was meant, and didn't receive a response.

So I'll repeat, if you mean a lot of races...say so. It's not complex, it's more work.

Complex might be IRV...not an issue in most places.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. somewhere around here there is an opportunity

(Unsuspected by many, I'm one of the biggest Pollyannas on ER.)

Have you done an analysis of one of the HCPB cost calculators, or manuals, and tried to spell out how it would work (or fail) in your county? I know we've had this conversation before, but so far I haven't learned as much from it as I would like. Of course that is largely because of my own fugitive attention.

[eridani]

17. All I know is that we can't get enough poll workers as it is

Nobody specifies where these hoards of people are going to come from, how they are to be organized and trained, how security issues will be managed, and how their work will be audited. Seems that there are plenty of idiots who recognize that machines must be audited, but see no equivalent need for auditing hand counting.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. I won't defend the spammers

I just think it's interesting to try to figure out: how much would this cost? how long would it take? etc. The fact that so few of the putative advocates seem interested in figuring this out is of course wildly annoying (for me at least!).

[kster]

20. Dave Berman’s HCPB Forecast Tool

provides the Court with a simple and effective means of calculating what it would cost New York to hire a 4-person hand-counting team per precinct (Election District) should the court allow it.

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5199

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. well? n/t

[eridani]

33. With King County's numbers I get $713,066.67

Also 12.7 hours after the polls close to finish. We just plain can't get the people to work the polls and then spend 13 hours afterward doing hand counting, although the money isn't too out of line with what we are now spending.

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. thanks for this

I agree that many vocal HCPB advocates don't seem to have given much thought to how to implement their preferred approach, and seem to think that is someone else's job. It is hard to see how that 'strategy' possibly can work for them. To be fair, some really are working.

My best guess is that HCPB will continue to go nowhere fast, except as a source of sectarian strife among election integrity activists. Maybe that's too broad-brush.

[eridani]

30. Very good questions. Election integrity activists in King County, however--

--can't devote time to it because we are fully occupied with trying to keep our county executive from going through with the purchase of the newest (and therefore entirely unvetted) Diebold system.

[Wilms]

24. We agree!

HCPB should be audited. Absolutely.

[eridani]

37. And doing another hand count is not the way to go

We should be thinking of weighing the ballots or something, just to have a different method.

[Land Shark]

57. People volunteer for SPECIFIC projects for SPECIFIC reasons, so WHY

should anyone volunteer to work in polls under present secret vote counting systems when ALL of their work is rendered dubious or useless by a subsequent secret vote count.

I understand the motivation to get more pollworkers, in the NAME of democracy, but what they will actually participate in will NOT be a real democratic vote count.

People know machines/computers are supposed to do the real work, so that cuts the meaning/benefit of pollworking substantially.

I myself have, in 2004 and before, been a pollworker and worked in elections. But not since.

Eridani, do you suggest that I myself lack interest in democracy or hand counted paper ballots? This "can't get enough pollworkers" angle is a red herring. Asking in the right way for a meaningful job would lead to totally different results, IMHO. But in the end, the JURY system, where we the people judge innocence and guilt, and life and death, would collapse and be also much less representative of the community without jury summonses.

So when and if we get serious about real democracy, in the worst case scenario we'd have pollworker summonses or use the jury summonsing system to get enough pollworkers.

And if democracy requires it, or if only one voting system really serves the needs of democracy, given the millions who've died for these principles and the billions or trillions spent in wars and programs for the defense of democracy, of what real utility is some marginal cost-analysis? New Hampshire data says HCPB is cheaper, but even if it's not, so what???

[Wilms]

58. Best post of the entire thread.

Or really close.

[demodonkey]

66. I'm a pollworker myself since before 1992, and I have stayed after 2004 in because...

...I believe that we need knowledgeable people in place to watch what little we can wherever we can.

And because I believe that we still need to at least attempt to participate in voting, or risk the alternative which would be to lose the electoral process entirely.

Jury duty, which is basically listening and common-sense analyzing, is much more passive than pollworking (including counting hand-counting paper ballots), which requires the participant to actively follow complex and detailed instructions to correctly complete a series of tasks.

Not something that I personally want to trust to "draftees", but to each his own Land Shark.

[Wilms]

70. You don't "want to trust to "draftees"" to count ballots.

You prefer OpScan computers? :shrug:

I don't want to put words in your mouth so I'll ask you if I made an accurate statement based on yours.

And comparing counting to analyzing court proceedings, as you have, really has me scratching my head. If I thought you thought that out, rather than believing you are in over-reaction mode, as I do believe you are, it would be an insult to jurors and reasonable people capable of logical thought and discourse.

Again, I appreciate your effort. You're a REAL reformer. Having said that, the fact that your state has paper-less DRE's is no reason to oppose HCPB. I see the strongest (and most specious) arguments against HCPB coming from those who fought/fight to get rid of paper-less DREs. While I can appreciate the predicament, I don't appreciate the PTSD-like anti-HCPB reactions.

[demodonkey]

73. Yes.

I would prefer precinct count OpScan computers with results posted on the door on election night, then BACKED UP BY A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT HAND-COUNTED AUDIT AND A STRONG & TRANSPARENT CHAIN OF CUSTODY. Certainly IMHO, this is preferable to tired and perhaps cranky draftees trying to hand count ballots after a long election day. Even bringing in fresh horses (counters) to count, it is still going to be a late evening operation. At that hour most people are tired and tired people make mistakes.

I personally like the idea of a double count, hand and machine, meaning to rig one you would have to rig both.

Please know that these arguments against 100% HCPB are not all specious. There are many people in my state (and I am sure other states) who fully remember HCPB and all the accompanying tricks that go along with them. And given our partisan "machine" state politics, there are plenty of those I am sure who would not hesitate to use those same tricks again, given the chance.

Thank you for your kind words.

[Wilms]

74. I'm a risk-based audit believing guy myself.

And I think they ought to be applied to HCPB too!

But I don't believe in scanning the audit. And I believe that is the position of one of the audit guru's, Howard Stanislevic.

I really don't know what to say about your arguments about the difficulty doing hand counts since they are already doing them in NH. Many of those precincts are similar to others in the US. So what is the theoretical problem with implementing HCPB in such precincts, if not nation-wide? It seems as though you are anti-HCPB, as well as anti-DRE.

As far as the chain of custody issues are concerned, you didn't respond to my question asking what the security differences are between OpScan ballots, and HCPB?

[Wilms]

79. Re: Your "double-count" comment.

I misread, thinking instead that you wanted to use an optical scanner to check another optical scanner. I realize that's not what you said. So sorry for that.

Regrettably, a lot of jurisdictions use the optical scanners for recounts and audits (audits that may well be statistically INsignificant...but I digress).

[Bill Bored]

77. Why not bring back the draft whie you're at it!

I think we all agree that participation is the key to the HCPB solution.

If you can't get the necessary participation, you have to conscript.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see people counting the ballots who are there because they WANT to be there. Not a bunch of grunts, draftees or disgruntled chefs spitting in the soup because they'd rather be doing something else. That's an invitation to fraud and malfeasance.

So in addition to paying for their time, you have to change the culture.

We might be able to do that by requiring some hand counts to see if the machines told us the correct winners of elections. But you oppose that because it's not a complete hand count and because it's usually done sometime after the election.

So, do the audits on election night, or fix the chain of custody problem, and use statistics (a science that predated the use of computers by at least a century!) to determine who really won the elections and stop the bleeding and bullshit at the same time. Of course Holt's legislation does not require this either, so you're not the only one who's being unrealistic.

Then, you might be able to get people to see the value in hand counts, to see that software cannot be trusted (even though few errors may actually be found due to the deterrent effect of the audit), and if your lucky, you might even be able to reverse the results of some elections with hand counts. That would seal the deal!

But until you first establish that there is a problem, outside the small circle of the EI community and its various factions, you ain't gonna get anything done. And that is s serious problem.

Absolutism is going to get us nowhere, not unlike pissing in the wind.

Face it and deal with it.

And to all the moms out there, Happy Mothers' Day!

[Wilms]

82. While LS made a large point about conscription, it wasn't his only point.

It was merely the one easiest to pick on.

I keep hearing about how tough it is to get pollworkers. Maybe it is. So tell me, how many elections were canceled for the lack of pollworkers???

You said it yourself, Bill, "Absolutism is going to get us nowhere".

And the absolutism surrounding, for instance, Holt's bills reflects that. One group screaming it will save the democracy, another that it would destroy it. Then there were the realists wondering why the ER movement was busting up over a bill that wouldn't become law anyway anytime soon.

Half of this thread is probably a personality battle over the positions people took on Holt's stillborn efforts. Another quarter about a pestering poster. Doesn't leave much room for discussion. How ER is that?

What a waste.

[Bill Bored]

83. "How many elections were canceled for the lack of pollworkers?"

There have been some instances of polls not opening because they didn't show up.

But this one is perhaps more indicative of the problem facing hand counting of any kind:
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1780&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

84. I'm not reading that as a "not enough auditors" story.

It sounds more like an "audit suppression" tactic.

Yes?

[Wilms]

93. BTW, Bill. Forget shortages of pollworkers. How about shortages of working equipment and ballots???

I'm sure you've read the stories written about the poor reliability of e-voting machines. Something like 1 in 11 will fail during an election!! (I'm not kidding.)

More than a few stories are of polls not opening because the insecure/unreliable computer, er...the voting machine on which democracy depends...didn't boot.

Hey. I've got a boot. :grr:

[OnTheOtherHand]

91. I think it's a telling point

I don't necessarily have a problem with the analogy between pollworking and jury duty; I think citizens certainly could take that view.

As it seems to me, Land Shark's problem in a nutshell is that he hasn't won the argument yet: he thinks he knows what we have to do in order to be "serious about real democracy," but he hasn't convinced many people of his view. And apparently he thought it is partly David Dill's fault, and he had a lot to say at Dill's expense (see the OP).

It seems to me that when someone is reduced to complaining about the extent of David Dill's control over American political discourse, it is time to reboot the entire analysis. (Moreover, if Land Shark intended to say that pollworking is presently not a "meaningful job," then I vehemently disagree.)

HCPB presently works in some jurisdictions, and I assume it could work in others -- potentially in all, given sufficient resources. I don't have a strong prior about how widely it should be used.

[Wilms]

92. It IS time to reboot the entire analysis.

As I said below, there's a personality clash between those who were on either side of a rickety fence known as Holt's bills. Meanwhile, DREs, paper-less or otherwise, continue to die-off despite congress not outlawing them.

I don't think it was in the best interest of ER to attack Dill. I agree that BOTH sides treated the other with disdain and irrelevant commentary. I pointed out that Sherry Heally...you know, Einstenia...was part of that effort to "debate". So it's easy to imagine Dill refusing to engage.

Perhaps LS needs to more deeply recognize himself as a significant and powerful voice (whether he or anyone likes it, believes it, or not). It doesn't take much for his words to be twisted or amplified, or echoed for years to come by admirers and detractors alike.

I don't know why you have to "vehemently disagree" with LS suggesting poll-working is not meaningful. You recognize the election management system is insecure. Pollworkers have very little, if any, control over that. Imagine yourself feeding ballots into an OpScan machine during a close election that won't be audited. Meaningless is but among the opinion you might form. No? :shrug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. broadly, I take your points

As to the last, I concede that I don't know how I would feel if I were a pollworker who suspected I was feeding a rigged scanner -- but I don't believe the job of a pollworker is ever meaningless. A pollworker can determine whether someone is allowed to vote or not, the circumstances under which he or she votes, whether the act of attempting to vote is treated with respect or contempt. Pollworkers are damn important. Moreover, in understanding why we have so few of them, I can find little empirical warrant for invoking doubts about the accuracy of the machines. (Probably the complexity of the machines drives away some experienced pollworkers, although from the research I've seen, this doesn't seem to be a very strong effect.) So, that's why I feel I have to "vehemently disagree."

[Wilms]

99. I don't believe LS diminishes the importance of those tasks.

What I get is that he's saying that all those important tasks, carried out with honor, could be rendered meaningless through a corrupted ballot definition file...for instance. Arguably, a broken DRE or a stolen election diminishes (perhaps not the best word) the effort expended by pollworkers.

You might not describe the situation in that way, but it's possible to extend the attorney poetic license.

I'm not aware of the research you cite. Anecdotally, I've seen news articles suggest e-voting was driving seniors out of pollworking. It may well have been DREs more than Optical Scan causing that. And it wouldn't surprise me to see fewer DREs as time goes by...despite Congress (LOL!) not outlawing them.

[OnTheOtherHand]

100. maybe I'm just prosaic

I don't want EI advocates to go around telling election officials and others that the pollworker recruitment problem would be solved if pollworking were "meaningful." Nor do I want EI advocates' hopes to dictate what they see in the world around them.

Sure, I've seen the same articles. I think this happens -- just not to the extent that, by itself, it is a serious obstacle to a DRE changeover. It's hard to say because it's much easier to study current pollworkers than former pollworkers. Of course there are many other obstacles to DRE changeovers -- and it wouldn't surprise me, either, to see DREs on a path of decline.

[kster]

87. If there are not enough volunteers that show up at the polling place

we have them do an audit/hand count of a statistically significant amount of ballots. Problem solved.

:)

[Peace Patriot]

103. Landshark's point about MOTIVATION is important, and should not be lost.

In a system in which it MATTERS what people do, they BECOME motivated. Our political establishment, in so many ways, aims at demoralizing and disempowering--and, now, directly disenfranchising--the people, the citizens, the grass roots, the voters. Restore meaningful participation, and guess what? People LOVE democracy!

I'm reminded of a teacher my kid had in the early years who had the kids write out the multiplication tables on long rolls of adding machine tape. They became very interested in the length of the roll, and in the transformation of numbers in VISIBLE space that THEY were causing to unfold. The concreteness of the act was a motivator. And the visible, recorded nature of the act of calculation got them to STUDY what was happening on the long roll, and REMEMBER what it LOOKED LIKE. That way, they OWNED it. They were proud of the difficult work of writing it all out, and proudly rolled their rolls out on the floor to show people what THEY had done. It also became a communal act. The point wasn't to embarrass any individual, for making errors, or getting a 'bad grade' on what they knew in their heads. The purpose was for everyone to participate, and for everyone to SEE what multiplication tables LOOK LIKE, in an indelible way--in a way that they would never forget--because they had done it.

Motivation and participation are everything, in a democracy, even if people make errors--in counting the votes, or in electing the wrong politicians. Errors can be corrected, in a democracy--if the principles of democracy are upheld, including both transparency and maximum particpiation.

And speaking of errors and the hand-counting of paper ballots--this AUDITING of the handcount that has been mentioned here...

No one in their right mind would propose that any method of vote counting not be audited. (I guess Diebold, ES&S and brethren--and their enablers and apologists--are insane, eh?). And no one would propose counting the votes without good organization, checks and balances, levels of oversight, and use of experienced, trained people to train novices. It is really a "straw man" to suggest that CHAOS is the only alternative to letting Howard Ahmanson's money-maker count all our votes with secret code.

a) Hand-counting of paper ballots contains an INHERENT audit--that thousands of people are participating (as opposed to one fascist and his tech employee). If ten of them intend election fraud (or are merely stupid or mischievous), hundreds are watching them. This is built-in oversight--in addition to whatever organization, auditing, double-checking, security, etc., that we, the people, in our collective wisdom, decide to impose.

b) Hand-counting of paper ballots is SLOW, and errors or deliberate fraud CANNOT occur at the speed of light with the potential to change MILLIONS of votes without detection. Potential fraud or errors are LOCALIZED, and contain the inherent safeguard of being DETECTABLE.

c) When people are motivated and given a meaningful task, they DO it. They are proud of it. They OWN it. It becomes the culture--to participate and to do it right. Far better to take the minor risk that a few will commit errors, or attempt fraud, than to take the enormous risk of handing our election system over to rightwing corporations and their relentless war against us and our Constitution.

As to (c)--this has already been done. Our corrupt political establishment handed our election system over to rightwing corporations and their secret code. This fascist coup has already occurred. It is a false argument to now say that the people of this country are not capable of implementing democracy--honest, transparent, public vote counting--because they have been rendered useless to the system and are out of practice. Of course they are! That was one of the goals of this coup--to entrench it quickly, make it a 'fait accompli' and make people forget what democracy looks like. But, as with my kid's teacher--who was dealing with classrooms full of kids who are much too enamored of easy electronic entertainment--the remedy is to write it all out, and roll it out for ALL EYES TO SEE. To make it real again. To be human again. To be citizens again. To be voters again. To be reminded, at election time, what the hell we are doing. To SEE it. To FEEL it. To address the practical problems of counting it. And to experience the satisfaction of doing so.

We need to restore this concreteness to our experience of self-government. We need to know that WE can make it work. We don't need ANY corporation's help. And with that citizen empowerment comes enthusiasm, diligence, patience, a renewed culture of public service, and real citizen power. Citizen participation won't be a problem, when we stop this corporate-run government war on citizen participation, in our election system and everywhere else.

The corporate rulers have damaged our communities in many ways--draining citizens from rural areas, and packing them into urban and suburban areas, "dividing and conquering" us, jailing too many of us in their "prison-industrial complex," creating car and gas-friendly, anti-people environments, destroying downtowns (and their "town square" qualities) and creating shopping malls where political activity is frowned upon, restricted and often banned, writing our laws, infesting our election system with the need for multi-millions of dollars for corporate TV campaign ads, and, in hundreds of other ways have assaulted and harmed our ability to come together as communities and govern ourselves. Electronic voting with "trade secret" code is the latest and the worst of these assaults, and the first one that needs to be turned back, if we are to have a democracy here. If we revert to their fallback position--optiscans with a very poorly audited "paper trail"--they will never rest until they have undone that reform. Believe me. These rightwing billionaires have been trying to undo Social Security for fifty fuckng years, and they may yet succeed--and have, in some sense, already succeeded, by borrowing against the Social Security fund to pay for their oil war.

Get the corporations out of our election system now, and re-establish "the commons." That is what we must do--first of all as to the counting of our votes, and then the rest.

We must evict them from our election system--save ourselves a lot of money, and get our democracy back WHOLE and ENTIRE--not with HALF-privatized elections, but with WHOLLY PUBLIC elections.

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. this is wildly ahistorical

Mechanical voting machines were introduced in part to rein in runaway abuses of hand-counted paper ballots. In many places they seem to have helped. Whether they helped, hurt, or whatever, they were in widespread use at least by the 1930s. Blaming everything (and, rereading your post, "everything" is hardly hyperbolic) on right-wing corporations and their secret code is science fiction. John Brunner, perhaps.

Sometimes bad history can be good politics, but I don't think this is going to fly.

[Wilms]

106. You're no fun.

LOL!

[kster]

107. DRE'S Touchscreen Screen voting, no paper, no possible way to audit

but yet Vote counting vendors built a paperless/audit less vote counting machine to prevent us from auditing/hand counting our elections.

Now all of a sudden certain people want audits, how would they have audited a paperless vote counting machine?

I wonder if they want the audits/hand counts of the optical scanned paper ballots to be done in an undisclosed location, away from our neighborhoods, and out of full view of the people in the neighborhoods.

They avoid this question like the plague. I just figured I'd run it by them again.

:)

[Wilms]

108. Actually, they avoid you like the plague.

What's the chain of custody protocol in your hood? What are you doing about it?

[kster]

110. Chain of custody? Are the ballots going somewhere?

why not just do the audit/hand count in the polling place in front of the people in the neighborhood before the ballots are allowed to leave the polling place.

Chain of custody leads me to believe you plan to take the ballots out of the neighborhood to do the audit/hand count.

Do you plan to take the our ballots that are locked in the scanners and audit/hand count them in a different location?

[Wilms]

112. I'm planning nothing.

How will a recount be done if chain of custody issues haven't been addressed?

How's it handled in your "'hood"?

[Peace Patriot]

109. I am amazed at the number of questions that advocates of RIGHTWING BUSHITE-controlled

voting systems don't answer.

Why reward these RIGHTWING BUSHITE corporations, who lobbied and bullied and bribed their way into our election system in order to destroy it, with MORE billions of dollars to "fix" the problems that they deliberately and malevolently created?

Why should ANY vote NOT BE COUNTED?

Why should ANY voting machine contain ANY programming code not open to public view?

Why was their NO AUDIT AT ALL--ZERO hand-count, or no possibility of a hand-count (no paper trail)--in MOST of the states in the country in the 2004 election?

How did DRE's EVER GET APPROVED by Congress and state legislatures? Why aren't the perps in jail?

Why WASN'T THERE a 100% hand-count in the first nationwide test-out of these egregiously hackable and unreliable machines, in 2004? Was it the anthrax in the Anthrax Congress that passed this bullshit? Was it fear? Was it corruption? How could this have happened? Who is responsible?

How can we have a voting system in which PRIVATE voting machine VENDORS, a) write laws such as the one in FLA forbidding the counting of ballots; b) make the legal argument in court that their non-existent "right" to profit from our elections with "trade secret" code TRUMPS the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted, even in a stinking election like FL-13 in 2006; and c) the CEOs and funders of the major election system vendors are Bush/Cheney campaign chairs and supporters of far rightwing causes so extreme they make your hair stand on end?

What is the logic of rewarding these fuckwad fascist corporations with billions MORE of our tax dollars, for nearly destroying our democracy?

What is the relationship between electronic voting--using unreliable, insider hackable voting machines--and the use of electronics to PURGE blacks voters and other Democrats from the voting rolls? WHO are the corporate perps that are doing this, and how are they getting such power?

What was in Karl Rove's (architect of Bush/Cheney victories') 5,000 missing emails?

What is behind the mind-boggling SILENCE of our Democratic Party leadership on RIGHTWING BUSHITE corporations 'counting' all our votes with SECRET CODE? Why is our leadership defending them NOW, wanting to give them billions more of our tax dollars, and supporting their fallback position of LIMITED audits in a culture of secrecy?

And, of course, kster's question of: Why SHOULDN'T every ballot be counted in PUBLIC VIEW in the neighborhood in which it was cast BEFORE it is boxed up and carted to a central location that is hard for local people to monitor, and furthermore surrounded with secrecy and rules that make public oversight nearly impossible?

As to this latter, it's like having SECRET PRISONERS--prisoners held without charge, prisoners with no access to the outside world, or prisoners abducted on black flights and rendered to secret torture dungeons in eastern Europe. There is NO possibility of justice in a culture of secrecy--in a culture that bars public oversight. It is an INHERENT abuse of human rights, in the case of prisoners, and of democracy, in the case of 'TRADE SECRET' CODE and its attendant obscurity of the vote counting process, to have secrecy of any kind in these fundamental activities of government.

The ONLY condition in which human rights will be respected by government, and in which the sovereignty of the people in choosing who rules over them will not be eroded and destroyed, is SUNSHINE. Total openness--with, in the case of prisoners, total public access to the charges against them and to their trials, and to the conditions in which they are held; and, in the case of voting, COMPLETE transparency and accessibility to the counting of the votes. No hedges. No corners in which corporate perps, Bushites or any other powermongers can hide. NO secret code. NO secret "boxing" of ballots and trucking them away from the voters before they are counted. NO private interests with any power over the election results whatsoever.

"TRADE SECRET" vote counting is not the only thing wrong with our election system--but it is the worst thing yet. It is the democracy killer. It MUST be undone. We MUST return to total transparency. We MUST evict these corporate perps from the system, and furthermore understand how they took it over, so it never happens again. It is the worst thing that has ever happened to our democracy, and half-measures cannot remedy it. I'm not saying, don't get what you can of half-transparency, or 1% transparency, or whatever sunshine you can achieve in this vastly corrupt political system. I'm saying that to be satisfied with 1% transparency, or centralized vote counting in a "trade secret" system, away from the people, is a HUGE MISTAKE. It is a cover up. It is wrong. It is a corporate fallback position that enables private fascist control of election results to continue and to make a comeback in the system.

I know that well-meaning people have been trying to forge congressional and state legislation in political bodies whose members were elected by Diebold and ES&S and other election theft industry machines. That is a very difficult problem. And any victory for transparency--however limited it may be--should be applauded. When activists in Riverside County, CA, for instance--one of the most corrupt election systems in California--battle the putrid corruption in that county, and manage to get DRE's banned and optiscans (with a ballot) in place, and go after corrupt officials with demands for an audit of the elections office, they deserve more than praise. They deserve Congressional medals of honor. To achieve this, they have had to devote their entire lives to it, with the passion and sacrifice of real revolutionaries. And this phenomenon of heroic citizens in the election reform movement is widespread and one of the best things that has ever happened in this country. But we must KEEP OUR EYES ON THE PRIZE--which most grass roots election reform advocates know. Our goal must be total transparency. Nothing less is acceptable in a democracy.

That is what you have been advocating, kster--and I applaud you for it. And I fail to understand the comments of some posters here who criticize you for repeating this fundamental requirement of democracy. It NEEDS TO BE REPEATED. 100% transparency is the only acceptable condition for vote counting. Private corporations (not to mention RIGHTWING BUSHITE corporations) ferociously oppose transparency of any kind, and should never, ever again be trusted with any aspect of our most precious and fundamental right, the mechanism of our sovereignty as a people: our vote.

The arguments of expense, of trouble, of organization, of lack of people to count the votes, of slowness, of logistics, of security, and all the other B.S. that is laid out against 100% transparency, are obstacles that the corporate perps have FOSTERED, in their takeover of our election system. They evicted the white-haired little old ladies who used to preside over the polling places--and replaced them with "TRADE SECRET" CODE machines! They forced a system upon us that only "experts" can understand--and only their experts have access to. They took all the money--billions of dollars--that could have been used for REAL vote counting. And they quickly created a corrupt culture of lavish lobbying, elitism and secrecy throughout the system, so that Connie McCormack, the Diebold shill who was head of elections in Los Angeles, could sneer at computer expert and voter advocate Kim Alexander, "that woman--she's not a professional!" They held lavish vacations--a week of fun, sun and high end shopping--at the Beverly Hilton, for election officials from across the country, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia!

I'm not saying that it is easy to overcome such corruption--to undo it, and to restore vote counting that BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE. It's like restoring America's reputation as a peaceful country--after the Iraq War, after torture, after eight years of American/Bush Junta aggression! It is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. It has been MADE difficult--deliberately. But that doesn't mean we should settle for half-measures--for our country waging unjust war or torturing prisoners LESS. There is NO degree of unjust war, torturing prisoners or non-transparent vote counting that is ACCEPTABLE. We may have to--and, indeed, clearly have to--reverse these crimes by incremental victories. We should never forget what the goal is--that no such crimes ever be committed again by our government, against others, or against us.

The Bush Junta has been trying to overturn elections in South America--by supporting coup plotters and rightwing death squads, funding and arming fascist cabals, pouring USAID-NED money and money from covert budgets (OUR money) into rightwing political groups like the white separatists in Bolivia, trying to start a war between Colombia ($5.5 BILLION in Bush/U.S. military aid) and Ecuador/Venezuela, committing dirty tricks, and all manner of anti-democratic activity, particularly aimed at regaining global corporate predator control of the oil reserves and other resources in the Andes region. The many leftist governments in South America have been elected in systems that put our own to shame for their transparency. We need to do the hard work that the South Americans have done, in creating sturdy democratic institutions that elect REAL representatives of the people, for everyone's sake, not just our own. Incremental victories is how the South Americans have done it. They didn't overturn decades of U.S.-supported fascist dictatorships and create transparent elections, and healthy democracies, overnight. It took patience and persistence. It took never giving up, and never losing sight of the goal. We are not even half-way there yet, to transparency and real democracy. We must achieve what victories we can, and PERSIST. 1% transparency. 10% transparency. 50% transparency. FULL transparency. That is my take on those who keep yelling "HAND-COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS, WITH RESULTS POSTED AT THE PRECINCT LEVEL." Do not lose sight of the goal, even in the midst of this godawful Diebold/ES&S-inflicted corruption of our system.

[OnTheOtherHand]

111. "advocates" like Kim Alexander?!

The California Voter Foundation is committed to advancing oversight, accountability and transparency in the voting process by encouraging election officials to provide physical, paper records of every ballot cast and utilizing those records to publicly verify the accuracy of computerized vote counts so that everyone can have confidence that all votes cast in all elections -- from the local school board race to the Presidential contest -- are cast and counted accurately.

http://calvoter.org/about/goals.html

That's my position too.

If you think you've found "advocates of RIGHTWING BUSHITE-controlled voting systems" somewhere around here, maybe you could say who you think they are and how you think you know. I don't know whether to be offended or not, because I can't think of anyone around here who remotely fits that description. I think the name-calling and filibusters are major distractions.

[Wilms]

113. You'll have to forgive me not reading your entire expulsion.

I've read enough of them.

But advocates of auditing aren't advocates of e-voting. I find it rude of you to insinuate that they are.

Advocates of audits are reformers, as opposed to whiners. There's a difference.

[kster]

114. The audits that you advocate will they be done in the hood

or will you need to take the ballots to an undisclosed location to do this audit?

Just curious :hi:

[Wilms]

115. Push for audits in your hood and let us know.

Forget what's advocated. What's turned into law?

I'll bet some will audit in the precinct that night, and other's won't.

Some will be audited by the same folk who did the original count. Is that good?? :shrug:

There's place in OH and ID and MS and, etc. that may have "in name only" Dems, for instance. Get my meaning. :wink: :wink:

Think!

[kster]

116. What do you suggest, if I push for audits in my hood

is it safer to have the audits done in the hood in view of the people from my neighborhood, or is it better to take them ballots outside my neighborhood for the audit?

I'm just asking you, because you seem to be all about audits. :shrug:

[Wilms]

117. As an ideal? If a precinct's selected...

Audit at the precinct. That night. Overseen (or conducted) by an outside group.

[kster]

119. You said push for audits in your precinct (hood), now you say, if I acheive that goal

then I have to wait to see if my precinct is "selected" for an audit in order to do the audit in full view of the people in the hood.

Who will be in charge of "selecting" what precinct's will be audited? How many precincts will "they" allow to be audited? :)

[Ellipsis]

118. I believe he is simply encouraging you to get involved at the grass-roots level

within your own physical community because it would be more fruitful and discontinue this methodology similar to a "direct mail" campaign you employ in ER by emphasizing over and over again the same message people all ready "get".

I think Wilms is genuinely concerned that ultimately the end result is counter to your goal by actually driving others away from ER making the message "thinner."

[kster]

120. At the same time he continues to encourage his audit

campaign that he employs in ER by emphasizing over and over again the same message, diverting from the real solution to the problem, that he should be telling our kids, FUTURE AMERICA, HAND COUNT THE PAPER BALLOTS BEFORE THE BALLOTS LEAVE THE POLLING PLACE, But he continues to BULLSHIT!!

[Ellipsis]

121. You're wrong and it strikes me you're being dishonest. He is not redundant. There's no misdirection.

Wilms, from my reads is quite diverse in the many opinions, points and "FACTS" he brings to the forum. It seems in order to "get one in" on Wilms you are content to walk away from facts, which makes one question your actual motivation.

Words like delusional, bullshit and others, in all caps, give one little credence.

Facts are required in debate.... so in essence you are not debating simply harping on someone. This has to stop. IT is not clever or remotely entertaining except perhaps for "Freeps" or other suchlike malicious trolls.

About those kids you keep referring to... one would think for the betterment of our future you should spend more time with them by getting yourself and them involved in a local politics lesson by taking them with you as you engage yourself in your precinct, county and state.

[kster]

122. When you are not defending someone else, you give great advice

"About those kids you keep referring to... one would think for the betterment of our future you should spend more time with them by getting yourself and them involved in a local politics lesson by taking them with you as you engage yourself in your precinct, county and state".

My kids know the facts about secret electronic vote counting, and how the crooks who run them will stop at nothing to prevent Americans from seeing any ballots counted.

You know that, and I know that but do your kids know that? Your kids provided they are old enough, should know the truth, first and foremost.




:)

[Ellipsis]

123. Not defending anyone... simple pointing out untruths and character assaination to advance my point.

You sidestep, non-answer. One wonders why.

Do you not care about the truth? Do you lie to your children?

[eridani]

8. And with 40 candidates and bond issues on each ballot?

Then what?

[Peace Patriot]

101. Chemicals are not Republicans. The CEOs of the election theft industry are.

DIEBOLD had Bush-Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser Wally O'Dell as CEO. (O'Dell promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush-Cheney.")

ES&S has as its major funder far rightwing billionaire Howard Ahmanson who also gave one million dollars to the extremist 'christian' Chalcedon foundation (which touts the death penalty for homosexuals); ES&S manufactures its touchscreens for the U.S. "market" in miserable sweatshops in the Philippines, and furthermore pioneered the election theft industry's legal position that their "right" to profit from our elections, with their "TRADE SECRET" vote counting code, trumps the right of the voters to know how their votes are counted, even in an egregiously wrong vote count like FL-13.

Sequoia hired Republican Bill Jones (former CA Sec of State, who brought this plague to CA), and his chief aide Alfie Charles, to peddle their machines (blatant case of corrupt "revolving door" employment, not to mention yet another close tie to the Republican Party).

Where are the Democrats in this "industry"? Where are the liberals? Where are those with a devotion to open government?

The secret code is owned and controlled by RIGHTWING BUSHITES who have a track record of shredding the Constitution, torturing prisoners, suspending habeas corpus, slaughtering 1.2 million people to get their oil, massive theft, using the Justice Department to influence elections, monopolistic and propagandistic practices in the news media, suppressing black votes in blatant violation of the Voting Rights Act, need I go on? Vote counting is not a neutral, objective, scientific problem to them. It is yet another opportunity to commit crimes and steal elections--the very biggest opportunity they have yet devised, the 'coup de grace,' the final blow to our democracy.

"Auditing" them, at this point, is not enough. They will steal elections one way or another--with a "paper trail" or not, with central tabulators or not, with touchscreens or optiscans or punchcards or any other kind of machine they can sell us, with electronic purges of Democratic voters, and in whatever way they can wedge their Bushite corporations into our election system. We must purge these private Bushite corporations from our system! They've already cost us billions and billions of dollars in election theft equipment--not to mention TRILLIONS in Iraq and in tax cuts for the rich. They are malevolent. They are fascists. They are Bushites.

There is little reason for anyone to sell you a computer that would fiddle your chemical analyses. There is every reason in the world for Bushites to miscount the votes. So, NUMBER #1, they should be banned from ANY ROLE in our vote counting. No private, partisan corporation should ever have had any role in it, in the first place. It is THE biggest scandal in American history that they lobbied and bribed and bullied and bought their way into it, via corrupt congress critters on both sides of the aisle and corrupt election officials. It is not a neutral situation. They have already bilked us and cheated us. And there is no reason to believe that they would ever stop trying to do that.

That is the reason for returning to hand-counted paper ballots. There is no trusting any private voting machine corporation in these circumstances. We have to smash the idea that any private entity has any "right" to profit from our election system, or to control any aspect of vote counting. We may eventually develop an OPEN SOURCE CODE electronic counting system (--as they have in Venezuela, where they in addition conduct a whopping 55% handcount as a check on machine fraud). Until we do, slow, careful, VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC hand-counting of the ballots is our only option.

Why was a 100% handcount, as a check on machine fraud, not used in the initial widespread (80%) national use of these privately controlled machines, in 2004? Why, instead, was there are a ZERO handcount in most states, and a miserably inadequate 1% only in the best of states? Why? WHY? It flies in the face of common sense. We must ask why (and how--via lavish lobbying) this was done. That was not a neutral, objective, scientific action. That was a massive crime--and one that is on-going. No testing. No audit/recount controls. The election theft industry writing our election laws!

Optiscans (with a "paper trail") is their fallback position--as to the billions we pour into their pockets, and as to their continued ability to, and intention to, lobby for not counting the "paper trail". We give them billions of our tax dollars, and then they use the money for lawyers, lobbyists and P.R. firms, to fuck us over again. That is what we are looking at now--a corporate ruler fallback position, like billions and billions of our tax dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton vs. billions and billions of our tax dollars in bidding contracts that include other war profiteers. The one is egregiously corrupt; the other is less egregiously corrupt. But what about the vast corruption of the 90% of the "military-industrial complex" that we don't need for reasonable and adequate defense of our country? That is never questioned. We get to have egregiously corrupt or less egregiously corrupt war profiteers, but the notion of modest, reasonable, adequate defense spending, at much less cost to the country, is never raised.

No bid contracts for Halliburton & brethren is the outrageous fascist assertion foisted upon us by the Bushites. Bid contracts is the war profiteers' fallback position--what we had from Vietnam through Reagan to Clinton. So we will now return to bid contracts and some measure of accountability (maybe we will--it's still up in the air), but nobody questions the outrageous costs and the fundamental wrongness of the imperial war budget and its private contractors.

The same with the takeover of our election system by FASCIST corporations. How the hell could that have happened? And what the hell are we doing talking about letting it continue in any form? I wouldn't trust them, at this point, even with a 100% handcount. They would find a way to fuck that up, as they did in Florida 2000, with soggy punchcards, made to order to produce "hanging chads." (See Dan Rather's "The Trouble with Touchscreens," www.HD.net--the same corporations involved!)

It is not a matter of objective, scientific assessment of what a computer can do, and whether or not its results can be trusted, or methods of verifying its results. We are talking about a fascist coup--a coup that has already occurred, and that must be undone. We may, in the PUBLIC VENUE, develop OUR OWN electronic system--with code that anyone is free to review. But until we do that, thousands of ordinary citizens hand-counting the votes is far, far more--infinitely more--reliable than fascist billionaires, who want the death penalty for homosexuals, doing it with secret code, whatever these fuckers permit us to have as a "paper trail."

[RC]

3. We need to get the voting machines out of the equation.

Their is something inherently wrong with a private company owning the voting machines with secret proprietary software, counting the publics vote. Hand counted paper ballots still work in other countries even thought they are counting millions of votes. So what if you don't have a final count for the 10 o'clock news. Accuracy and accountability needs to be the prime consideration, not secrecy and speed on voting machines from acknowledged biased and corrupted companies.

[eridani]

7. Other countries don't have elections for candidates, just parties

There is no equivalent to voting for a Dem Senator, a Repub governor and a Dem presidential candidate. In Canada, national and provincial elections are totally separate, and there are no initiatives or referendums.

This has nothing to do with the question of private ownership, which ought to be totally banned.

[BeFree]

11. Count Votes by hand?!?!?!?

Gawd, that's so 20th century. We have machines to do that now. Why burden ourselves with such hard work, besides, it costs money.... so they say.

******

Like you, kster, the bs from the machine heads disturbs my common senses. But we do have to live with 'em.

If we could just get them to go along with supporting laws that would allow us to count the ballots, we'd go away. But they don't so we won't. They want machines as the sole providers of the counts.

Why do they wish such problems upon our democracy? Haven't they learned a damn thing yet?

[kster]

12. I demand a procedure be put in place

that if an American chooses to hand count all the opticscan ballots by hand before the ballots leave the neighborhood, and as long as I follow the procedure then my request MUST be met.

I'm not asking for this, I am demanding this procedure be put in place. For any America who wants to do this I'm not telling them they can't scan the the ballots for speed, I'm not telling them that they can't audit the ballots.

What I am telling them is that they cant lock the ballots inside of the scanner then hustle the ballots out of our neighborhoods, before they are hand checked by the people in that neighborhood.

Checks and Balances, Is all that I am Demanding.

Break the ballots out of the scanning machine, in the neighborhood, so the people can all have a look see. :hippie:

[eridani]

16. It took Washington state 3 weeks to recount the 2004 gubernatorial race

No big deal--we can wait that long. But what if you are counting hundreds of other races as well?

[diva77]

13. And let's not forget that Rove's AG tool threatened to put people in jail if they handcounted

the votes. Must be something threatening about HCPB for sure!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/interview-with-former-ala_b_99338.html


Don Siegelman: Well yes, we have been saying it, we have been saying it since the night of the election. I mean, we won the election, the votes were counted and were declared and then in one county which is controlled by Republicans the, after midnight when everybody went home, when the poll workers were sent home, when the media was gone, they decided to electronically recount these votes and shifted the votes and certified the vote illegally the next day. Then, interestingly, Karl Rove's client stepped in, the attorney general stepped in and said,'if anybody tries to hand count these votes we're going to put them in jail'. We initially had a green light from the local Republicans in this one area that we could come in and hand count these ballots where the electronic shift occurred.

Thom Hartmann: But then the Republican, the Attorney general said no.



box & bold type added for emphasis

[kster]

22. And the USSC stopped the people from hand counting

their ballots. Must be something threatening about HCPB for sure!!



The 2000 National Election

I think it is probably over, but I wonder how long the inherent irony and unfairness of what just happened will take to sink into the general public.

I will be distributing the following opinion as widely as I can. If anyone who reads it agrees and wants to re-distribute it on their own, please feel free to do so.

http://www.desautel.net/election.htm

[eridani]

15. Trusting machines is idiotic

That's why we have to have audits.

[kster]

19. Do you hand count the ballots when you do the audit? nt

[Wilms]

25. That's a reasonable question.

Some don't. They might use a separate machine, but they'll re-op-scan. That's dumb.

Other's are specified as "hand counts". This is one of the reasons galloglas's "tally" was questioned.

[kster]

26. Specified as "hand count" that means the pocedure to "hand count" is already

in place.

[eridani]

34. Unfortunately, we don't require audits

If we did, it would be hand count, of course. But it would not be necessary to hand count every ballot. Statisticians can easily assign the number of ballots to be counted given the % difference between candidates in the race chosen for auditing, total number of ballots and desired confidence level.

[kster]

39. Why are you able to hand count a % of the ballots accurately for your audit

but claim that the HCPB people that want to do a 100% audit/hand count of the ballots, will not be able to hand count them accurately?

But yet you and the audit people can hand count 5% of the ballots accurately.

Please explain. I'm all ears.

[eridani]

41. Because counting 200 ballots is easier to do accurately than counting 1.2 million.

That would require 600 times the number of people, and we just can't fucking GET them, let alone train them and handle all the security issues.

To illustrate the basic principle, sing all the verses to 100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall. Then sing all the verses to A Million Bottles of Beer on the Wall. Which is more doable?

[Wilms]

56. You're not being logical.

In fact you're being illogical.

You can't get poll-workers to spend a 12 hour day so you assume you can't find handcounters who could spend 4 hours.

So how do they manage that in NH? Do they magically need a smaller ratio of pollworkers to voters?

You skip over the fact that staffing the polls is made more difficult through the use of e-vote equipment seniors don't want to deal with.

Your beer on the wall analogy is as weak as a domestic brew.

I understand your frustration conversing with the forum spammer, but your arguments for are as poor as kster's arguments are against.

Perhaps you ought to consider Dave Berman's advocacy...and a bar of soap for that potty-mouth

[kster]

88. You have 18 post in my thread and you call me a SPAMMER

Why would I want to disrupt my own thread? :shrug:

Your not being logical. Spammers try and disrupt a thread that they don't like or agree with, I'm pretty sure I agree with what I posted.

You on the other hand.... :hippie:

[Wilms]

90. I didn't accuse you of disrupting your own threads.

I, and others, have pointed out our shared belief that you, with your repetitive "prattle", have been a major force in shutting down discussion on this forum.

I guess you hadn't realized.

You wonder why HCPB doesn't get a fair shake here? Look in the mirror for the cause.

:hi:

We're all looking forward to your vacation.

[kster]

94. You do know when you post it puts the thread back on top

don't you? Are you helping me spam the forum? :)

1400 views 80 replies seems to me discussion is alive and well. :)

:hi:

[Wilms]

96. And the majority opinion of you...

:hi:

[kster]

97. Hand Count/ Audit the optiscan Paper Ballots in the neighborhood

you don't need to take the paper ballots that are locked inside them scanners to a different location to audit them, do ya?

Why not break them out at the polling place?

Do the Hand Count/Audit right there in front of the people in the neighborhood. :hippie:

Oh I'm sorry you where trying to change that subject. :hi:

[Wilms]

98. Actually, it was a surprisingly good question you asked of Bill.

Perhaps you'll ask him, again.

Actually, there are both up and down sides to each method. Does it appear that way to you?

[diva77]

27. having been a pollworker, I can see how easy it would be to rig an audit

why not just rely on the HCPB method that includes a 100% recount -- i.e. the "sort and stack" method.

An audit has no "right" or "wrong" answer, no numbers that are concrete; much easier to rig numbers if you're not looking for something concrete

[Wilms]

29. I'm not following...

Why is it easy to rig an audit?

What is "the "sort and stack" method"?

Who said, "An audit has no "right" or "wrong" answer, no numbers that are concrete..."?

[kster]

32. Here ya go Wilms, Sort-n-Stack Method of Hand Counting Ballots Submitted by Rady Ananda

In one page find complete and concise instructions on how to use the Sort and Stack method of hand counting ballots. It is to be used with the Reconciliation Audit Slip posted at http://snipurl.com/21d39


http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=54000 :hippie:

[eridani]

36. OK, so where's the gubernatorial contest, the senate and house races--

--the city, state and county races and the bond issues and referenda? If you were just doing a presidential race this way, of course it would be feasible. There's a lot more than that going on, though.

[kster]

40. Your able to accurately hand count 5% of our ballots for your audit

But we Americans are not able to accurately Hand Count 100% of our ballots.

Can you see why your argument doesn't hold water?

[eridani]

42. Why not just try singing all the verses to A Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall?

Then try singing all the verses to A Million Bottles of Beer on the Wall. Which task is doable and which one is not?

I used the spreadsheet Wilms posted for King County, and got 12.7 hours after the polls closed to finish the counting. That's assuming we could find the extra people to do it, which we can't/

[kster]

44. Both are doable, What are you getting at? nt

[eridani]

45. Are you delusional, or what?

Both are doable in theory but not in practice, which makes me suspect that you have zero experience with actually trying to help with the management of the election process in the real world. That stuff requires trying to compensate for the inevitable fuckups of both machines and people.

OK, I'm late at the lab flushing buffer out of my system, so I counted 9 seconds for one verse of One Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall on one of my lab timers. That would be 900 seconds for 100 verses, or about 15 minutes. One Million Bottles of Beer on the Wall would take 10,000 times as long, or 150,000 minutes. That's 2500 hours, or about 104 days, assuming you don't sleep or eat at any time. Still think it's doable? Then how's the weather on your planet, and do the unicorns bite?

Here's a clue for you--stupidity does not advance the election integrity movement.

[kster]

46. Hand Counted Paper Ballots in the neighborhood, IS NOT AN OPTION

its what will be, GET USED TO IT!! :hi:

[eridani]

47. Tell that to the all mail in folks in Oregon sometime.

You aren't helping by making the election integrity movement look ridiculous. Get back to me after you've been singing for 104 days without food or sleep, 'k?

[kster]

48. The optical scan machines are in our neighborhoods to confiscate our ballots

and or hustle our ballots out of our neighborhoods, before we have a chance to hand count them, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS!!

You know it and I know it! :hippie:

[eridani]

49. So what? All your yammering has had exactly zero effect on Oregon's law n/t

[kster]

50. You say "So what" need I say more?

:hi:

[eridani]

51. You might say what you have actually accomplished in the real world for election integrity

My guess is zilch.

[Wilms]

55. Did I already point out that your form of advocacy is one of the worst things for the HCPB effort

Are you intentionally ridiculous?

[kster]

89. YOUR DELUSIONAL!! First you say

"Then try singing all the verses to A Million Bottles of Beer on the Wall. Which task is doable and which one is not"?

Then you say

"OK, I'm late at the lab flushing buffer out of my system, so I counted 9 seconds for one verse of One Hundred Bottles of Beer on the Wall on one of my lab timers. That would be 900 seconds for 100 verses, or about 15 minutes. One Million Bottles of Beer on the Wall would take 10,000 times as long, or 150,000 minutes. That's 2500 hours, or about 104 days, assuming you don't sleep or eat at any time"

First you say it is not doable then you say it is doable.

Which is it? Is it doable or not?

Why would I trust your judgment on anything?

Are you a flip flopper?

[eridani]

35. I still have to read the sort and stack book

However, with 40 contests/issues per ballot, the effort multiplies a lot. An audit should require something concrete, i.e. a specified confidence level for the outcome given the number of ballots and the % difference between the candidates. If it doesn't, it's not really an audit.

[kster]

43. This will get you started heres a short video on sort and stack

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/videos/State_WM9_256Kbps_download_NTSC.html

[Bill Bored]

78. What about jurisdictions that don't have paper? nt

[Fly by night]

53. Kster, other than posting here incessantly on HCPB, what have you done to accomplish that goal?

This is a serious question. Here in TN, we are within days (I hope) of passing the TN Voter Confidence Act to ban DREs, something we have worked hard on for three years. Since (after all this time) I don't know what state you live in, I'm curious whether you are accomplishing similar progress there (wherever "there" is.) Inquiring minds want to know.

For the record, I see you now have 16 OPs on the front page of the ER forum. It's easier to be heard when you have driven so many people out of our room. Put down the keyboard that you've been using to whip your one-trick HCPB pony and get to (real) work, 'k?

[eridani]

54. n/t

[diva77]

59. Kster has posted a lot of great articles that I otherwise would never have encountered

[demodonkey]

61. Google is your friend, and doesn't whine about HCPBs all the time. nt

[Wilms]

72. Forget google. All you have to do is lurk OpEd News and BBV.

That's where he gets most of it.

And whatever "great" articles he might share is but a fraction of his posts, the remainder of which is the equivalent of a gas-soaked toilet paper roll ignited on the end of a stick.

You may want to consider all the great postings you'll never see here because a lot of serious folks have left or rarely visit this forum due to the antics of the HCPB or Die/Exit Polls and MCM are God crowd.

[demodonkey]

60. I agree, and remember when this forum was really productive, with many great voices being heard.

I agree that over the last three years many have been chased away or given up on DU ER, and this forum has very much become the HCPB echo chamber. Thank you for saying what many have been thinking.

And FBN, best wishes for success in your DRE ban in your Orange State Legislature. Despite our best efforts here, Pennsylvania and its Legislature, Governor, and Secretary of State all remain recalcitrant. We are truly Pennsylvania, State of Denial when it comes to DRE voting.

MB in PA

[kster]

62. Take any eight grader to Radio Shack and S/He could build a ballot counting machine

so I ask you whats the big secret? You know and I know that it is not about the counting of the ballots.

These high priced ballot counting machines have one purpose and one purpose only.

These machines have successfully diverted our attention from the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.

These machines are in place to take our ballots out of our neighborhoods before they are able to be hand counted by the people in the neighborhood PERIOD

Thats the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.

[Yellow Horse]

65. Um, YOU are the 800 pound gorillla in this room, and it's driving everybody else out.

Alright, already! You want hand-counted paper ballots. We heard your message. At least 1000 times.

Your last answer wasn't even really a response to the post you were answering. Just another mind-numbing rant about hand-counting paper ballots.

As Fly By Night said, exactly what are you doing to work for hand-counted paper ballots, besides driving the productive people away from this board, or drowing them out?

Time to turn off the broken record.

[JEQuidam]

63. Aren't computerized voting machines OK as long as...

Aren't computerized voting machines OK as long as there is also a parallel paper record that can be relied upon to audit the election results if they are contested?

[kster]

64. No they are nothing more than lock boxes

that take ballots out of our neighborhoods and away from the people, the "get away car" so to speak, of election theft. After the ballots leave the neighborhood it doesn't matter much if that machine counted the ballots accurately or not.

[Fly by night]

67. Yes.

[Fly by night]

69. To elaborate...

Opscan voting systems (with parallel ballot-marking devices for disabled voters) start and end with a paper BALLOT, completed by the voter before any interface with the electronic vote-counting machine (opscan), which is there to read and tally the ballots.

Because opscans -- as electronic counters of the ballots -- can also be gamed and/or can miscount the ballots for a number of technical/bonehead reasons, mandatory random manual audits (MRMA) must be included in voting systems that use opscan to validate the machine count with the ballots it counted. The necessary requirements, conditions and qualifications for how mandatory random manual recounts are conducted are still being discussed nationwide, even as some of us move to do something in that arena. Here in the Orange State (where things have to be made simple ....), we are starting with a 3% MRMA in our Voter Confidence Act. We know that's low and actual audits may need to vary in the completeness of their coverage of both the total ballots and the separate races ......... but it's a start.

To repeat my earlier question to kster, tell us all what you're doing (somewhere else besides in front of your keyboard, waiting to go for the record for the most consecutive OP posts on the SAME TOPIC here) to actually improve or insure election integrity where you live, where you (and, someday, your children) vote.

I don't want to hear anything else from you (really) at this time. We've lived through too many minutes of you talking the talk. Please describe (in detail) whether you know how to walk.

Peace out, everyone. Have a beautiful spring day -- I sure am.

DemoD (and anyone else), y'all come. My Orange State Garden is kicking (abundant & legal) ass!!

[Bill Bored]

85. Good news about TN Fly! I had no idea you were so close to getting a law passed.

On edit, if you a apply one-precinct-per-county minimum to that audit, it would much more than 3% in TN!

[demodonkey]

68. A voter-marked paper ballot with machine count backed up by statistically significant audit is fine.

Couple that double count with a strong and transparent chain of custody and you would have a stronger system, IMHO, than 100% HCPB (which has a long history of fraud.)

[Wilms]

71. Of course you can manipulate a HCPB election.

How would OpScans improve on that.

(Bear in mind, I believe a risk-based audit is needed for HCPB elections as well as OpScan).

[kster]

75. Yes this can be done in the neighborhood at each polling place, RIGHT?

[Bill Bored]

81. No one is doing a proper audit of paper ballots or records....yet.

Nor do they intend to in most states.

So how would anyone know if an election should or should not be contested in the first place?

There has been some lip service paid to this, but little follow-through so far, even among friendly election officials and secretaries of state. (The unfriendly ones have no intention of auditing much of anything.)

It's my view that many of the proponents of such voting systems view the paper ballot or record as a way to inspire confidence in the system on the part of voters, but without actually doing anything else to justify such confidence. Optical scanners can be rigged as easily as DREs.

There are states and counties in which optically scanned paper ballots counted by computers are never hand counted or even audited by hand counting a sample of the paper ballots. But the paper provides the voters with a sense of security because any vote switching, if it is occurring, goes on within the confines of the software, without so much as a miscalibrated touch screen to give it away.

[kster]

86. Some here speak of an audit, can this audit/hand count

be done by the people in the neighborhood, in the polling place at the close of election day?

[eomer]

104. Yes, but you need to be sure the audit is provided for in state law.

Florida has enacted changes that essentially make it illegal for any county to hand count paper ballots except in the rare case of a very close margin. So, even though all the DRE counties in Florida are switching to paper ballots (and optical scan), Florida does not yet have an election system with transparency.

If I remember correctly, Sarasota County had a successful referendum resulting in county law requiring a hand count audit. The state is suing to force them not to perform the hand counts that citizens of the county voted in favor of, on the grounds that the hand counts would be a violation of state law.