BBV: A Recently tombstoned poster gave me pause for thought...help.

Last evening I was attacked by a 1 post poster called "Quick and Low". I have three questions now, and would like DU's thoughts.

David Elliott, recently left the position as State Director of Elections, Washington. Given the fact that the Secretay of States office has a close relationship with Vote Here and this post. I wonder if the EAC is bringing David Elliott on? Clearly, they would be well served (sarcasm) to have him. He was after all in charge of writing the standards for NASED. He was also on the NASED board at a time when uncertified software was being deployed.

As to paper ballots. Due to a recent poll taken here at DU and from my own personal experience. Paper ballots are the preffered manner of voting. There are three types of people Paper Ballot People, Paper Trail People and those who do not care until it is explained then they want a ballot. Paper trail leaves a wide path to fraud, by the definition of the word "papertrail". If papertrail will have the legal standing of a ballot...then just call it ballot. There is no need to define new terms here, as we already have one defined by tradition and case law. Why all the defensiveness over the use of paper ballot over papertrail? Is it an indication that something is up, and it is needed for a reason we don't yet see? Why some individuals here are so opposed to paper ballots is beyond me and causes suspicion.

Could Votehere be positioning itself, to have someone on the EAC that is friendly and regarded in the industry as an expert?

Just wondering.

I wonder if that is where David Elliott is heading. I thought I saw a post earlier today naming names of the commission members... didn't they just name some new ones?

Sorry if I'm not thinking on all channels....I'm trying to work and keep up w/ DU at the same time. Now, THAT will make ya crazy!!

And I'm glad to know Quick & Low got tombstoned. These A**holes follow you and Bev everywhere you go. They're like damned stalkers!

:kick::kick::kick:

and request for help:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1811587

to having a backup hardcopy when using electronic voting, basically as an audit trail in the event of a recount, fraud claims, etc.

If that's the case, then they would really be separate issues.

Paper trail means nothing without definition. Paper trail could be defined as...for example VothHere's cryptography solution phone in or web based verification. It is still not a ballot.

Votehere is also very cozy with Sequoia Pacific. Votehere was nothing...really, until the Diebold implosion. Now suddenly there they are front and center with their "papertrail" concept.

Also disturbing, was Bev's harrassment by the Secret Service over what I can only surmise as being "The votehere hack" related.

I'll stick to the paper ballot...trails often lead nowhere.

Yes, obviously if there's no legal definition, we certainly don't want to give the opposition the opportunity to steal an election on a legal technicality. Good point.

Actually, let me rephrase that - we don't want them to steal another election with another legal technicality.

and as long as there is a paper trail, be it recipt or puchcard/whatever, i will be satisfied... but there must be a human verifiable permanant record.

what don't you llike about a machine generated paper trail?

btw: congratulations on your well deserved recent success you have had in getting the word out you are truely remarkable. :toast:

peace

A key litmus test.

- If you buy a house, and you want a contract, but you ask for a paper trail, you might just get the appraisal report. Say what you mean.

- If you buy a car and you want a want a warranty, but you ask for a paper trail, you might just get a bill of sale. Be specific.

- If you buy groceries and you want a receipt, but you ask for the paper trail, you might just get a grocery list.

- If you want a voter verified paper BALLOT, but you advocate for a paper trail, you might just get a receipt with a code that you can take to the Internet to check (the VoteHere crypography solution). Politicians and advocacy groups who use the word "trail" are keeping the door open for something other than a ballot. Close that door.

BALLOT is defined in legal dictionaries. TRAIL is not. Ballot is defined in case law. Trail has no standing in the law. A ballot is the document which is the legal representation of your vote. A trail puts the legal entity of your vote inside the computer.


Bev Harris

of course whatever is generated MUST BE deemed a LEGAL ballot.

thanks :hi:

peace

Why do wee need to "compromise"? There is no need served by compromise when we are talking about elections.


Paper ballot is the only way to go.

that is the compromise which means we havve a process that leaves a paper trail that can be AUDITED.

we will come off as 'candle stick makers' if we say we are completely against the use of 'electricity', imo.

peace

A paper ballot is unambiguous; it is verifiable by the voter and 100% useful in a recount.. And, when asking for something, it is always best to be clear and not let the opposition interpret your meaning. If you allow paper trail or receipt to creep into the debate you give Diebold, et al, a method to continue to obscure the process. A coded receipt tells the voter nothing but the fact that they voted. If "paper trail" becomes the alternative to voter verified paper ballot, and then problems are uncovered, activists will have to start all over again and demand a paper ballot. It will be a lot harder the second time because e-voting advocates can turn around and say... "Well, we gave you what you asked for, are you people never happy?"

and good points!

paper ballot that is verified by the voter. None what so ever.

i'm going to read your other responce now, thanks bro :loveya:

peace

I've always questioned why these systems couldn't be modified (or weren't designed) to provide a backup ballot in the first place.

It's not like the technology doesn't exist. That claim has always sounded like little more than an excuse to manipulate the results.

it isn't only about the ballot. It is about robust auditing of the ballots against the machines.

Here in King County for example. I have heard they only audit 1/125th of a percent of the ballots.

What is that, about 2 ballots? Great for catching errors. (sarcasm)

So what percent do you think is enough? I've been advocating for a 15% audit. Is that too much or too little, in your opinion? And whenever the words, "voter verified paper ballot" comes out of our mouths we should also, each and every time, mention a mandatory audit of the machine against the ballot.

Her advice on the subject is 3 percent. I like 5% but 3% is a good sample and compromise...however let me add a caveat. The sample should be randomly chosen and not cherry picked.

Agree on the audit statement BTW.

I'll go with the 5% and can compromise down if necessary. Besides, I think the number 5 sticks in people's minds better than 3.

And thanks for pointing out that the audit should be random. So what we've got is a voter verified paper ballot with a 5% random audit that checks the paper ballot count against the machine count.

with the ballot as the record of the election.

you allow opposing parties to select the precincts to audit. Better than random sampling is having the selection balanced out among adversaries -- much like the discretionary picks in jury selection. This way, if a candidate has a hunch something's wrong, they can hand audit that place. (I favor 100% hand audit at the polling place; second choice, if a spot check is used, 5% with discretionary selection of audit precincts spread among all the political parties. And that includes the Greens and the Libertarians.)

Also, the audit needs to allow for expansion of the hand audit if discrepancies are found. And we must be allowed to audit if the election shows insufficient randomness (i.e. three candidates get 18,181 votes or an issue wins by 6.5% in all 100 precincts) or if there are other serious anomalies (like in Alabama, where 300 votes showed up a week late because, supposedly, some votes got stuck in the modem.)

Bev Harris

but could not remember how you put it. As usual you put it very eloquently.

We can spend $150 billion in Iraq, but we can't spend a couple hundred million (or less) to create a voting system that actually provides what it should, including a thorough audit process.

So, basically, the audit process takes about the same sample as a USA Today/Gallup poll, right?

I guess that means that the election results should come with a disclaimer about a 5% margin of error.

I find it appalling how little emphasis is placed on a process that determines the future of our country and the world. Elections should be the cornerstone of our democracy, not a complete afterthought.

the devil is in the details. Ask for exactly what is wanted and if someone wants to fight for something else, let the burden be upon THEM to justify it.

Ballot = a physical voter verified record that is the legal record of your vote

Trail = -- I dunno, something Hansel and Gretl followed into the woods. They found a witch there, who took away their freedom.

Bev Harris

Others not so fun,
It’s the way you use the trail that counts.
Rigging vote machines is fun.

Paper trails to you so we can steal your vote.
Paper trails to you you’re gonna vote for Bush*.
JFK can't win cause we’ve got Diebold?
What we really want's a paper ballot?
Paper trails to you…now the jokes on you.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/happytr.htm


Lyrics by me...Music...ummmm I dunno.

something that makes reliable AUDITING possible.

can't have one with out the other ;->

peace

In Washington State we have a papertrail already. The ballot resides on the machine. This is unacceptable. The Ballot and the Paper should never be seperated.

The ballot should and must be the final record. I know you might think it only semantics...but semantics are crucial in the eyes of the law. You must be specific. Paper Ballot and Paper Trail do not mean the same thing. Reread my sigline.

EDIT: RedEagle posted this



I've worked with this for two years or more now.

Watch the legislation.

For example, in Washington State, there is an RCW (state law) all about what contstitutes a 'ballot.' Trail is not language used in that section.

If you pass legislation that calls for voter verified paper trail, then by law, in a court, which is going to take precedent? No one has defined this for me. I don't want an 'opinon,' I want a rock solid court judgement.

If you have law defining what a ballot is and it defines the electronic one as a ballot, but where paper is involved, it only defines that as a trail, well, which one is going to hold up in a court of law?

Don't we already have states declaring the computer count of optical scan ballots as official and nothing else, even hand counting, is? Didn't I see a story on that not too long ago?

When you have state election officials trying to be very specific about paper trail, then very specific about using that trail ONLY in recounts, then trying to limit audits (when they had to give up trying to block them completely) to only audits of the DRE's, (In Washington we have a lot of absentee ballots, so it's a mix) you've kind of got to wonder why.

After my experiences in this state, with the specificity of the language used in new legislation, I do see paper trail as very dangerous. Unless you get that defined in the RCW, defining what constitutes a ballot, I can see the fight later over the fact that VVPT is not defined as a ballot in law, but the electronic record is.

Again, if challenged, what does the law say? Not common sense, but the law? Because we've all seen examples of law superceding common sense, even when the court acknowledges that, because it's in the law.

Get paper trail defined as a ballot in the law (in the RCW defining 'ballot') and you might gain some protection.

If it's not defined as such, my guess is you'll see contested elections thrown out of court because of that little detail.

It's the small things that will trip you up. Someone can say anything they want about paper trail, show me where it will take precedence over ballot in a court of law? Sure, we can define the procedure for recounts, but I'll bet someone will challenge the legality recount of a paper trail vs. the 'ballot' count, even when that ballot count is electronic.

I've seen that trick used too many times by a former State Elections Director. Been there, seen it happen.

RedEagle from another thread.

i admit i know nothing about how polls operate but if we are going to be using computers to vote i want them to spit out some kind of human verifiable receipt of that transaction which will be legally recognized as an official ballot for auditing.

i think both of these terms are valid when discussing what the problem is and the best way to fix it of course this isn't the only part of the process that needs to addressed but certainly a show stopper.

besides from a marketing angle i think paper-trail clicks with people right away... once you got their attention then give all the details.

just my 2 cents.

:hi:

peace

Get people saying papertrail to trick them into papertrails. We have a defined term based on tradition and case law. No need to define trails cause ballots already are.

well... nobody needs to trick me into wanting a paper-trail i want one.

a paper ballot leaves a paper trail does it not?

if there is some kind of paper trail that yall are fearfull of please let us know so we can say no to that one.

i admit i am confused but that happens often :shrug:

peace

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1810347&mesg_id=1818119&page=

1. You talk about "ballot" to voters and it means something different than paper trail. It conveys the idea of, well, a ballot (which are essential relative to votes and getting votes counted) -- as opposed to a receipt or something different which may not be all that important at all. When you do business at an ATM, you get a receipt. You wouldn't, probably, want to do business with a bank whose ATM didn't furnish one. But once you've checked it, you throw it away, probably. One wouldn't do that with a BALLOT.

BALLOTS are meant to stay within the voting process; who knows (or even cares much) what happens to paper receipts? One thing for certain, though, the meaning conveyed by "paper receipts" doesn't usually include electing people, or the right people. Who has ever been elected on paper receipts? No one.

In Georgia (and all other locales currently using Diebold DREs), for example), the claim is that we already HAVE a paper trail. What we don't have is voter-verified paper BALLOTS. What we don't have is any way to recount actual votes. What we don't have is any way to PROVE fraud did or did not take place. (Imagine that: no way at all to prove or disprove election fraud.)

2. In Georgia, we've got the provision that the only legal vote is the electronic vote, which means that even if we had voter-verified paper ballots tomorrow, they still wouldn't count, couldn't be used in a recount, probably couldn't be validly used for spot checks, etc. -- not until that law is changed (which is a second fight to wage). Why set states and other jurisdictions up for this same monkey business? Make them BALLOTS to start with.

i just want a LEGAL paper trail.

i think it can be argued that an electronically recorded vote is a legal ballot... well that ain't good enough for me.

there needs to be a paper trail... so it can be audited and also it must be OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED.

i ain't got no beef against using machines or computers just as long as they can be reliably audited and for me that is a paper trail.

but i do understand the point about making sure that whatever paper trail is generated that it is also legally binding.

well... i gotta run, thanks for all the info :hi:

peace

Why make it a two-step when you can have a one-step all along, to get what you want.

buying a house: I want a contract
vs.
buying a house: I want a paper trail and look in section 1c on page 2, where it defines paper trail as a contract.

The second one leaves more room for argument than the first.

The only people I know of who are actually fighting to call it a trail instead of a ballot are people with a VoteHere agenda who know it is politically incorrect to say so.

Otherwise, just say "ballot" and be done with it. Why ask for what you don't want, and depend on politicians to (hopefully) define it your way, after they fight their way through lobbyist, vendors and people who want to do end runs around proper auditing? Why not ask for what you DO want and make the bad guys do the fighting?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1810347&mesg_id=1817395&page=

Bev Harris

and hence the major problem.

can the old make room for the new, sure it can as long as there is a paper trail that is humanly verifiable and legal.

i guess i have all ready conceeded that there will be computers counting our votes... i just want to make sure the machines leave a paper trail when used.

gotta run for now, thanks for your time and info :toast:

peace

there is always a way to crack even the most secure systems. The is "always a way around". She does not think electronic votes are a good idea. She is not a big name. But she is concerned. Makes no bones that the paper ballot be the record of the election...not the electronic one.

I am off too...to work on the house.

but if machines are being used i want a paper trail that is legal.

i think a case can be made that they are probably too expensive to maintain and secure and should be done away with but if not we need a paper trail to certify this new way of counting our votes.

peace

not use machines.


Means we would all have to count ballots. But then Democracy is not a spectator sport.

from your post below.

* Any use of electronic voting systems, whether DRE or optical scan, shall

provide a paper ballot for every vote cast, at the time the ballot is cast,
and that paper ballot shall be used for the original vote count, audit, and
final record.

- While we advocate the use of computers to assist people in marking their
ballots, computers shall not be used to count those ballots.

source...
http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Evoting/CalTech_MIT_Report_Version2.pdf

that is what i am talking about.

whatever we use, we must leave a LEGAL paper trail

but to be completely against the use of machines is unreasonable, imho, and cause more harm through delay and confusion via squabling.

make the paper trail LEGIT because without one we all loose AND it will cover any and all future possibilities of casting a VOTE.

peace

Can you call it a voter verified paper ballot trail? Does that work for you?

"Trail" has implications other than ballot, as explained so well by Eloriel.

We definitely want that paper trail but we want it defined as a ballot.

A paper trail could be the scheme where you take out a slip of paper and go 'verify' your vote somewhere else at some other time. Taking that paper with you means that there is no way to audit (verify) entire elections.

Just for fun and information, go look up spoofing and think about that type of individual verification. (shudder)

We want the same thing- we just need to make sure that it has legal standing and is treated like a ballot is treated. Just calling it a ballot simplifies that because laws already exist for how to treat a ballot.

When they work so hard to NOT use certain terminology then you really gotta kinda wonder why. ;)

works for me :hi:

peace

- The "central finding" of a 2001 CalTech/MIT study was that, of all voting
systems used in the United States, hand counted paper ballots have the
lowest average incidence of spoiled, uncounted, and unmarked ballots.
(http://www.hss.caltech.edu/%7Evoting/CalTech_MIT_Report_Version2.pdf. Page
2)

- Errors in both DRE and optical-scan voting machine software, firmware, and
election-specific ballot programming have caused hundreds of election
problems in recent years, including high levels of uncounted and unmarked
ballots. It is unreasonable to believe that all such errors have been
detected.

- Manual recounts of optical-scan ballots have overturned initial,
inaccurate machine results in many such cases. It is only reasonable to
believe that the outcomes of many other elections (both DRE and optical
scan) have been inaccurate and the inaccuracies were not detected.

- Computer miscounts, whether through error or fraud, have a much greater
potential impact than manual miscounts.

- The electronic voting systems used in the United States, both optical scan
and DRE, have severe and unresolved security and accuracy flaws that are not
being remedied by election procedures.

Therefore, in order to protect the accuracy of our election outcomes, we
demand the following:

* All ballots shall be paper ballots and hand counted.
* Any use of electronic voting systems, whether DRE or optical scan, shall

provide a paper ballot for every vote cast, at the time the ballot is cast,
and that paper ballot shall be used for the original vote count, audit, and
final record.

- While we advocate the use of computers to assist people in marking their
ballots, computers shall not be used to count those ballots.

* Ballot counts shall be done by precinct with public oversight.
* Ballot-count results shall be made public immediately at each precinct.
* Media outlets shall wait until all polling places close before reporting

any election results or outcome predictions.

they are not opposed to using machines in the voting process just that they MUST generate a paper ballot which in turn leaves the all important paper trail.

we want a system that generates a LEGAL paper ballot WHY? because it leaves a paper trail.

why is having a legal paper trail important? It leaves a record that is transparent to anyone who can read and a record that is more dificult to alter without being detected.

though folks have been able to STUFF the ballot boxes even before machines were introduced to the equation so nothing is 100% and any proccess we come up with must always be scrutinized.

anyways, paper trail still works for me and i will continue to use it when explaining the situation to friends and coworkers.

peace

so call it what it is...A paper ballot.

Don't give them wriggle room by calling it a paper trail.

a physical, human (and machine) readable legal document and record of my vote.

The PNAC Bu$h administration is desperate to get four more years in power in order to complete their plan for empire and assume totalitarian control of the US. They absolutely must insure that Bu$h is re-selected through whatever means necessary, and they plan to throw the election to Bu$h.

Absolutely no reasonable person, unless they had Machiavellian intentions, would contest the need for a completely transparent, certifiably accurate recountable voting process.

They are going to whine and stall us until November. If they succeed, voting will be moot after that.

part of the game, for those who don't want transparent audited elections, is to run the clock out.

Since I don't weigh in on BBV often, let me take this opportunity to thank you, Andy, and all those who helped you for all the work you've been doing on this.

It dawned on me 2 years ago that the boys had NO intention of going anywhere. They're there to stay as far as they're concerned hence the smirks, the insolence, arrogance, the sloppiness and total disregard for what anyone thinks.

They're not planning on going anywhere.

:scared:

everyone gets the implications of faulty elections. Even our Republican friends.

What if the elections turn against them, due to faulty equipment?

Talk in those terms to the Republicans and watch them turn.

Cite this example to any skeptics.

I remember also when I lived in Texas, (a while back) there was a huge race for Governor between Bill Clements, Kent Hance, and another Republican. What would the outcome have been then?

Examples like these need to be cited to Republicans who are unable to see the larger picture.

This is anything BUT solely a Dem/Repub issue.

If someone like Wally O Dell is committed to *bringing Ohio to Bush* then you have your answer, dont you?

This is the most bi-partisan/non-political* issue which effects every single American and our basic rights and voices as Americans, although many dont realize or are not aware of this elephant in our living room.

And Bev is correct, the clock is ticking for Democracy and implementing a fair 2004 election.


Connie

The technology also enables multiple failover and redundancy. Why not just demand a touch-screen computer that will:

1) count the votes electronically internally;

2) print out a paper ballot that is voter-verifiable; and

3) make the ballot readable by scanner.

Then you can compare the machine's total versus the scanner's total versus the eyeball total.

The paper ballot will be the ballot "of record". A certain percentage of precincts each year will be counted by hand for auditing purposes. In all precincts, if the scanner's total doesn't match the aggregate totals of the voting machines, then a recount using the paper ballots would be mandatory.

Accupoll and Avante.

VVPB, and the paper ballot is scanable (bar code, probably)

Vogue came out with a DRE that only marks an optical scan ballot.

But election officials listen to the likes of Diebold and ES&S, who don't have then yet, and then tell people that such machines don't exist.

Reporters never get beyond what election officials and the big vendors tell them.

This obfuscation has been going on for well over a year.