BBV: Paper ballots nationwide imminent -- watch this space

Something is going to happen tomorrow.

Also, as you probably know, some of the Diebold memos are now parked on a congressional Web site, and there is more afoot. HR 2239 is nice, and we need to pass it, but do not let up:

When we get the paper ballots, we need these two things in short order:

1) An immediate interim solution for the primaries that gives us manual counts of the voter-verified paper ballots. There are efficient and cheap ways to do this. And by the way, Democracy is worth it. The machines are not ready for prime time -- the Optical Scan machines also MUST be hand-audited, because we have documented case after case where these things are flipping elections.

2) A long term solution mandating robust auditing (not teensy spot checks) comparing voter-verified paper against machine tally, if we use machines at all. This must be done in every polling place, at the polling place, in every election, and not just for recounts or "suspicious" circumstances.

Watch. You'll see. Then let's get up to speed on the reasons we cannot waiver on #1 and #2 above.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

gin

You are an American Hero.

hearing this made my day a lot better...

bushco will never win a fair election. never.

thanks to all of you working on this!!!

:hi:

:) :) :)

around immediate interim solution and proper auditing (including optical scans).

I've got three broken records:
1) voter-verified paper ballot
2) emergency interim solution
3) manual audit properly done at the polling place every time including optical scans.

Where is nostamj when I need him? That last needs to be pared down by 2/3.

Bev

gin

Did I miss something? My understanding was that it:
1) mandates voter-verified paper ballot
2) gets rid of remote access
3) has a (sorry, totally inadequate) 1/2 % random audit. Okay to catch random error, inappropriate for any fraud-prone activity like managing money or running elections.

It's missing anything to do with auditing the optical scan.
I didn't see anything that gets us manually verified results by the primaries.

law? Can information still be added?

Excuse my ignorance...I am ignorant of all of these proeedures.

it's because I feel ignorant about how to do this too.

I just know that we must.

Thank you for all you have done.

words can not describe how proud I am of you and everyone else who has worked so tirelessly on this issue.

You go girl!!

I need to work on 2239...

Kick!

Anyone see a pattern there?

BTW That is the GEMS version that was certified by th "Secretary of State's office" per Dean Logan Director, King County Elections.

I have more goodies on the way.

:wtf:

please elaborate, mr god_bush_cheney :)

is embedded in 1.18.18

The same as the tally that two Texas counties came up with during 2000 election? Now you've got me curious.

Is this number some kind of default number that the machines automatically go to like a reset switch? It's one thing if the number were truly random, but this particular number is mathematically significant to programmers, isn't it?

Something doesn't pass my smell test here. What is going on in King County?

Between reading about the impending rape of the North Slope, Dem sellouts on the energy, Medicare, and "healthy forests" shams, my spirit is about broken. I need some good news, THANKS!

Please watch your back.

:kick:

WWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Best news I've heard in ages! For the first time since the debacle of 2000 I think my toes have ever so slightly uncurled... now if I could just hear some news that might ever so slightly unlock my anger clenched teeth).

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU to Bev, David and all the BBV activists!

Something is going to happen tomorrow.

a hint? even the teeniest breath of a hint?

...he came here and publicly apologized to Bev for his snarky attitude several months back. Without her and her volunteers none of this ever would have come to light. Bev's a freaking national hero if you ask me. Ditto for her volunteers!

:thumbsup:

for democratic government. There has to be a paper trail of some sort to mirror electronic voting results.

I think random audits would suffice. There should be a provision guaranteeing full audits in any jurisdiction if a random audit turned up discrepancies. Audits should also be a part of any recount procedure as provided by law.

Attempted fraud on electronic devices would only be easy to conceal if the fraudulent results were spread over the maximum number of machines. For instance, a large shift in party voting in a single precinct would attract attention, but if a few votes were altered in every precinct, normal voting fluctuation would appear to account for it on cursory inspection. But widespread tampering is more easily caught by random audits.

Saxby Chambliss?

gin

Back to the front page just because it's now Tomorrow.

:bounce:
dbt

:kick:

:bounce: Can you tell us now??? :bounce:

This is SUPER news....I hope General Franks' statement that "our consitution wouldn't withstand a WMD attack on us "or our allies" isn't going to preempt the election of 2004. I hope we get ONE FAIR CHANCE to elect real leaders first. We haven't been electing the ones we've got for the past 8 years, for the most part. It started with the "contract on America" bunch, and it's just getting more absurd by the election cycle.

Gawd I hope you're right, Bev. And thanks to ALL the great BBV activists!!! Let's keep fighting until every vote is counted as cast.

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

If we could mandate that every voting precinct will use paper and pen ballots that are hand counted on the spot immediately after the polls close, we might be able to have a clean election next year.

Hoping against hope.

We need this in every single election, as a matter of course.

patriot in the dictionary, I saw your name.

Thanks

With computer experts still charging that Maryland's $73 million electronic voting system remains highly vulnerable to fraud, a state delegate is proposing adding paper printouts as a check against the machines.

Del. Karen S. Montgomery (D-Dist. 14) of Brookeville has drafted legislation mandating voter-verified paper records, acting on concerns that the Diebold Election Systems machines could be compromised without anyone knowing.

Montgomery's bill would allow voters to correct errors they find on a paper printout of their vote. It also would require random checks of paper records in 2 percent of election districts against the computer records to ensure that there has been no tampering with the computers. The paper records would be used as the final arbiter in the event of a recount.

more...

http://www.gazette.net/200347/montgomerycty/state/188154-1.html

something for MD folks to call their reps to support if they are out of Del. Montgomery's district.

They don't get it. They keep trying to set random audit techniques, designed to catch accidental error. With fraud-prone accounting (financial, voting) you have to do a different type of auditing. A random audit of 2 percent means you have a 98% chance of success, if you rig the vote, and if you happen to get caught, you just say it is a "glitch" or a "software error."

Nope. Robust auditing is not a tiny random count. There are two ways to do it, but because one is a little complicated, and therefore will open itself up to political shenanigans and manipulation, I think we need to opt for the 100% comparison of paper to machine, which can be done inexpensively and speedily if set up correctly.

That is, if there are machines. I hear the proponents of all paper, hand counted, and the biggest thing that argument has going for it is simplicity and low cost. However, it doesn't address # of questions on ballot (we vote on about 70 things at once, each with several options; hand-count elections tend to put just one or two questions on the ballot).

Good, paper ballots.
Two more things needed:
1) Immediate interim plan in place by the primaries, for manual count, including optical scan counties.
2) Long term permanent auditing solutions that are appropriate to the task at hand.

I think it is NOT true that with the 2% random recount you have 98% chance of getting away with fraud. It depends on how the random recount is done. Think about it in terms of polls. Usually, only a few thousand people are sampled (out of hundreds of millions potential citizens). So, WAY lower than 2%, on the order of .001% or less. Yet, the margin of error is rather low, even with .001% sample sizes.
Studies with small sample sizes, on the order of 50 people or less, are done all the time in many scientific fields, and statistically extrapolated to the entire population. The margin of error decreases as the sample size increases, but there is a trade-off. Beyond a certain sample size, it is not cost effective to go higher (the decrease in confidence intervals gets smaller and smaller).

So, IF a full recount is possible, that would be the best way. However, it may be the case that a much smaller "random" sample would do, especially if full recounts turn out to be unfeasible (given all the constraints, political, logistical, etc). Any statistician with experience in this area on the board ?... -CV

With opinion polling randomness and the relevance/phrasing/sequencing of the questions are the problems. With machines the goal is to find "defects" that may not be randomly distributed throughout the population.

If you assume that the only kind of bias is that all or most machines yield totals that erroneously add/subtract a small amount on some ballot questions, a random technique would indeed be likely to find this. But on the other hand, the chance of finding a single large-scale "error" (like the -16000 votes for Gore in one precinct) is very small.

That instance brings up a second limitation of random validation checks on the machines. A machine smartcard total that checks out accurately at the precinct level may still be manipulated (as in Velousia county) by swapping in bogus cards or tampering with the county/district totalling process in some other way.

That is where that math model breaks down. We are talking about catching deliberate error. Talk to a forensic accountant. When you have a situation prone to fraud -- another example is the gambling industry -- you do not do random sampling. Those statistical models do not hold up.

The most inexpensive way to do a proper audit with touch screens is to have a ballot that can easily be read by humans which has a bar code that can be scanned by a GENERIC bar code scanner. The readout tells the poll worker it is scanning correctly. The key is that this bar code scanner must be something purchased off the shelf and not made by any voting machine company. This way you can do a 100% semi-manual audit, using two truly independent data sources, at the polling place before it gets to central tabulation.

And it is high time we get accounting and bookkeeping and auditing professionals involved in this. Computer scientists are making some bad choices -- they are the IT department, and should be designing to specs created by citizens, and experts in auditing, history, social issues and political issues. Instead, we have the IT department trying to invent our voting system, and they are using flawed models because they do not have the expertise.

An example is the computer industry's insistence on using auditing designed to catch random system flaws instead of auditing designed to catch fraud.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.com

PS: Setting up the state activism forums. If you lead a state voting activism group, your forum will be set up TODAY at blackboxvoting.org for your unlimited use, for free, in marshalling your troops. Go to the forum -- if your state is not up yet, email me at bevharriscontact@aol.com and we'll get you set up.

I'd love to see a 100% handcount if the losing candidate requests it, but we all know that won't happen. I'm also on your side of this issue, and won't argue 2 percent is way low. To have paper ballots in MD mandatory is a great leap forward nonetheless, plus will draw tons of publicity to the cause for nationwide for Nov 2004. Max Cleland could be a Senator possibly with a 2% mandatory audit.

I'd love to know if GBNC's discovery regarding ES&S's machines in TX that caused the 181818 contraversy were Optical Scan Optech 3P Eagle's, and if similar to San Luis Obispo's that "phoned home". My county uses ES&S Optical Scan machines, and I'd love more info to hand to my election officials demanding greater audit percentage.

"would require random checks of paper records in 2 percent of election districts"

Can they check one paper ballot in 2% of districts? Are they required to check all the paper ballots in 2% of districts?

The law should require that 2% of paper ballots in every district be recounted (after the ballots are randomly sorted).

Requiring 2 percent of districts to be checked without specifying how is too vague.

an error such as the -16,000 to Gore could be picked up by a 2% recount of the ballots on THAT district. However, if it is 2% of districts, then problems in specific distrcts may be missed altogheter (if not included in the 2% set). -CV

And watch this space, will be asking for volunteers to check in for certain key areas to leverage this. Assuming it happens and it's not some lame half-measure with a dumb timeline.

Bev

this.

You are most likely aware of this already, but I just learned that Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold. is a Bush pioneer. Talk about your conflict of interest.

Thanks again.

But we'll use California to push the other states to paper. It looks like we'll have to go to lawsuits to get things done in a timely manner.

I am not calling lawyers (takes too much time). If you know one, have them call me. My contact info is on my site.

Bev
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

But a club with a spike in it will work too. Or a big monkey wrench.

Now we can ask "if these machines are not good enough for the 2006 elections, why are they good enough for this election?"

Especially those primary elections...

It is on the forums at http://www.blackboxvoting.org and it has two sections -- public and private. Freely available for organizing by anyone.

I had a very good response to my call for attorneys (FINALLY!) but still need more. This is not limited to one per state and we still have a lot of states to go. Whether we can marshall our forces quickly enough to file for injunctions in December remains to be seen.

We truly are at an "everyone out of the pool" stage for the primaries, though.

Now, if you are involved with activism, today and Monday will be good days to use the California decision to leverage your own state. One county auditor in Washington state has promised that if California goes to paper ballots, he will too. His name is Bob Terwilliger, Snohomish County. His contact info is on the Washington State page at the forum at http://www.blackboxvoting.org (along with all the other Washington contacts). I urge you to e-mail him and tell him we expect him to honor that commitment and take Snohomish County to a voter verified paper trail.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

:kick:

gin

And yes, they woossed on the timeline. Just had to make it less appealing than it sounded, but we'll make lemonade.

California just announced they are mandating paper ballots statewide. We can use this to leverage two things, so get busy:

Go to http://www.verifiedvoting.org and start calling the key people for HR 2239. Now that both California and Wisconsin have made this decision, it is safer for legislators to get behind Rush Holt's bill.

Also, go to http://www.blackboxvoting.org and sign in to your state in the activism forums. Just say hi, I'm here, under your state. If I don't have your state up yet, email me at Bevharriscontact@aol.com. I'm not putting up states that sit empty.

In your state, look to the Washington State example and find your people's contact information. Start entering it in. Start contacting key people and urging your state to follow California's example.

I smiled when I saw the California decision because Snohomish County, which is the only county with touch screens so far in Washington State, has a county auditor named Bob Terwilliger who promised to go to paper ballots "if California does." He is going to grit his teeth -- help me urge him to keep him promise.

Now, the bad news, and it's pretty bad: California chose an absurd timeline: 2006. As DU member Hunter points out: If it's not good enough for us in 2006, why are we voting on it now? 2006 is too late.

We need lawyers. We need injunctions. Refer them to me, because I'm not calling them. I've got good solid cases they can file, and in many cases they can recoup their fees. We need to get an emergency measure in place that we can have confidence in for the primaries.

There are more irons in the fire. Start calling for a congressional investigation. Watch for specific suggestions on this coming soon.

Bev Harris
http://www.blackboxvoting.org

I know, I know, the cloud hasn't gone yet, but the hope is a little brighter, pushing it away.

requiring 2006 instead of immediately, and that your initial info was that it was to be immediate?

I expected 2005 and hoped we could push it forward to Nov 2004, then get an interim measure in place for the primaries.

2006? Very weenie. But we'll take what we've got and run with it.

Heh. Apparently my Mr. Terwilliger, in Snohomish County Washington, now suddenly denies that he stated in front of an auditorium full of people at Edmonds Community College that he would go to a paper ballot if California does. I've just been told he now rejects that idea. Wants to try to bamboozle us with VoteHere in his Sequoia's, I bet.

Bev

"How to prevent Diebold from rigging the 2004 election

Simple - vote using an absentee ballot.

If every Democrat in the United States did that, they'd have to hand count 51,000,000 votes.

There would be a paper trail, and Diebold would be unable to rig the election for the B.F.E.E. "

Bev: What do you think?

BTW, I've been sending every posting/article I can find to a left wing think tank person I know. He's VERY interested and may go for funding for a project to explore this.

Well, Bev, it will be a bit before I can get much up on the WA site, think I have another job to reedit and post first....

CALL ME urgent

the paper ballot without a court order, even in a recount. I can rig GEMS in 10 minutes. Next question?

Vote absentee ballot until we get this non-sense sorted out. Make two copies of your ballot one to send to your states Dem Hdqrs and one for yourself. Make sure you have signed it, this verifies it as as legal document. The copies can be used to validate fraud through voting trends.

You can keep a copy of your ballot, but it has no legal standing. Your absentee ballots are counted on a computerized machine and they seal the actual ballot away. It is not used to validate the accuracy of the machine.

Not looking to deter fraud, looking to prove fraud!

Who do we contact about this (absurd*) date?

Secretary of States office?

Whats the next thing we need to do to close the time gap and make it effective immediately?

Write a nice practical PAPER letter to the Secretary of State, your local officials, and the local press.

Pound this point home: If the machines are not good enough for 2006, how can they be good enough now?

It is not expensive to print paper ballots. It may be somewhat more expensive to count them, but not as expensive as scrapping or extensively modifying defective electronic voting systems.

This does have legal implications.

Actually, an idea I learned from RedEagle. I'm going to post some stuff in the California forum over at http://www.blackboxvoting.org this weekend to help us jump on this silly time frame.

See you in California (well, the forum, anyway).

Bev

Thanks Bev, once again!

I had an idea? Whhhaahhh'd I do?

(If it's good, I need to figure out what it was):+

Congratulations Ms Harris and everyone who worked so feverishly to bring this about!

:party:
dbt

Democracy can work if you can expose the fascists at every opportunity.

and

He is back pedaling said he "Will not do it until he is FORCED to"

The result of my call is I have an appointmet with him on Monday Calling Bev and RedEagle...want to go with me? He apparently thinks there are more "Robust" ways to show voter intent without a paper ballot.

n/t

All talk and no do.

Typical.

:wow:

Andy,

You need some witnesses to his promise, some quotes from them, then what Terwilliger told you, and write up a piece for every Snohomish paper in the county.

Also contact the local Dems in that county, since Terwilliger is a Dem.

I'd say Mr. Terwilliger's accountability is on the line.

Who is his master? The people or Sequoia/VoteHere/Reed?
(Sequoia is partnered with VoteHere)

Does Edmonds put out a paper? You might see if the meeting he spoke at was covered by the news.

I'll see if I can come down Andy. Lot's going on that day.

People might pick up on it better, faster, if it's in the subject line.

where can I find the information on the meeting

I have to run downtown back shortly

do you know

you gave me some names on the Texas story (remember, wink wink) and I promptly forgot them. We'll swap emails and I apologize to DU if we are transacting advocacy and an investigation using the forum. Sorry. (It is handy and we love this place.)

Bye.

Bev

the names are there and waiting

oh and add Dan "E" as well.

How soon can we vote this guy out of office? Is his position still an elected position?

Slogan: "Tut-tut, Terwilliger. We want paper, not vapor."

What's wrong with these people!!!! I think it's the Prozac epidemics unhinging rational thought or something like that... I feel like we are surrounded by a bunch of dummies who cannot think rationally... -CV

>>
How soon can we vote this guy out of office? Is his position still an elected position?
Slogan: "Tut-tut, Terwilliger. We want paper, not vapor."
>>

And then the guys at VoteHere come by and say needles, spoons, and candles are better.

:evilgrin:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

What have I missed? What miracle made congress listen for once? Ah, I guess I'm being mean. There is actually some pretty good news coming out of Congress these days. We love you Bev Harris!

California just announced they are mandating paper ballots statewide.

Bev, where/how did they announce this? If they don't publicly tell us they did this, then they really haven't yet. As they say here at DU, can we get a link?

announced in the Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-shelley21nov21,1,847438.story?coll=la-headlines-california

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,61334,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/touchscreen.htm


I've already asked the writer of the wired article to NOT call the VVPAT a friggin' receipt. Where did she get that? Shelley doesn't even call it a receipt.

OMG!!!!!

This is incredible. Yip 2006 sucks but it looks like the argument is won!!!!

Amazing.

As easy as it was for Shelley to make this pronouncement, he can make the opposite call just as easily.

Sacramento Nov. 18, 2004: California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced today the elimination of the effort to enforce the provision of a paper audit trail for his state's electronic voting systems: "We provided this capability in quite a few counties in the 2004 elections and we could not identify any discrepancies between the paper record and the computer tally. The paperless machines are good and safe. Paper trails have proven themselves to be a waste of time and money."

You heard it here first.

It would be like saying that, because you didn't blow your brains out playing Russian roulette this time, then you can keep pulling that trigger and you'll be just fine... Obviously, federal legislation has to be written and passed... -CV

And bev you are one of the true heroes of this American Revolution

Should stay on page one

Kick!

:kick:

:kick:

ballots stand? or has he changed his mind?

Kick!

nt

The big news is buried in this thread. How about a new one with the headline? Bev, you have the honors.

My oh my what a wonderfulday