Proposal: ER Forum Primary Election Integrity Estimate

None of us probably need another thing to do but --

I was thinking that the ER forum might do well to prepare an "Election Integrity Rating" for each primary. An Op that describes the equipment, a short history of that state, any concerns or anomalies, and some kind of rating.

It would be an opportunity to get our message(s) out and to help frame the issue for DU.

Instead of being event driven, we could get out ahead and become part of the landscape.

If you guys think this is a good idea, I'd be willing to quarterback SC. . .

Whaddya think, Oh Wise Ones?

It would definitely aid in keeping track of what voting apparatuses are being used where. Count me in!:thumbsup:

kicking and recommending.

We can predict that there will be more problems. So, instead of always reacting, we can start predicting, guesstimating and raising questions up front in a calmer way -- that was my thinking, anyway.

:)

...I didn't know and looked it up. I saw "ACCU-VOTE optical scanners" and thought, "oh shit..." I had a feeling that, despite whomever won, there would be questions afterwards.:(

understand it.

I wish there was a "Statistics for English Majors" site. lol

But, as the resident civilian of the ER, if even I can understand what LauraPackYourBags means about the potential 20K invisible women who came out for HRC in NH, anyone can. :)

Voting systems all over the country are in flux, to put it mildly. Imho, we should just accept that, jump on it and put out a guesstimate as a way to begin to talk about the primary voting, with an eye on November.

We can't lose by initiating the conversation. We do stand to lose by remaining passive in the run up to the next attempted theft. :shrug:

...to ensure the reliability of such machines is VITALLY important if we are to trust ANY results. As you know, there were many Clinton supporters that mocked us this past week for even DARING to question the results.

I miss TruthIsAll - as far as translating statistical variables to the uninitiated, he/she was the best.:thumbsup:

Please someone tell me why this is a bad, dumb or counter productive idea.

looking on Monday. I do know that Tennessee ( a Feb 5th state) is all touch screen/no paper, and we had horrible irregularities from 2000 forward. We all do need a reference and need to make sure people are on the front lines prior TO.

:hi:

You'll have help so no worries about doing it on your lonesome.

start till Monday.. working nights tonight and tomorrow :-)

Thank you!

The daily ERD threads should be a gold mine of info on previous activities in each state and help identify the players.

K&R.

whatever we put together will be better than most folks have now.

:loveya:

maybe SharonRB can do Mich.

victims -- I mean, volunteers.

:loveya:

ETA: I'll take SC unless we get a guru between now and then. Beth

Of course.

I need 45 more volunteers. lol

:thumbsup:

:loveya:

Except maybe for this part:

"...a short history of that state, any concerns or anomalies, and some kind of rating."

:rofl:

Why do you hate ambiguity?

:rofl:

I'm going to try to set out some suggestions in the morning. Hopefuly, they will be a little more specific and not stupidly binding. I look forward to seeing you all improve on this lightbulb.

:)

Not the ambiguity.

It's the thought of trying to write that kind of analysis of Florida in particular. :)

Most of that section will consist of, "Go buy the book and see the movie. This is Florida, anything is possible."

Rating them seems subject to argument, where simply stating the facts is just simply stating the facts.

Like this:

"Such and such state has no paper record of the cast vote and relies solely on proprietary software (possibly developed by ex-felons) for election results."

Need we say more???

:shrug:

:D

Let the information stack up as best as we can pile it up.

Or / and, the ER posters who take on a state can choose or choose not to rate election integrity on a, say, 1-5 scale.

What is important is getting the facts out, as best as we can, imho.

Now, what state will you take on? Nevada needs a Daddy.

:evilgrin:

Wilms and I will foster Nevada.

A little sick gargoyle that will cost me $ and never get cuter.

Thank you. :loveya: )

communication tool. We could use colored bars like Homeland Security!

Keep in mind, we'll have states with mixed systems yielding mixed levels of integrity.

When I heard he was expecting a boost from his home state, I looked it up at Verified Voting. It's like a black hole.

However, they don't give much detail at VV. Don't know if they've tried to attach printers, or what.

You mentioned a 1-5 scale. I think most states would come in -1, -2, etc. There are some notable lights in the darkness, but it's mostly still unverifiable, extremely insecure and insider hackable, run by some of the worst, dirtiest, most partisan, fascist corporations on the planet.

And that's just for starters.

Anyway, A TOOL WE NEED: A list of the state primaries and their new dates. I've totally lost track. This would help us organize our thoughts, help schedule volunteering, and help us figure out what we need.

I'm sick right now with the godawfulest "superbug" flu, so I can't volunteer for anything (and guarantee results) for a week or so. But I'd be glad to help. I did some last minute scrambling on New Hampshire, trying to catch up on the basics, and I wish somebody'd done the work for me, so I could've gotten the word out more quickly on just what was going down. Diebold optiscans, paper ballot, but 99% of them are never counted in most states. Edison/Mitovsky doing the exit polls (--it took me a while to find that out, and that they were doctoring the exit polls to fit the Diebold "trade secret" results, as before). Like that. I managed to pick up that there was handcounting in the rural areas, early on, cuz some New Hampshirer (New Hampshirist?) said so, in a comment. (I thought, ah! that's where it'll show!).

Oh, I went to VV for NH, and they said "NH: optiscan - precinct based." But I couldn't find out what "precinct - based" meant. I emailed them to provide a better legend. I wanted to know, did "precinct - based" mean they actually count the ballots at the precinct level and post the results? The answer is no - from all the recent discussion. But I still don't know what "precinct - based" means. Also, some posts I've read seem to indicate that they don't do an audit at all. 100% not counted (except in the rural areas).

ANOTHER TOOL WE NEED: A friend or friends in the state in question. Very useful.

Here's the url for VV's info on state systems:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

I would volunteer for California, but I think we may need two volunteers, maybe three. North, central and southern regions. I'm from the southern region so I at least know where the counties are located, what the demographics are, etc., and I followed what's her name's career in L.A. (now resigned, or soon resigned -leader of the anti-Shelley pack, Connie McCormack), and I've been noticing some boffo activism out in the San Bernardino/Riverside area, which has been so bad on this issue. I live now in northern California, and I am way the hell out in nowhere, so I can't do any in-person investigation, but I can follow things on the internet and make phone calls. Debra Bowen (new Sec of State) is good about putting things up on the web for the public. She's taken many actions on voting systems--these need to be reviewed. Many systems were decertified, and re-certification is pending. Also, I did analysis of 2004 data (and found some FASCINATING stuff--anomalies still unexplained). And there are SO MANY hot spots here--San Diego (oh, god).

So that's my thoughts on Calif. We need three people. I'll start on southern California, where most of the votes are. And if someone from there comes on board, maybe they can take over, and I can switch to another region. One other thing: I work all day the day after the election, Wed. Feb. 6. That's a problem. But I'm free on election day, then free the rest of the week (after Wed.).

Let's limit this thing, for the moment. What we're volunteering for is to compile a short text laying out voting system and voting system controversies in the state, for the general public and activists, as a quick rundown as the primary approaches and occurs. Monitoring the election, compiling stats (or getting them from someone who is doing it), and intense analysis is not promised. In state like Calif., there will have to be a county by country breakdown. California has a zillion different systems, controversies and situations.

I'll do a couple of things on California, asap. Check sec of state site for info. See what VV has on Calif.

If you could tentatively help organize CA, that would be great. We have several people here that might be willing to help map out the information.

Whatever we can do is better than the nothing we have now.

Thank you!

Whaddaya think?

in this forum? If Skinner okays it, maybe we can link them in GD, or something, later.

http://electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1099

Here's what they have on Calif.:

STATE
California

VOTING SYSTEM
Optical scan, DRE with VVPAT and ballot-marking device

MANUFACTURER
Premier Election Solutions, ES&S, Hart InterCivic, Sequoia and DFM Associates

LINK
Voting systems by county (it's a pdf)

------------------

Wow, this is a big help! VerfiedVoting is older (2006) but it has complete County Registrar contact info.

They recently changed their name, because "Diebold" has gotten such a bad rep, and began separating the election division from the rest of the corporation, probably because lawsuits are coming. They also jettisoned Wally O'Dell in 2005 (as I recall), the CEO who was the Bush/Cheney campaign chair and major fundraiser, and who promised in writing to "deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush/Cheney in 2004." I think one of the two Urosevich brothers (one each at Diebold and its brethren corporation, ES&S) got the hell outa Dodge about a year ago, can't remember for sure if it was Diebold's. I think it was Bob Urosevich leaving Diebold, and Tod Urosevich is still at ES&S, but not positive.

List of states with current election systems: 2007
http://electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1099

List of states with current election systems: 2006
Coded maps & text - has County Registrar contact info
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier

List of states with current election systems: 2006
Coded US map-no links - 2006
http://www.votersunite.org/info/statesystems.asp

Great info on Calif
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/california

Fab list of articles and links
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/resource_list

I don't think I understand enough to cover NYS (not a "Wise One here) - we still use the lever system where I am, but it looks as though there are two other systems throughout the state.

to help put together NYS with help, lemme know. :hi:

I just watched the repeat of last night's "Real Time" and not one of the panelists or the host seemed to know the particulars even though they were discussing just what has taken place so far in only two states. But they're without writers. At over 100,000 strong, located in all 50 states and countries large and small, I think that my fellow DUers, the most informed and plugged-in folks on the planet, could do a terrific job at this...:-)

Below are the basic things I wanted to know about NH, some of which I had trouble quickly finding out. Two broad categories: 1. Basic bare-bones description of the voting system. 2. Problems and controversies (with links).

A general overall problem in providing info to people--how little people know about some basic facts. For instance, some people may not know that optiscans have a paper ballot but 99% to 100% of the ballots are NOT counted (and in a recount only, say, 3% are counted), and touchscreen have no paper ballot and often no paper trail at all, thus the vote total is not just unverified, it is unverifiable. So these basics should be stated, with regard to each state's system. For instance, if it's touchscreens, add "no paper ballot" to the description.

Another simple fact a lot of people don't realize is that ALL electronic voting machines, optiscan or touchscreen and central tabulators, are run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code that the public cannot review, and that this secrecy is not necessary--open source code could be used--and is profit-driven, as well as making the systems highly vulnerable to insider hacking. In FL-13, a highly suspicious 2006 election, in which ES&S voting machines 'disappeared' 18,000 votes for Congress in Democratic areas, and gave the election to the Republican by a margin of only 350 or so votes, ES&S asserted in court that its right to profit from our elections with its "trade secret" code trumps the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted--and the Florida judge agreed. Thus, the principle of transparency and public vote counting was lost, at least in Florida courts. It is important for people to know how arrogant and audacious ES&S--and the corporate agenda they are promoting--in evaluating their extremely flawed voting systems.

These are important facts, and we cannot keep re-stating them in describing each state's system, so perhaps we should have a preliminary paragraph, describing some common points, such as the "trade secret" code point--or have a "Note" covering common points to attach to all state descriptions. (Another important item is who is doing the exit polls, and how. See below.)

Here is what I would like to have known about NH...

1. Method(s) of counting votes. % of state using method (and where?). % of audit (automatic handcount, as check on machine fraud). Voting system manufacturer(s). Voting machine model if relevant.

EXAMPLE: NH: 80% of state uses Diebold optiscan, paper ballot, zero handcount (generally urban areas); 20% of state simple paper ballot with handcount (mostly rural areas). Diebold optiscan model: AccuVote-OS.

(Note: The info in my examples has not all been verified. I still don't know what % NH's audit of optiscan ballots is--I suspect 0% handcount check of the optiscans--from remarks made here at DU--but not sure. Verified Voting's info does NOT state what % the audit is (nor does anybody that I can find), and does NOT indicate that 20% of state, rural areas, has handcount, nor that there is some handcounting in urban areas. They describe every county as having "Diebold optiscan - precinct-based" (and it's not easy to find out what that means; I still don't know). The 20% rural handcount came out in posts on the NH primary at DU and elsewhere, but was not easily known upfront from internet info alone. I learned about the rural handcounting by chance from a NH resident comment at DU. Handcounted precincts provide a "control"--a point of comparison--with machine counted totals. This was very important in the recent NH primary, since handcount favored Obama and machine count favored Clinton--an indicator that the machine count may be wrong.)

EXAMPLE: SC: all ES&S touchscreens, no ballot or paper trail of any kind, ergo no handcount (audit) of any kind; completely unverifiable vote.

(Note: So far, I can't find out if they've added printers and have some kind of paper trail. A Common Cause spreadsheet, linked at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4416, says that SC's iVotronic (ES&S) machines have "VVPAT" (voter verified paper audit trail) "capability," but doesn't says if they in fact have a VVPAT. Status of the paper trail is important. Is it voter verified? Can it disagree with machine totals, or is it just hard copy of machine-generated data?)


2. Problems and controversies. Level of confidence

EXAMPLE: NH: Recount in 2004 seemed to verify machine vote, but activists say the recount was invalid (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30018). The Diebold optiscans now in use were the same type of machines that independent expert Harri Hursti easily hacked (need a link). Both Diebold (now called Premier) and its local sub-contractor in NH--LHS--employ convicted felons (need a link). The existence of a paper ballot makes the vote count verifiable, but verification is not pursued. Level of confidence (scale of 1 to 5): 0. (Wrong outcomes could easily occur.)

EXAMPLE: SC: Voters Unite describes a "hurricane" of problems with ES&S voting machines, across the nation (lost votes, switched votes, phantom votes, backwards counting, etc), with severals examples from SC (http://www.votersunite.org/info/ESSMidasinreverse.asp), and specific details in the SC section (at http://www.votersunite.org/info/failuresbystate.asp). Brad Friedman discusses a computer virus affecting ES&S machines in 16 states including SC (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4416). Dan Rather documents problems with manufacture of ES&S touchscreens in sweatshops in the Philippines ("The Trouble With Touch screens," www.HD.net). Level of confidence (scale of 1 to 5): -5. (Wrong outcomes WILL occur, and have occurred.)


--------------------------------------------------

The above two broad categories--1. basic description of the system in plain English, and 2. problems/controversies--may do as a start on a standard format for our election system service for the primaries.

Small states like NH and SC often are fairly uniform in the voting system and the practices, and can be easily summed up--although caveat re the handcounted rural areas in NH, which did not show up on the Verified Voting web site (--it seemed to be all Diebold optiscan). We need local resident advisers on things like that.

And giant states like California could be described this way--generally--but county by county, grouped in regions, would be more useful. Some California counties are bigger than NH, and there are a lot of California counties. It isn't much help to say: "CA: Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia et al, optiscan, touchscreen, punchcard, etc., etc." Specifics by county are needed. Also, some 50% of California voters are choosing to vote by Absentee ballot (distrust of the machines, I'm sure), and that info is hard to come by, and would significantly skew stats on, say, touchscreen vs. optiscan results. (AB votes are scanned into the electronic system in most places).

The only broad thing that is true of all California counties is that the state requires a paper ballot or VVPAT, and a 1% audit. Partisanship or prejudice in the administration of elections varies widely from county to county. Where Republicans control the county (due to gerrymandering or demographics), there is less vigilance over the system, and more problems, such as county officials ignoring the Secretary of State's orders on insuring that every California can opt for a paper ballot. And there have been particular problems with election officials being advocates of, and salespeople for, Diebold or for no paper trail requirement, as in L.A. and San Diego. California is especially difficult to report on, as to voting systems, right now, because of our new Sec of State Debra Bowen's activism in riding herd on all these companies and county officials. I'm going to ask her office if they have a current list of 08 certified voting systems by county, because I don't trust old lists. (She recently decertified ES&S altogether, and there is some kind of "conditional" recertification going on.)

One other thing I would like to have known about the NH primary is who was doing the exit polls. It was Edison-Mitofsky and that was not easy to find out. Edison-Mitofsky is not to be trusted, since they routinely doctor their exit polls to force them to fit the official results (produced by "trade secret" programming). (Thus, we have TWO private corporate processes telling us who won, and little or no real verification being done). This could be handled in a general prelim paragraph to our info, or a general footnote, covering topics like the "trade secret" code.

One other thing: It would be good to identify a citizen activist election reform group in the state, for reporters and others to call for further info--and we should try identify any "parallel voting" or monitoring process that local citizens are doing to verify the vote, or document problems.

How are we coming on a list of upcoming primaries and their dates? I'm not sure where to get that. Anybody know?

Wilms OP has links to NYT list:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x493381

Democratic calendar
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/index.html

Republican calendar
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/republicanprimaries/index.html

There are some differences between them, which we shall have to study.

From the Dem calendar:

Jan 3: Iowa
(Jan 5: Wyoming Republican county conventions)
Jan 8: New Hampshire
Jan 15: Michigan
Jan 19: Nevada
(Jan 19: Nevada Republican caucuses)
Jan 26: South Carolina
Jan 29: Florida (but the DNC stripped FLA of all of its delegates, cuz FLA Dems went too early--so vote will be advisory?)
(Feb. 1: Maine caucuses-Republican only?)

And here's the biggie:

Feb 5: Dem & Repub primaries (unless otherwise noted)

Alabama
Alaska (R & D caucuses)
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado (R & D caucuses)
Connecticut
Delaware (R caucus)
Georgia
Idaho (no R event)
Illinois
Kansas (no R event)
Massachusetts
Minnesota (R & D caucuses)
Missouri
(Montana - R caucus)
New Jersey
(New Mexico - D caucus)
New York
North Dakota (R & D caucuses)
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
(West Virginia - R caucus)
Democrats Abroad

(There are several more primaries in February, then in March, April, May and the last is in June in Puerto Rico. The NYT says some of these dates can change. I think there is a good possibility that voting system news will get swamped by the sheer volume of events happening on Feb. 5. I hope Dennis Kucinich stays in the race and challenges every goddamn result that is produced with "trade secret" programming by these election theft corporations.)

-------

Edited to add caucus and Republican primary info.

Michigan. That's coming right up!

:)

I have this info ready to post for FL:

County Name
Number of Precincts
Vendor
Voting System Title
Precinct Tabulation Equipment
Precinct Accessible Equipment
Absentee Tabulation Equipment

This stuff looks better in spreadsheet format, and I'm still working on posting it in a manner that won't make your eyes cross.

Are we to start a thread for each state? Or are we posting it all in this thread?

Also, can you all think of any other info you'd like?

Morning! :hi:

(if any exist) that might bear on the current systems -- because the problem hasn't been fixed or, because the current set up is the fix.

And yes, a thread of its own would probably be the easiest to work with. You might want to use the categories you list above as headings and put the info under them. That way you have room if you want to add anything later. On the other hand, you may not!

Thanks, Patsy!

or any paper trail of any kind, with touchscreens (or added printed, with receipt, if they're doing it, and, if possible, is this a VVPAT or just machine junk printout?); what is done with paper ballot, where there is one (what % is counted, if any?), and other such facts that go to the verifiability (or intention to verify) the vote. (A lot of people don't know that optiscans = paper ballot, but that they don't count those ballots either--or only do 1% at best--just scan them into the system. This needs to be stated.)

Some other things:

What's happening in Jefferson County? Election official Ian Sancho said he might not use...was it Diebold? ES&S? can't recall now. I think it was optiscans. And the company retaliated by denying his county disabled-access machines, so he couldn't comply with HAVA. Update on that. And, have any other county officials followed his lead and rebelled?

Florida has horrible vote verification laws. I think Jeb tried to make it official law that a paper ballot was UNLAWFUL, or recounting was unlawful, or some shit like that. And then there's the purges of black voters, and the 'disappeared' 50,000 Absentee ballots (in Miama-Dade, I think) in 2004.

Yes, we need an update on purges of black voters, where that's at now.

And, speaking of Absentee Ballot votes, we DEFINITELY need to know % of Absent Ballot voting. And how the AB votes are counted? (By optiscan? By hand?) And WHEN? If AB votes are shunted aside, and counted later--this could be a big factor re election night results. AB voting could also impact the exit polls. More than likely AB votes are just scanned into the rigged electronics, but we need to know for sure. A big AB vote can significantly impact optiscan vs. touchscreen results, if voters are choosing to vote AB in touchscreen precincts.

This might be difficult to find out, per precinct. But a stat for the state would help, and any discoverable demographics. Some counties/states create a phantom "precinct" for AB votes, so it's hard to find out where they originate. AB voters almost always have to sign up for AB voting ahead of time, so at least the statewide stat should be available by now. FLA has more restrictions on AB voting than Calif. I think you may have to prove that you're going to be out of town. (In CA, you can vote AB for no reason, just choice.) NOTE: In Calif., we've seen a huge upsurge in AB voting (people's distrust of the machines). It was FIFTY PERCENT of the last election. Is this happening in FLA?

Have there been any developments as to providing FLA voters with a paper ballot option (or loosening of AB voting rules), that could influence election result stats, and/or provide some comparison stats vs. the machines? In some precincts, and not others? As I recall, Sancho was considering providing all voters with a paper ballot and handcounting them. Jefferson County might therefore be a good place to look for discrepancies with the machine vote elsewhere.

Another hot spot: FL-13 (House district.) Do you know that story? I will fill you in if you don't. Very important.

Finally, what about early voting? And early AB voting? In CA, I've already got my Absentee Ballot, and could send it in today, well ahead of the primary date. Is this happening in FLA? Does Sec of State provide stats on early voting as the votes come in?

Well, perhaps this is getting too complicated for a quickie list on voting methods, so I want to stress a couple of things: That people who read your summary get a clear idea of the verifiability of the FLA vote, and audit policy to verify. I think it should be stated that touchscreens have NO ballot TO count (or if they now have a paper trail, the prognosis that that paper trail can really verify the vote), and that optiscans DO have a ballot but that 99% to 100% of those ballots are never counted.

I also want to stress: 1) Jefferson County (as possible comparison county); 2) FL-13 (as possible hot spot--will have activists who know what's what, re ES&S machines); 3) black voter purge policy update, and 4) Absentee ballot voting stats.

But here's a quick answer to some of your questions.

This Primary, and a smaller vote next spring, are the last two elections where Florida is allowed to use paperless touchscreens. It is now the law that Florida voters have a VVPB, and the switch will be to Op-Scan. At the moment, I'm looking to see which Op-Scan machines, if any, have been certified yet by the State for the switch. Some counties have always been Op-Scan.

I'll also check out the situation with Ion Sancho.

Previously recommended.

i love this idea. i am starting to get to know a few folks who are in the know about illinois law. for instance, we do require an audit of every election, and do require a "paper trail". most counties have opscan, but also have a dre available. the audit is, i think, 3%. but it is pretty much a deep dark secret. i tried to find out when and where cook counties was, but never did. they use mostly county employees, instead of the citizen judges that work the election. in spite of our long standing reputation here, i think our elections are mostly clean. but i would love to shine a little light on it anyway.
unfortunately, i don't think i will really be up and around on our primary day, and will not be a judge this time around. (having a couple of bulging discs fixed.) but in the meantime, i will see what i can dig up.

I'd be interested to see how they've fixed those systems that failed last time.

to babysit the fucking machines. we got $150 for the day, and these kids got $500. to snooze in the corner, and transmit at the end of the day. and they ONLY gave the jobs to college kids.
most of the chaos was people getting impatient, and interrupting their transmission by trying to send again. i didn't work that election, but i did the next one. it was mostly smooth.
the clerk of cook county, who bought those fucking machines, is a decent man, and a neighbor. i think he honestly believes in them, in the way that honest people can't anticipate the things that criminals do. few people trust them, tho, and they get only a few votes in each polling place. most people want that paper ballot.
in my ward, which i will grant you is run by honest people, we had a bruising municipal election last year. it went to court, and the worst thing the other guy could come up with was someone who wore a button into the polling place, and a couple of places where the cones were less than 100 feet from the door. (in one of them, 100 ft was in the middle of the street.)
i will try to get some facts about illinois law and practice. aforementioned clerk is a fellow member of the local party board, and i should see him thursday night at a grip and grin with judicial candidates. like howard says- show up. you never know who else will be there. working with my local party has been an EXTREMELY interesting experience.

:kick:

:hi:

:hi:

Tennessee Presidential Primary Vote - February 5, 2008, Super Tuesday
A preliminary review was all that was needed :-)

------------
Tennessee has 95 counties. Hamilton and Pickett Counties use optical scan systems (one by Diebold, one by ES&S). Seventeen counties use touch screen DRE systems by Diebold and ES&S. The rest, or vast majority, use pushbutton DRE systems by Hart and MicroVote. IOW, no paper trail in 93 out of 95 counties in the state.

List of Machines Used in Each County:
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election/voting_systems/VotingSystems.20080109.pdf

There is no audit required in any county in Tennessee. The TN Secretary of State
has stated he doubts any reform can be in place by the November 2008 Elections.

Tennessee has had widespread voting issues since the Presidential Election of 2000
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=62&Itemid=142

Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) has issued a lengthy report with recommendations on improving electronic voting.
http://www.tennviews.com/node/328
Election administrator survey results:

• Only 21% of counties report voting machine complaints. 85% have a formal complaint procedure.

• 98% have procedures to match the number of votes cast to the number of voters.

• 44% report "rare" eligibility problems at polls, 24% report "some", and 29% report "frequent". Only 3% reported "none".

• 91% would choose the same voting system again.

• The most frequent challenge reported was finding qualified poll workers, followed by voter education, followed by "fail safe" voters (provisional ballots for people who thought they had registered or who moved within the jurisdiction and failed to update their voter registration address), and staff/office budget. Several also noted voter apathy and convincing candidates that they lost.


Update by me: A legislative vote scheduled for Jan 10 to vote on amendments SB 1363/HB 1256 to the Voter Confidence Act of 2007 was postponed to Jan 17, after session, at which time they will try to "round things up on where we stand". No vote has been scheduled at this time - per my phone call to Senator Joe Haynes office today, 1/14/08.

http://www.votesafetn.org/

By Deborah Narrigan
December 21, 2007

<snip>

Senate Sponsor Joe Haynes had sought to have the bill reported out at this week’s meeting, but agreed to wait –- but only a short time -- to allow other legislators to write additional amendments to SB1363. This is the bill that Gathering to Save Our Democracy/Common Cause TN has supported and worked for over the past 2 years. If passed it would mandate voter verifiable paper ballots, routine post-election audits, and tighten security and testing for all electronic voting systems. While this procedural step may seem insignificant, it marks forward motion for the bill.

The meeting focused first on the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) study report recommendations on improving electronic voting. This report had been accepted at the 12/12 meeting of TACIR; the recommendations could help significantly to shape legislation that we support. A major unexpected disappointment were the comments by Dr. Harry Green, the TACIR Executive Director. He has been (personally) very strongly in favor of voter-verified paper ballots (vvpb), as is the TACIR report. But today he shifted gears, saying it is too late to change our voting equipment by Nov, 2008, but many other problems such as insufficient poll workers should be dealt with now.

A second focus, also heavily debated at the TACIR meeting, was how the state is addressing the uses of a balance of approximately $35 million of remaining HAVA (Help America Vote Act) funds held by the state. Secretary of State Riley Darnell and State Election Coordinator Brook Thompson fielded a flurry of questions, and informed the committee that they will seek guidance from the Election Assistance Commission regarding allowable uses of this money that is set aside, earning interest.

Additional questions to these officials dealt with whether optical scan voting could be put into place by the Nov 08 election. They re-iterated their message that " a change to optical scan voting systems cannot be done by Nov 08"; and that the state will try to lease machines for the counties that need more DREs --using an estimated $1-2 million of HAVA money. In a startling comment by Sec Darnell, he claimed that the problem in FL in the 2000 election was “not a problem of machines...it was a ballot design problem, a problem of personnel...also 06 in Sarasota...it was the same thing...this is the only problem: ballot design. We have never had a problem in TN, but we need to satisfy some peoples' concerns.." .None of the legislators challenged this claim that flies in the face of copious documentation of complex voting technology related problems in those elections.

The meeting also included testimony from two election integrity advocates. Lynn Willams, former Davidson County Council member, represented the League of Women Voters of TN; and Vonda McDaniels spoke for the United Steel Workers Union and “on behalf of families and working people of Tennessee ”. They both made strong (though brief) statements and the committee members were very attentive during their presentations.

Overall, the legislative study committee seemed attentive and more engaged than in the past. They asked many questions, including how post-election audits are done in TN and in other states (an important question) and how a vvpb-based voting system would work. Questions of implementation timing arose repeatedly but no one asked for evidence from the SoS to support why he thinks tine is too short.

K., could you put this in its own thread? If people get interested in it, it will be easier to hold the conversation.

Thank you! :hi:

voting--as happened in NH. The Verified Voting site did NOT alert me to this phenomenon--rural precincts that hand-count, and pockets of hand-counting in urban areas, in NH. VV just said "Diebold optiscan - precinct based" for the whole state. These small pockets of hand-counting can be VERY important (as they have been in NH) for comparison purposes. I found out about NH's hand-counting from a remark by a NH voter here at DU, and found out that it was 20% of the vote only after the controversy arose. We need LOCAL ADVISERS to find out things like this.

(Note: I still don't know what "precinct-based" means. Anybody know?)

reading, somewhere in that initial tsumani, about the ratio of machine to hand counting.

Local is good.

This site lists voting systems used in each county in each state.

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

:hi:

getting kids ready for tests, but I do want to say EXCELLENT idea! Count me in.

:hi:

:hi:

:hi:

can be found at Kim Alexander's California Voter Foundation - I think it is the most recent and most accurate:

http://www.calvoter.org/issues/votingtech/currentdirectory.html

(It says all machines in CA must have VVP-Record, all on list do.)

--------------

California has A LOT OF counties. Anyone want to join me in putting together summaries of CA voting systems for interested parties in the upcoming Feb 5 primary?

I'm currently working on Southern California - Los Angeles and Riverside /San Bernardino - which have been vortexes of controversy; will do San Diego next (ye gods); have some stuff on Alameda.

Does someone want to take San Francisco/Bay area (inclu Alameda), Central Calif, or take over, or do part of, SoCal?

I have L.A. basically done - in general. ES&S InkAVote, and Diebold early voting touchscrens, may still be up in the air. Need to check SoS. ES&S was tardy in submitting to review, and the Supes at one point ended the early voting program cuz of uncertainty about the touchscreens. L.A. was/is one of the biggest problems, cuz of who was running things. 50% voting by AB, cuz folks don't trust the machines. Detail really should be done on L.A. regions, big demographic differences and racial divides across the county. I'm not sure how they handle this, as to elections bureaucracy. Do they have sub-registrars? L.A. is bigger than many small countries. Still haven't checked their Registrar site. Guess I better.

Thanks so much for your work, Peace Patriot.