18,000 undercount update

[ndebord]

This from Brad's Blog:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3959

Judge forbids look at code on machines that "failed" to count 18,000 voters in contested Florida election. State review panel was composed of hard right wing Republicans whose refusal to address concerns led to the courts. Appeal is likely.

[Judy G. Russell]

Judge forbids look at code on machines that "failed" to count 18,000 voters in contested Florida election. State review panel was composed of hard right wing Republicans whose refusal to address concerns led to the courts. Appeal is likely.I'm not sure that, as a matter of pure law, this wasn't an appropriate ruling by the court. It takes a fairly significant showing to warrant invasion of a trade secret, and it doesn't sound to me as though the showing was made.

[ndebord]

I'm not sure that, as a matter of pure law, this wasn't an appropriate ruling by the court. It takes a fairly significant showing to warrant invasion of a trade secret, and it doesn't sound to me as though the showing was made.

Judy,

Well you know contract law far better than I, but it would be a shame to let this election result go forward. Lucky for the Dems that they own Congress, as they can invalidate this travesty in other ways. They (whoever they are) say that evoting machines without a real paper trail are history and I certainly hope that is the case.

[davidh]

This from Brad's Blog:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3959

Judge forbids look at code on machines that "failed" to count 18,000 voters in contested Florida election. State review panel was composed of hard right wing Republicans whose refusal to address concerns led to the courts. Appeal is likely.

Since that congressional district is within the viewing areas of some local broadcast TV stations here in Fla., there was some discussion as to whether the percentage of "missing votes" was a significant outlier or not. Whether the political expert who apparently testified in court was also an expert in the statistical distributions of non-votes, I have no idea. So I really don't know whether this was more than "one sigma" off or more like a GE "six sigma" off.

Having both witnessed and perpetrated some poorly designed software development, I'd say it's also very likely that either the mfg. and/or the local gov't end users made some poor design and/or configuration and/or implementation choices, that could explain messed up results. I.e. incompetence instead of malevolence...

I wonder what would happen if there was a screen at the end listing all the races not voted for, as a double check. Would it make the mess worse or not, or maybe slow down the process so much that people would have to wait in line outside in the rain, etc.?

I never read anything by Marshal McLuhan, but I wonder if in the case of current politics in USA that maybe the medium of "sound bytes" and polarization and scandal sheets is the message. That in the political mental universe there should no longer exist a "common good" or "fair play"? Just another PR sporting event where the pros wish we all become a bunch of hormone filled drunken spectators at a soccer match.

In a brave new world of nano-tech we can all have implants that detect our blood chemistry and transmit our emotional states back to the viewing apparatus so that big brother can monitor the effectiveness of the PR.

Well enough cynicism for now...

DH

[Lindsey]

I'm not sure that, as a matter of pure law, this wasn't an appropriate ruling by the court. It takes a fairly significant showing to warrant invasion of a trade secret, and it doesn't sound to me as though the showing was made.
This is the insidious thing about privatizing significant parts of the election process. Why should the public be kept in the dark about how the votes in a public election are tallied?

--Lindsey

[davidh]

This is the insidious thing about privatizing significant parts of the election process. Why should the public be kept in the dark about how the votes in a public election are tallied?

--Lindsey Cool idea. We could have congress put it's public proceedings into a Wikipedia-type system so there would be an easier to follow audit trail of the proceedings. You could see who did what or trashed what when, etc.

:)

DH

[Judy G. Russell]

Well you know contract law far better than I, but it would be a shame to let this election result go forward. Lucky for the Dems that they own Congress, as they can invalidate this travesty in other ways. They (whoever they are) say that evoting machines without a real paper trail are history and I certainly hope that is the case.It's not so much contract law as trade secret law, but nobody needs to invade a trade secret to declare that we simply aren't going to tolerate elections where there isn't any method of accountability that would call a trade secret into question. Paper trails seem to me to be elementary.

[Judy G. Russell]

This is the insidious thing about privatizing significant parts of the election process. Why should the public be kept in the dark about how the votes in a public election are tallied?The public shouldn't be. It's ridiculous. And, I hope, it will be one of the first things addressed by the Democratic Congress. But the method of addressing it should be to require a paper trail.

[Lindsey]

Cool idea. We could have congress put it's public proceedings into a Wikipedia-type system so there would be an easier to follow audit trail of the proceedings. You could see who did what or trashed what when, etc.
Actually, Congressional proceedings are already published on the web, but they're damned difficult to follow if you're not someone intimately familiar with the workings of Congress.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

The public shouldn't be. It's ridiculous. And, I hope, it will be one of the first things addressed by the Democratic Congress. But the method of addressing it should be to require a paper trail.
I for one would be perfectly happy to go back to the old-fashioned paper ballots that involved putting an "X" in the box! But the next best thing really seems to be optical scanners. You get the benefit of automated tallies, but you also have a clear (and anonymous) paper trail for recounts that does not degrade with repeated handling the way the punched cards do.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I for one would be perfectly happy to go back to the old-fashioned paper ballots that involved putting an "X" in the box! But the next best thing really seems to be optical scanners. You get the benefit of automated tallies, but you also have a clear (and anonymous) paper trail for recounts that does not degrade with repeated handling the way the punched cards do.Even the Diebold-type machine with two printouts -- one for the voter and one for the recount/accountability would work. Among other things, people would be less inclined to cheat when it would be easy for any individual voter to prove them wrong with his/her own voting machine receipt.

[Judy G. Russell]

Actually, Congressional proceedings are already published on the web, but they're damned difficult to follow if you're not someone intimately familiar with the workings of Congress.They're much more understandable if you use Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/) than anything else.

[Lindsey]

Among other things, people would be less inclined to cheat when it would be easy for any individual voter to prove them wrong with his/her own voting machine receipt.
How would you have a receipt that could be matched to a particular voter without compromising anonymity? (And why does a voter need a carry-away receipt? You don't get that with a paper ballot.)

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

They're much more understandable if you use Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/) than anything else.
I think Thomas is what I was thinking about!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I think Thomas is what I was thinking about!And think about it... that's the best of the sites (so you can imagine what the bad ones are like!). But at least Thomas will tell you if a bill has passed the House, passed the Senate, passed both, been signed, etc.

[Judy G. Russell]

How would you have a receipt that could be matched to a particular voter without compromising anonymity? (And why does a voter need a carry-away receipt? You don't get that with a paper ballot.)I think the receipt could have a randomly generated number that couldn't be matched to a specific voter without the voter producing his/her copy of the receipt. But the reason why you'd do that is precisely because you're dealing with machines and not with paper ballots. As long as it's easy to rig a machine and not easy to verify if the machine is working properly, then somebody is going to try to rig it. Once you introduce easy verification -- once, for example, all of the local Democratic committee members (in a Republican area) or the Republican committee members (in a Democratic area) can produce their receipts to be checked against what the machine recorded -- the likelihood of rigging goes down.

[Lindsey]

But at least Thomas will tell you if a bill has passed the House, passed the Senate, passed both, been signed, etc.
I guess; but if you're trying to figure out what happened to it along the way, or where it happens to be stuck if it never got passed by one or both houses, good luck!

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I think the receipt could have a randomly generated number that couldn't be matched to a specific voter without the voter producing his/her copy of the receipt. But the reason why you'd do that is precisely because you're dealing with machines and not with paper ballots. As long as it's easy to rig a machine and not easy to verify if the machine is working properly, then somebody is going to try to rig it. Once you introduce easy verification -- once, for example, all of the local Democratic committee members (in a Republican area) or the Republican committee members (in a Democratic area) can produce their receipts to be checked against what the machine recorded -- the likelihood of rigging goes down.
I dunno, that sounds awfully complicated to me, and I think in this case the simpler the system, the better.

There was a time when I liked the idea of touch-screen machines that would print a paper "ticket" that the voter would never actually take posession of, but would be able to see, verify, and approve or disapprove, and that paper ticket would be used in a recount to prove the machine tally. But even that's complicated. Printers jam, they run out of paper, or something happens that the printing cannot be read. And what happens to tickets that are disapproved? Will they be reliably shredded, and can we be sure that "approved" tickets don't end up being shredded? In short, just too many things that might possible go wrong.

That's why I'm now more in favor of optically scanned ballots. They are relatively simple to mark, simple to count by hand or machine, do not degrade with handling, and in combination with a screening test at the time the ballot is submitted to warn the voter of a ballot that is unreadable or not completely marked, more accurate than any other technology available. They're not perfect, but neither were the old-fashioned paper ballots.

We cannot continue with systems whose integrity is seriously doubted by significant numbers of people. Whether or not an election is ever actually stolen using the new machines, the fact that many feel it is possible, and that there is no way to prove that it hasn't happened, is dangerously corrosive. The electorate has to be convinced in the integrity of the electoral process if a democracy is to work.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

We cannot continue with systems whose integrity is seriously doubted by significant numbers of people. Whether or not an election is ever actually stolen using the new machines, the fact that many feel it is possible, and that there is no way to prove that it hasn't happened, is dangerously corrosive. The electorate has to be convinced in the integrity of the electoral process if a democracy is to work.I could not agree with you more. It doesn't really matter what system is chosen, but whatever it is, it MUST have voter confidence standing behind it.

[Judy G. Russell]

I guess; but if you're trying to figure out what happened to it along the way, or where it happens to be stuck if it never got passed by one or both houses, good luck!Yep, at that point you do have to understand something about the process... or pick up the phone and call your local Congresscritter's office. Each has staff to answer those questions (and more).

[Lindsey]

or pick up the phone and call your local Congresscritter's office. Each has staff to answer those questions (and more).
Oh, please. With a significant number of those guys, you'd get a better answer out of the Magic 8 Ball -- at least that will answer "Yes" or "No" a good bit of the time.

In fairness, I can usually get a good answer out of Bobby Scott's office. He'll even sometimes post his positions on his web page. George Allen was the complete opposite. You could never get an answer out of his staff, and they'd promise to answer you, but you had to be sure to give them a telephone number or an address, because they'd never ask for one. And most of the time, the only answer you could get out of him was, "I have not yet decided." Or the weasel rhetoric, with the "code word" language that seems to say one thing, but which really means the exact opposite. He never had any issues positions posted on his web site beyond, "I support policies that will result in strong families and a strong America." Wow, imagine that!

John Warner is also extremely cautious about staking out a position on most issues, but he's less obviously slippery than Allen, and he is at least very good about responding to comments or questions. He has on occasion taken stands against the party leadership when there were important principles at stake, and for that I respect him, but I have been frustrated that too often he will hold that position only long enough for the press to give him credit for it, and then suddenly, he folds. That's what happened with that recent bill regarding detainee treatment -- I forget the exact name of it. He stood on principle at first, but then voted for a modified bill that stripped out a good bit of what he had said were important protections, and I wanted to barf when I saw him on television shaking the president's hand at the signing. But this is why I no longer vote for Republicans of any stripe.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh, please. With a significant number of those guys, you'd get a better answer out of the Magic 8 Ball -- at least that will answer "Yes" or "No" a good bit of the time.I don't mean you could get a POSITION statement from them; just an answer to a question such as "can you please tell me what the status of HR 1234 is?"

[Lindsey]

I don't mean you could get a POSITION statement from them; just an answer to a question such as "can you please tell me what the status of HR 1234 is?"
I'll have to try that. But from the conversations I've had in the past, I'm not confident anybody in those offices knows much more than "We'll have to get back to you on that."

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I'll have to try that. But from the conversations I've had in the past, I'm not confident anybody in those offices knows much more than "We'll have to get back to you on that."That's as much of a script as "have you rebooted your computer" is for IT support people. But a good constituent affairs office will get back to you.