FLORIDA MOVES TO PAPER BALLOTS!

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG

FLORIDA MOVES TO PAPER BALLOTS!
A Huge Victory (Finally!) for Voters in the Sunshine State...

Will the Democrats in the U.S. Congress finally begin to realize their mistake in allowing for DRE touch-screen voting machines now that the Republican Governor of Florida has led the Republican Florida legislature to do the right thing and move to all paper ballots? Or will they continue to allow themselves to lose yet another issue that they should be owning?

We'll leave it to the Election Integrity advocates on the ground who have worked so long and hard, to give you the great news...

FULL REPORT:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4506


Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4506

[Patsy Stone]

1. Yes!!!!!

I wasn't going to pop the cork until the House passed it, but now it's time!

:bounce:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Yay!

Butterfly ballots for EVERYONE! :evilgrin:

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. Wow. Will Jeb move to Texas, or will he be giving politics away all together?

[Cooley Hurd]

4. The end of the Banana Republic of Florida!!!!

K&R - great work, Brad!

And thank you, Andy Stephenson!!!:toast:

[bonito]

5. Yahoo! thanks Brad.

:bounce:

[lovuian]

6. Alleluia

paper trail

[The Count]

7. You mean, like in 2000?

Don't want to rain on the parade, but...

[superconnected]

9. Good point. And ohio needs a paper trail.

What really needs to happen is cruella and the rest of them need to go to jail for voter fraud.

[BradBlog]

12. No, Ohio needs paper BALLOTS...

There's a big difference!

[glengarry]

30. BushCo won 57-42% of the vote in FL optiscan counties with 42% Dem- 39% GOP registration

BushCo won 57-42% of the vote in FL optiscan counties with 42% Dem- 39% GOP registration

The optiscan ballots are tabulated by central tabulators where the software can easily be programmed to miscount the votes.

So what is the percentage of the ballots that need to be audited?

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#Florida

They ignored Florida’s implausible vote count by machine type and party registration. In 2000, Bush supposedly “won” by 547 official votes. Given Gore’s 70% share of 180,000 uncounted under/over votes, he would have won by at least 60,000 votes had they been counted. In 2004, Bush supposedly “won” by 52-47%, a 368,000 vote margin. But the Democrats had a 41- 37% registration advantage in Touch Screen (TS) counties and a 42-39% edge in Optical Scan (OS) counties. Kerry won the TS counties (3.86mm votes) by 51-47%, but Bush won the OS counties (3.43mm votes) by a whopping 57-42%. Kerry’s low vote shares in the three most heavily populated (and Democratic) TS counties (Palm Beach, Broward, Dade) are highly suspect. Florida voter registration by party is the same in TS and OS counties, so we aren’t comparing apples and oranges. The TS county vote share matched the 12:22am NEP to within 0.43% for Bush and 0.31% for Kerry. The OS county share deviated by 9.0% for Bush (307,000 votes) while the Kerry discrepancy was -8.1% (278,000).



Two separate models indicated that Kerry won Florida by 221,000 votes. The first was based on voting machine type (optical scanners and touch screens) and used 2004 NEP “How Voted in 2000” vote shares with party registration percentage weights. Kerry won by … 221,000 votes. The second was based on uncounted and switched votes assumptions applied to the 2004 recorded vote. Kerry won by…. 221,000 votes. Assuming that Kerry won 70,000 of 96,000 Nader 2000 votes (based on his 71% NEP share), he had a built-in 100,000 vote advantage on Election Day … assuming all the votes would be counted. The final Zogby pre-election poll had Kerry winning by 50-47%. Assuming a 1.0% margin of error, the probability is 1 in 12.7 trillion that Kerry's total TS county vote share would exceed his total Florida share by 4.2%.

[VegasWolf]

31. Shhhhsh! You'll destroy these people's happiness. For some reason they believe

that there is a difference between optical scanner machines and touch screen machines aside from the human interface component.

[BradBlog]

34. Shhhhh! You'll destroy VegasWolf's cynicism and lack of political acumen...

VegasWolf said:

Shhhhsh! You'll destroy these people's happiness. For some reason they believe that there is a difference between optical scanner machines and touch screen machines aside from the human interface component.

"Aside from the human interface component"? You mean the human interface component where the human interfaces with their own ballots and gets to mark it? Versus the lack of a human ever being able to mark or verify their own ballot on a DRE touch-screen?

Yeah, there's a difference.

Now if you don't give a damn about your democracy, and think it's good enough that there will finally be a voter marked paper ballot in Florida, but don't give a damn about how it's counted, then I guess today's news might not mean too much.

On the other hand, if you realize that you can't count a human-marked paper ballot by any means unless one actually exists, that you'll understand the import of this news.

I might suggest you put your cynicism aside in favor of taking the steps, as difficult as they may be, towards regaining electoral integrity. In Florida, and everywhere else. The victory today in FL could only be seen as a loss if you (or others) haven't learned the lesson that we need to take ownership of our democracy, and personally, as needed, fight to assure it's integrity.

[VegasWolf]

41. Wow, what a crippled argument. The difference is exactly? The central

tabulator? The chips in the op scanner. The partisan controlled process? You attack, albeit very weakly, and attack my patriotism because I don't believe that a return to paper ballots is the solution. If you are capable of discarding your rose tinted looking glasses why don't you check out the excellent work being done in terms of revision of the voting process by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. No serious person believes that paper ballots are the solution to the voting issue. I may be a cynic vis a vis your paper ballot technology, but I am not fooled by triviality.

Feel free to use technical jargon to back up your assertions. Hows does an optical scanner tally results? Where? Who controls the database where the votes are stored? Or are you proposing hand counting of votes? Maybe pay immigrants a few bucks an hour to tally them? I'm all ears waiting to hear exactly how you propose to solve the problems technically.

[BradBlog]

51. "Crippled argument"? Interesting choice of words...

VegasWolf asked:

why don't you check out the excellent work being done in terms of revision of the voting process by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. No one serious person believes that paper ballots are the solution to the voting issue.

I'm quite familiar with the work and people of EFF. I'm also quite familiar with propagandistic disinformation.

Virtually every computer scientist in the world (who has spoken out on the issue) backs the use of paper ballots and eschews DRE touch-screen systems.

So you either don't know what you're talking about. Don't care. Or know exactly what you're talking about and have no problem planting completely unsupported disinformation here.

Just two quick examples (though I could post dozens for you)...

From Avi Rubin's (Johns Hopkins) recent (3/7/07) Senate testimony:
http://avi-rubin.blogspot.com/2007/03/todays-congressional-hearing.html

"after four years of studying the issue, I now believe that a DRE with a VVPAT is not a reasonable voting system. The only system that I know of that achieves software independence as defined by NIST, is economically viable and readily available is paper ballots with ballot marking machines for accessibility and precinct optical scanners for counting - coupled with random audits. That is how we should be conducting elections in the US, in my opinion."

From David Dill's (Stanford) recent (4/26/07) op/ed, titled "It's Time to Outlaw Paperless Electronic Voting in the U.S":
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6461

"Four years ago, when I began publicly opposing paperless electronic voting, passing a Federal law to require voter-verified paper records (VVPRs) seemed an impossible dream...The dream is now achievable, due in part to the unending stream of problems caused by paperless voting machines in recent years.
...
"I would personally prefer to see optical scan machines be used nationwide, if supplemented by equipment to allow voters with disabilities to vote privately."

Mind you, I disagree with both Rubin and Dill on their contention that Rush Holt's HR811 bill should be passed in it's current form, since it allows for electronic balloting without a paper ballot. But that's a political consideration of theirs, as opposed to a scientific one.

I'll quote a dozen more such scientists if ya need 'em. Just ask. And where are your "serious persons" who are against paper ballots?

I may be a cynic vis a vis your paper ballot technology, but I am not fooled by triviality.

And neither are the readers here at DU fooled by your attempts to confuse them with deceptive nonsense.

Feel free to use technical jargon to back up your assertions. Hows does an optical scanner tally results? Where? Who controls the database where the votes are stored? Or are you proposing hand counting of votes? Maybe pay immigrants a few bucks an hour to tally them? I'm all ears waiting to hear exactly how you propose to solve the problems technically.

Since I don't believe you are asking serious questions, I find no need to take the time to answer in detail. Go read the thousands of articles I've written on it -- sans "technical jargon" (interesting phrasing again from someone who later claimed to be "computer scientist").

I'm well aware of who controls the database, where it is stored, etc. As I'm aware that the HUGE victory in FL is just the first step on the road back to restoring the state from its Banana Republic-hood. With citizens down there who have learned their lessons, despite folks like yourself trying to confuse them with deceptive nonsense, I'm confident that we'll see democracy returned to the state eventually. Unless the likes of folks like you win the day.

Good lord, I hope not.

[VegasWolf]

57. You don't seem to answer the question. Please tell me the processing

differences between an optical scanner and a touch screen. Once the voter has made his choice by marking the ballot, how do you know that choice is reflected in the final tally. It took you long enough to finally do some research so lets here your answer! BTW, I delineated the issues of transmission, validation, and redundancy below for your edification. Please tell us how a paper ballot that is processed by an electronic machine and stored in a database is this perfect panacea you seem to think it is? I'm all ears?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

60. its not the machine alone

its the machine and ballot that make audits and recounts possible that make this
a victory for Florida.

DREs,

you need far more of them,
have more complicated software,
requiring more machines so less get pre-election testing,
have a flimsy paper trail (if they have paper),
aren't voter friendly,
have touchscreen interfaces that don't always register the vote, or
the calibration can switch your vote -
are harder to recount and audit.
cost more,
create long lines,
bigger burden on poll workers

Optical scan

means less machines.
No touchy touchscreen to calibrate.
An easy to read paper ballot to audit or recount.
Easier for voters.
Easier for poll workers.

[VegasWolf]

62. Exactly my point. Regardless of whether it's DREs or paper ballots

the entire process needs to be scrutinized. Proprietary paper ballot scanner software and hardware is as worthless as proprietary DREs.

[BradBlog]

71. Wrong and wrong and wrong again...

Exactly my point. Regardless of whether it's DREs or paper ballots the entire process needs to be scrutinized. Proprietary paper ballot scanner software and hardware is as worthless as proprietary DREs.

Wrong again. And it will still be wrong no matter how many times you type it.

Paper-based ballot systems such as op-scan or hand-counted: Voter verifies their vote, and it is tabulated, and can be retabulated again and again as needed.

DREs: Your vote is *never* verified. By anyone or anything and can never be.

The only point about which you are correct is that "the entire process needs to be scrutinized", which, of course, I pointed out in the original article linked to at the top of this thread, and in thousands of other articles at BradBlog.com before it.

[VegasWolf]

73. You keep saying that. How do you know? You miss the technical points

completely. DREs and ballots all have the same issues.

[BradBlog]

84. I've missed no technical points. You just wish to keep making garbage up...

VW said (yet again):

You keep saying that. How do you know? You miss the technical points completely. DREs and ballots all have the same issues.

It continues to be wrong. Again, no matter how many times you type it.

While DREs and op-scan have some of the same concerns, there is no comparing an election system which counts the voter's verified ballots (op-scan or hand-count) versus one that doesn't (DRE touch-screen).

If you wish to continue to you obfuscate that fact you are either uninformed (though claiming to be a "computer scientist"), purposely trying to make an unsupportable, unscientifically-based case, or you are Rush Holt.

I have no idea which of those three is the case. Though one of them most certaintly is.

[VegasWolf]

88. Why can't a DRE provide a paper trail? nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

90. why don't you know more about DREs and paper trails?

you live in a state that has toilet paper trails.

Tell me why DREs paper trails are so useless.

Have you ever done a recount?
Have you ever done an audit?

[BradBlog]

92. A DRE can. But a "paper trail" is worthless and never counted. As a computer scientist...

...Surely you know that already.

[VegasWolf]

94. Why can't it be? nt

[BradBlog]

104. By design, "paper trails" are never counted...

If you would like a touch-screen ballot marking device that outputs a paper ballot, to be counted by another method (op-scan or hand-count) feel free to say so. That is not, however a DIRECT RECORDING ELECTRONIC system about which you are arguing in favor.

If you want a touch-screen ballot marker, we can discuss that, and I can educate you on how when such systems break down, voters cannot cast a vote. Period. (As happened with thousands, if not millions of voters across the country on DRE systems in 2006).

In some instances, however, and with proper disclosure, such systems *could* be used optionally by disabled voters who need to use them for some reason, if other, safer methods are not available for some reason.

[Lord Balto]

116. What you are all missing...

...is that the very presence of paper ballots that *can* be counted manually, if need be, discourages those of a criminal bent from trying to hack the electronic part of the system. After all, the perfect crime is one where no one knows a crime has been committed. The danger of being caught increases exponentially as soon as there is a way of determining absolutely that a crime has been committed.

[BradBlog]

67. I've answered. But I'll answer again. (While you've answered nothing, btw)

VW said:

You don't seem to answer the question. Please tell me the processing differences between an optical scanner and a touch screen.

Your questions carefully skips the most crucial step. Before we get to the "processing difference", let's discuss the difference between the op-scanner and the touch-screen. With op-scan, the voter marks their own vote onto a piece of paper which is then tabulated by op-scan (or by hand) and can then be counted over and over again. Each time, the voters intent can be determined, since it is -- by definition -- a voter-verified paper ballot.

With a touch-screen (DRE touch-screen as used in most places) the voter *never* verifies their vote ("paper trails" are meaningless, not counted, and can also be gamed) and their intent can then *never* be counted or recounted.

Here's a graphic to help you, since you seem to be confused:

from: http://www.votersunite.org/info/amendHR811orNot.asp

Once the voter has made his choice by marking the ballot, how do you know that choice is reflected in the final tally.

You don't. But you stand a chance of having it reflected, and being able to find out if it was, if you are using a paper-based system like the kind they are moving to in Florida. You have NO CHANCE of that on a DRE touch-screen system.

It took you long enough to finally do some research so lets here your answer! BTW, I delineated the issues of transmission, validation, and redundancy below for your edification. Please tell us how a paper ballot that is processed by an electronic machine and stored in a database is this perfect panacea you seem to think it is? I'm all ears?

I gave you some of the technical specifics you asked for in another reply. As I continue to answer everyone of your questions and you've yet to answer a single one of mine.

+ What's your name?
+ Who do you work for?
+ What type of voting and tabulation system do you recommend for American democracy?

You know ALL of the above about me, since I believe in transparency. I suspect there's a reason you've yet to answer a single one of those questions in return.

[VegasWolf]

72. You seem to have some difficulties with technology. How do you know that the circle that

you marked turns up in a database that mirrors you choice. I'll make it simple for you. Once the magic laser light processes a darkened area at a precise geometric location on a ballot, controlled by proprietary software actually records your little dot as a yes or a no. Once you walk out of the booth with your ballot who keeps it. If you do, then how do you ever correlate that piece of paper you have with data in a database. Whose software controls access to the database.

So Brad, you don't normally write about technology do you?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VegasWolf]

83. Good, then once you implement all of those mechanisms to secure

the optical scanner you are 99.9% of the way there. At that point the DRE is moot. You are coming along. Now show me where Florida has implemented these security measures and I will be a happy camper.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VegasWolf]

93. Of course not, hence the long and painful trail to where you see the true issues

involved and that jumping back to proprietary optical scanners is hardly worth jumping for joy.

Speaking of condescending, you have done nothing but attack. I would assume a journalist, if you are what you say you are, would have a more open and inquiring mind.

Now that all of the issues re proprietary software and hardware have outlined and agreement reached that all electronic systems have potential vulnerabilities you can see why I am not overjoyed with Florida's backwards leap in time to a system to which you readily admit has not been fixed.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

98. oops the bovine excrement meter just "surged"

making un-substantiated statements again.

Please back up what you say, I would like to see some references, studies,
anything besides your opinion.

[BradBlog]

128. I saw the true issues long ago, VW. You seem to be the one who's out to lunch on 'em

VW said:

Now that all of the issues re proprietary software and hardware have outlined and agreement reached that all electronic systems have potential vulnerabilities you can see why I am not overjoyed with Florida's backwards leap in time to a system to which you readily admit has not been fixed.

Here's the deal: You don't put words in my mouth, I won't put 'em in yours.

Florida's move is a HUGE move FORWARD towards Election Integrity, accountability, transparency and accuracy.

There is no comparing the dangers of DREs (vapor votes, which no voter can ever verify) versus op-scan or hand-counted, voter-marked paper ballots where the voters intent can be verified and discerned and recounted, time and again.

Why you continue to push for electronic ballots, which nobody can ever verify is beyond me. But do NOT put me in you camp calling for unverifiable elections.

The disinformation you have posted throughout this thread is extraordinarily damaging and serves little more than to confuse readers as to the TRUE issues at stake here. Please knock it off. Thanks!

[TheMadMonk]

114. "Optiscan" style systems are too "stupid" to easily compromise.

Beginning to end, the entire electronic portion of "Optiscan" process can be implemented in dedicated electronics using discrete components Any competent electronics technician can verify that the equipment matches the technical drawings and that the drawings depict equipment that dumbly advances counters according to the presence of a "mark" in a predefined position. And that the central tabulators equally dumbly tally up the precinct totals. Further that precinct tallies be reported raw for independent verification.

Various physical safeguards (should) make it quite difficult to inject spurious data into the system. Though of course it still in the end comes down to oversight. If the scrutineers are compromised the result is worthless. The tally rooms have to be unimpeachable.

"Optiscan" lends itself to oversight and independent audit. (The trick may well be getting such written into law. That's the next battle.)

DRE from beginning to end evades oversight (particularly any form of independent oversight). It is demonstrably insecure and manipulable.

The difference is between a system that can be made workable and one that (to all appearances) is made to be worked.

Does this explain why this decision is such a big deal? It's a foundation upon which a secure and transparent electoral system can be re-erected.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

106. you have difficulties providing documentation.

Seems like you rose up out of nowhere, with your main interest being the
September 11 forum.

Same MO there, you post comments as if an authority, but you provide
no evidence or links.

With e-voting, most of us have been studying the issue for a long time,
and can provide substancial documentation for what we say.

So far, I haven't seen you produce anything at all to support your bizarre
claims.

[Toots]

118. At least they can be recounted and hand counted

:shrug:

[CRH]

123. Excuse me BradBlog but I'm confused with your post, ...

you said:

Mind you, I disagree with both Rubin and Dill on their contention that Rush Holt's HR811 bill should be passed in it's current form, since it allows for electronic balloting without a paper ballot. But that's a political consideration of theirs, as opposed to a scientific one.

Here you are saying HR811 without an amendment allows for 'electronic balloting without a paper ballot', yet the House document at the address belows seems to say the opposite.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj12_holt/020607.html

Holt Reintroduces Voting Integrity Bill
Bill Would Require Voter-Verified Paper Ballot and Random Audits 

snip

The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act would require a voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast, which would become the ballot of record in the event of any recount or audit.  It would require routine random audits of paper ballots by hand count in a percentage of voting precincts in each Congressional District.  It would also take steps to make elections more publicly transparent by allowing for the inspection of voting system software.  It would require documenting a secure chain of custody for voting systems and prohibit conflicts of interest involving vendors.  It would keep the election process accessible to voters with disabilities, and authorize federal funding to help states meet the requirements.

snip

There is something here I am confused with, or I am misreading your post. Is HR811 allowing an electronic ballot, or is it requiring a 'voter verified paper ballot'?

[BradBlog]

129. You confused by the Holt Bill (whose wording was PURPOSELY misleading)

Holt's bill requires "voter verified paper ballots" the way George Bush's Clean Air Act required clean air.

They are purposely misleading voters and congress members by suggestion there there is a "voter-verified paper ballot for every vote cast" since they know very well that's not the case. As well, I worked on the bill, adding language to various drafts before it was introduced, and each time, when I'd add the suggestion that the paper ballots (they are really "paper trails" that they've now called paper ballots) actually be counted in an election, they refused to make that change.

You'll note from the text you posted that they ONLY use that paper trail in the event of recount or audit. It's never actually mandated that the paper ballot be counted!

Thus, on a DRE machine, you can verify the paper trail all you want, but it doesn't matter. The numbers inside the machine are used for the tally, not the paper trail (which they deceptively call a paper ballot).

Studies from MIT and elsewhere have shown that most voters don't verify their paper trail on a DRE. As opposed to a paper BALLOT which is verified by it's definition, since it's marked by the voter and then actually COUNTED.

Again, here's a graphic that should help:


from: http://www.votersunite.org/info/amendHR811orNot.asp

Don't be decieved by the purposely misleading language of the Holt Bill and the knowing disinfo they are using to try and get it pushed through Congress as is!

Hope that helps!

[CRH]

130. Thank You for your reply, ...

I'm was gone for the weekend and have just returned, thank you for your prompt reply. Yes what you have written makes the situation much more clear, and does not surprise me in the least, the attempt at flim flam that is.

It seems the opposition of the 'real paper ballot' to be the record that is counted, is the use of DRE's rather than scanners, that deal with the voters hard copy. Otherwise with the DREs the electronic blip is counted, not the paper receipt; at best naivety at worst, clever and despicably devious.

This is the result HAVA unleashed with five billion dollars of ill considered spending for untraceable electrons masquerading as our votes. And now, rather than admit a spending blunder with our tax money, and removing the DREs from the process, they resort to a half fix which is an illusion and then sell it with a misleading Bill summary. Hard to believe this is anything other than the worst case scenario, perpetrated by some in both parties. What is it they fear from fair, honest and accountable elections?

Thank you for clearing this up. Time to contact the congress critters for all the good it will do.

[harpboy_ak]

112. hand counts for recounts, of course.

Or are you proposing hand counting of votes?

Are you really this clueless? The reason for paper optical scan ballots is to be able to conduct a HAND RECOUNT. That's what we've been doing in Alaska for 13 years. It also means that absentee ballots received by election day can be optically counted on election night.

And optical scan ballots can be set up so they reject ballots with overvoting --- voting for more candidates than allowed in a given race, or voting both Yes and No for propositions.

[robbibaba]

125. Yes! Hand count the ballots (like Canada does)

What a concept, eh?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

58. and the DREs came to Florida AFTER that

we've all come a long way since 2000.

Any form of voting is insecure, even hand counted paper ballots (ask Nigeria).
Whats important is to focus on audits and the ability to do those audits.

With DREs, you don't have a way to recover or correct.

[Lord Balto]

115. Now I'm beginning to wonder about...

Those so-called Raygun Democrats. You don't suppose they never really voted Republic either?

[TheMadMonk]

110. I don't know. A paper trail leading to KKKarl's feet would be nice.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

8. OW!!!

I think my jaw broke just now when it hit the floor.

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

[VegasWolf]

10. Stupid. Rather than fix the problems by using only open-source code and machines, Florida

takes its usual giant step backwards into the time machine circa 1980's. Back to misaligned paper ballots and jammed punch machines.

[BradBlog]

35. Wrong.

They've taken a giant step forward towards a voter-verified paper ballot. Something they didn't have with punch-card systems (though they were preferable to what FL uses currently).

BTW, the punch-cards weren't the problem in 2000. The fact that the Republicans didn't want to count the ballots was the problem.

Your propaganda is little more than that, VegasWolf. Have a nice democracy.

[VegasWolf]

66. You got a pointer to that Brad? You know the security of optical scanners thingy? nt

[BradBlog]

91. Pointer to what? Bush v. Gore? AS to security of "optical scanners thingy"...

...Yeah, I've spent quite a bit of time on it. Including a recent 6 hour interview for a documentary film with Harri Hursti. The guy who hacked the op-scan systems in Leon County, FL in 2005.

But you probably know him, I'm guessing.

(Btw, he recommends op-scan as the most transparent, most secure method of voting for American democracy.)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

96. heres some security for you

You need paper for security.

[In Truth We Trust]

11. Big problem: They're not HAND COUNTED! Still hackable through op scan and servers

[VegasWolf]

13. Exactly! People use ATMs all of the time to handle their money yet think that

electronic voting machines are the source of all evil. The evil is in allowing proprietary companies like Diebold and ESS to control the voting process. In this day and age there is no excuse for the proprietary systems that provide no accountability nor separate trails.

[Divine Discontent]

16. ugh..

I thought this also... so what can be done??? I don't want them stealing the pres. election again, which is the office that REALLY has the biggest say (unfortunately) what the USA "says" as a nation.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[VegasWolf]

21. Seriously, I doubt much. Look at Ohio and Florida, Kathleen Harris and Bob Ney.

As long as state election committees are controlled by partisan political hacks, boxes of paper ballots will disappear into the river, areas of political opposition will receive insufficient numbers of voting machines, etc. This is true of Democrats too, watch the movie Hacking Democracy. The two political parties don't want change as that could lead to a viable 3rd party.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VegasWolf]

42. Yes, I am a retired Computer Scientist? You? nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

45. please tell us more

Tell us all about your hand counted paper ballots in your home county.

[VegasWolf]

46. Err, what are you talking about? nt

[BradBlog]

54. No, what are YOU talking about, VegasWolf? What's your name and how would you like to see...

...America vote?

You know who I am, by name, I've answered all of your questions. You have failed to answer a single one of mine.

So to review:

+ Who do you work for?
+ What's your name?
+ How would you like to see America vote and have those votes counted?

I've given you full transparency, as needed in a democracy, how about you start doing the same?

Somehow, I suspect you won't. Can't imagine why.

[VegasWolf]

64. I am retired as I said. I refuse to give my name in a public forum. My arguments

should stand for themselves. My preferred voting system would be an open source project that controlled the development of independent software, regardless of whether that technology drives an optical scanner or DRE. The system needs independent oversight and made independent from any political process. A redundancy mechanism needs to be in place to allow for a clean recount. At this point, I would prefer academia to develop software and publish that software for peer review. A physical machine such as a Sequoia with a paper trail using validated and check-summed software would be okay. If the central tabulating issues are solved and they need to be, I would be in favor of an HTTPS internet connection as my preferred interface of choice.

[BradBlog]

74. Fine, please email it to me...

You can reach me at: [e-mail]
I am in the "business" of respecting the privacy of sources, so you can rest assured it won't be shared publicly. But it would be lovely if you disclosed at least that much. In a PRIVATE forum such as email.

As to your comments on this post:

My arguments should stand for themselves.

They should, but they don't. Given the fact that you claim to be a "computer scientist" but don't know the difference between an unverifiable electronic ballot and a verified paper ballot.

My preferred voting system would be an open source project that controlled the development of independent software, regardless of whether that technology drives an optical scanner or DRE.

See the half a dozen other replies to that point. DREs can NEVER be humanly verified. Ever. By anyone or anything thing. They are a no go.

See this for more if you need it: http://www.BradBlog.com/Holt

The system needs independent oversight and made independent from any political process. A redundancy mechanism needs to be in place to allow for a clean recount.

...Which you can never have if you use a DRE, with or without a so-called "paper trail."

At this point, I would prefer academia to develop software and publish that software for peer review. A physical machine such as a Sequoia with a paper trail using validated and check-summed software would be okay. If the central tabulating issues are solved and they need to be, I would be in favor of an HTTPS internet connection as my preferred interface of choice.

Academia has already spoken on this. As has NIST. Millions of dollars went to Professors Rubin and Dill and others and after years of study, they have determined (as has NIST) that a software independent system simply does not exist at this time without the use of paper ballots.

As to checksums on software, I guess your not aware of the Hursti II study (and others like it) showing that it doesn't matter if the source code is checksummed. Manipulation can take place below the source code level.

Study up, professor!

[VegasWolf]

82. That's NIST for you! They said an independent operating system couldn't be done either.

I've worked with both NIST and ANSII in my career. Regardless, what we all want I think is an acceptable solution to the voting problem. I think we can all agree the system is broken. I just think Florida's step backwards is not the solution, that's all.

I'm no professor, academia doesn't pay well enough!

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

107. the spelling police say its "congratulations"

but thank you anyhow.

That picture of the "cat in the hat" is truly shocking, isn't it.

[BradBlog]

105. You're a fraud. Not to mention clueless...

Next time you may want to do better than bringing a knife to a gunfight.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

55. I mean, please tell us about how your voting system is better

if Florida hasn't achieved enough for you - is it because you are voting
on a superior system?

If you live in Nevada, how can you cast any stones at Florida?
Nevada has DREs with toilet paper ballots, and election officials there
are pushing for a bar code scanning device to do the "manual" audits.

So, Nevada has a long way to go.

There is a huge difference between optical scan and DRE voting, so much its
overwhelming.

With optical scan, undervotes are lower, paper ballots are easier to audit than paper trails,
you need less machines so you can concentrate testing efforts better,
its easier for the voters and poll workers, shorter lines at the polls, simple recovery plan
if tabulator fails.

Its difficult for me to comprehend that anyone could fail to see the
what a huge step in the right direction this is.

It also amazes me that people expect their government to serve the people
if and when we don't exert our oversight responsibilities.

We get bad election officials if we don't keep an eye on who gets in these positions.
We sometimes get bad election officials anyway.
Its not possible to have a perfect system all of the time.

WE never get to take a vacation from oversight.

That never goes away.

[VegasWolf]

68. I'm certainly not saying ours is any better, the whole process needs to be

revamped. Florida taking its usual giant step backwards to paper ballots does not seem to solve the real issues. This is why I'm not elated. BTW, I'm a native Floridian.

[BradBlog]

97. It certainly isn't. It's much worse. Florida has smoked NV with their latest move to paper...

I'm certainly not saying ours is any better, the whole process needs to be revamped. Florida taking its usual giant step backwards to paper ballots does not seem to solve the real issues. This is why I'm not elated. BTW, I'm a native Floridian.

Yes, it needs to be revamped. To do that, you begin revamping. To begin revamping, you move to a system of ballot which can ACTUALLY be verified and tabulated. By human beings. With their own eyeballs.

If you wish to keep suggesting that paper is a "step backwards" then I will keep suggesting you are not actually a "retired computer scientist". Or, if so, you retired from computer science somewhere around 1941 or so.

[BradBlog]

47. Really? From where? What's your name? Mine's Brad Friedman of BRAD BLOG...

...So you can find out anything you like about me. Including my decade or so as a computer programmer with my own software business. Though that's not actually germane here.

The question is who are YOU? And why do you keep planting those talking points?

As an honest broker who believes in transparency, I'm sure you'll have no trouble letting us all know so we can appreciate your authority in these matters.

Thanks!

[VegasWolf]

48. Good, then answer the questions I posed to you in my follow up to your little diatribe.

Feel free to be technical. BTW, actually a scientific background is germane to the issue.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

50. uh excuse me Mr. VegasWolf, don't you vote on toilet paper touch-screens?

I mean, er if you are in Vegas, if you vote in person, you are voting on Sequoia
DREs with a toilet paper "trail" .

Now, if you are voting absentee by mail, your ballot is likely being counted by
an optical scanner. And will be exposed to an extended chain of custody.

But if you vote somewhere else besides Nevada, and vote in person on an optical scanner,
then your vote is being counted by a computer.

So whatever is bugging you about Florida's (and our country's for that matter) great
humongous excellent monumental victory - clearly you have nothing better.

I don't know any computer scientists (except for anti paper ones like Professor Michael Shamos, or maybe Ted Selker) who think that touch-screen voting is better in any way over optical scan voting.

So maybe you are in that minority.

I am surprised at the few who feel that this is anything less than a gigantic
step forward and a huge victory. Considering the years of work that Florida people put
into this effort against all odds, its down right ridiculous not to recognize what a win this is.

Oh well, I will leave you to your superior vote counting systems in your neck of the woods.

[VegasWolf]

53. Yes, we have the sequoia machines here. The issue is not whether

one marks the little circles on a ballot or one pushes a location on a touchscreen. The interface is trivial. So I am a little lost as to which scientists and engineers you are referring to. The paramount issue is how the vote is handled once the voter makes his mark, either electronically or literally on a paper ballot. This processing includes metrics for proper alignment of the scanner, a secure transmission facility of the voters intention to the central tabulator, security of controlled access to the data once it is recorded, validation of the data, redundancy issues so that a proper recount is possible, and non-proprietary software that can be verified by independent institutions. It is all the stuff after you push the button or mark your ballot that is critical.

[BradBlog]

56. And you have never once been allowed to verify your vote on that Sequoia machine...

VegasWolf said:

Yes, we have the sequoia machines here. The issue is not whether one marks the little circles on a ballot or one pushes a location on a touchscreen. The interface is trivial.

Not even close to trivial.

In once case, the former, the VOTER gets to vote and have his/her ballot reflect his/her vote and have that vote actually tabulated.

In the other case, on a DRE touchscreen system, it is quite literally impossible for you, or any human being to verify that you vote has been tallied as you'd hoped. Impossible.

As a "computer scientist" I'm sure you realize that. To suggest "the interface is trivial" suggests you either haven't a clue how these systems work, or you are simply trying to disinform readers here. If you're a "computer scientist" as you claim, then I'd likely suspect the latter explanation would be most likely.

[VegasWolf]

61. For a guy that writes blogs, your arguments tilt a little. When did I say that

I am in anyway in favor of the current situation? Or does BradBlog just make up data as it goes along?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

70. no - touchscreens cause undervotes and vote flipping up front

First of all, if you don't know who Shamos and Selker are, you should google search them, most e-voting activists know those names.

Second - The interface of a voting machine is VERY important.

Touchscreens can wreck the vote at the front end.
The touchscreen and its intricate interfaces can cause undervotes or vote flipping -

TOUCHSCREENS AS CAUSE OF UNDERVOTES

Report by Professor Shamos, examiner of the Unilect Touchscreen in Pennsylvania
http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/lib/dos/20/shamos_report-_unilect200502apr05.pdf

"Among the complaints received about the
Patriot system is that the touchscreen does
not function reliably. That is,when a voter
touches the screen, the touch is not
necessarily sensed, which results in the voter
incorrectly believing that she has cast a
vote."

State decertifies voting machines used in 3 counties
Tribune-Review Thu, 07 Apr 2005 9:10 PM PDT
Pennsylvania officials on Thursday barred three counties from continuing to use a touch-screen voting system that apparently contributed to a larger-than-usual undercount in the November election
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_321925.html

TOUCHSCREENS AS CAUSE OF VOTE FLIPPING

Vote-Flipping and Lost Votes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From E-Voting Failures in the 2006 Mid-Term Elections
A sampling of problems across the nation

Vote flipping, in which the voter’s selection is not reflected on the screen, is a phenomenon
associated only with DRE machines. We encountered two distinct types of vote flipping:
Vote-Flipping on Selection Screens. When the voter makes a selection, it either remains
unhighlighted on the screen or an opposing candidate’s name is highlighted instead. Often
this problem is attributed to calibration problems on a touch screen, but it is important to
note that vote-flipping occurred even on e-voting machines that do not use a touch screen,
such as the Hart InterCivic eSlate, Sequoia Advantage, and Danaher Shouptronic 1242.
This category also includes incidents in which selections were already made when the voter
began voting.

Vote-Flipping on Review Screens. After the voter finishes making selections, the voter’s
choices are lost or presented inaccurately on the summary review screen. While incorrect
calibration may be the cause of some of the vote-flipping on the selection screens,
calibration errors cannot account for discrepancies between the selections indicated on the
selection screen and those on the review screen.
(Page 5 )
http://www.votersunite.org/info/E-VotingIn2006Mid-Term.pdf

So you see alot can go wrong just in the act of the voter trying to enter his/her choices on the ballot, thanks to the touch-screen interface.

[VegasWolf]

76. and yet you trust ATM's for your banking. Speaking of calibration

errors, do you know the fail rate for optical scanners?

[BradBlog]

108. Because every single transaction is AUDITED, AUDITABLE, VERIFIED and VERIFIABLE on an ATM...

...Unlike on a DRE.

You may not be familiar with American democracy or voting systems or computers, so let me explain.

We have a system of secret ballots in America. Which means that once the ballot goes into the system, one can't verify it. So that needs to be done BEFORE it goes into the system. Which can't be done on a touch-screen DRE system. It's impossible.

On an ATM, however, you are able to verify every step of it, and if there is any question, the specific transaction can be checked and verified over and over again and there will be a take-away paper trail (in the form of cash and/or receipt) which you can also use to further back up your questions and claims.

Touch-screen voting systems don't work that way. And they shouldn't. You cannot verify the way the machine tallies your vote. Ever.

As to the failure rate of op-scan, yes, I'm *very* familiar with it. Which is why you need thorough audits, complete transparency, and hand-counts before and/or after to go with it.

You cannot hand-count an electronic ballot. You can't count it by any means. No human being can.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

109. what irrational exhuberance for touch-screens!

I have documented several of my statements about voting/touchscreens,
yet you are unable to document anything you claim.

It appears that I would have to write a book in order to fill in the gaps
of your knowledge, or lack thereof.

We did a study in NC, theres been one in New Mexico, theres been studies
of Florida, but you don't know?

Go to www.votersunite.org and read up.

Clearly e-voting is not an issue you have studied.

[BradBlog]

52. What's the question? How to count the paper ballots?

If so, then it's a question that one needn't bother to answer if there are no paper ballots to count.

Now that it looks like there will be, there are a number of ways it could be done, and I support the efforts of those in the local jurisdictions to get it done the most transparently and accurately possible.

Among many of the solutions:

+ Precinct-based digitally-imaged op-scan, with hashmarks and ballot images posted to the Internet for all to see themselves. Along with audits of a sufficient sample size to give 99% scientific certainty that the original results are correct.

+ Precinct-based hand counting, with the same audit protocol as mentioned above.

All 100% transparent from top to bottom. Work for ya? I'm sure it does.

[VegasWolf]

59. So I see, you want people like Bob Ney to control the distribution

of the scanning machines, the implantation of the ROM code - all transparent according to you -, the secure transmission, and little old Bob controls the database where all the info is stored. Good work genius, I bow to your wisdom.

[BradBlog]

63. Wrong. But thanks for not answering the questions. Again.

Your continuing evasiveness speaks volumes.

[VegasWolf]

65. Yes, yours does. Still can't tell me how your paper balloting is going to

work without security issues can you. Don't feel bad a lot of smart guys have worked on this problem.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

75. security is a secondary issue, here is the bottom line

Nigeria's very recent HCPB election debacle shows that any system has insecurities.

Here's the bottom line:

"Every voting system (perhaps every system of any kind) is insecure. Making them more secure is a desirable secondary priority, but unless we focus everyone on ensuring both auditability and effective auditing, we're just going to create an impossible muddle." ~ Dr. David L. Dill, Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation .

Any system can be exploited. It is oversight, checks and balances that provide integrity to
any system used.

The reason that optical scan is better than DRE voting is that optical scan lends itself better towards oversight.

[VegasWolf]

77. Precisely how so? nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

79. asked and answered

looks like the correct answer wasn't well received.

[VegasWolf]

86. When you claim that security is the seconday issue you dancing alone. nt

[BradBlog]

101. When you claim that unverifiable DREs are "as bad as paper systems" you are dancing with trolls (nt)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

80. now thats a steaming pile of bovine excrement

why not try to stick to something that is sensible, rather than such
manure?

[VegasWolf]

85. Petty! Show me the argument that partisan hacks can't manipulate proprietary hardware

and try to grow up. Let's keep the conservation at a least a civil tone. Show me your proof that partisan hacks can't manipulate the voting software.

[BradBlog]

99. She never made that claim. And in this case, it isn't she who needs to "grow up" Professor. (nt)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

102. bull biscuits

clearly you have no documentation to anything.

I think I hear your mother calling you to come upstairs, run along.

[stillcool]

14. Great News.

Having votes to count is a big step in the right direction.

[whistle]

15. Cheers, finallt dumping Jeb Bushshit system

:bounce: :toast: :kick:

[BadGimp]

17. This is the first concrete evidence of actual progress imo

I was one of those who gave up on the recent mid terms because I was certain the GOP machine woudl overwhelm democratic voters with election fraud largely enabled by DREs.

I was wrong then and I hope I am right now.

Maybe we arn't screwed afterall. wow

[John Q. Citizen]

49. There was a lot of hanky panky in 06. The Repos just didn't steal enough votes is all.

[coffeenap]

18. I hope Andy Stephenson is smiling! This was his baby in the beginning.

O8) :toast: :hug:

We miss you, Andy. Thanks for this and for everything. m and d.

[flyarm]

38. yes Andy was involved , he helped train several of the people involved in fla

working on this reform!!

Andy is smiling..i just know he is!!

winking at you friend..i feel you looking down at us!

O8) O8) O8)


fly

[Cookie wookie]

19. Fantastic News!

Hats off to all at Florida Voters Coalition and all the organizations who helped them win this historic victory.

From FVC's press release: "...CS/HB 537 provides almost all voters paper ballots in time for the 2008 presidential election and bans paperless DREs outright by 2012....Counties will have the option to pitch DREs immediately and provide ballot marking devices for voters with disabilities. 'FVC urges all 67 counties to convert to uniform paper ballot systems without delay and leave no voter behind voting on failed electronic voting machines," said FVC cofounder Dan McCrea.

<snip> Counties will get help from the state to purchase optical scan equipment to count the paper ballots; ballot-on-demand equipment to ease paper congestion problems in Early Voting; and ballot marking devices to serve the disabled."

<snip>
"The Florida bill also contains new audit provisions essential to the security of paper ballot voting systems. There was agreement among legislators that the new audit provisions will need further tweaking next year before becoming effective in July 2008. For now, the language requires that after every election, at least 1% and not more than 2% of randomly selected precincts be audited by hand-counting the paper ballots in one randomly selected race. The audit will take place after certification and be reported 3 days before the contest period ends.

FVC supports ‘statistically significant’ audits that would yield a far greater confidence level in election results and should be reported before certification. FVC will be working with state and local election officials in the coming year to strengthen Florida audit language,” said another FVC Co-Founder, Kindra Muntz, who led the successful charter amendment campaign in Sarasota County that requires both voter verified paper ballots and mandatory random audits in all elections."

[coffeenap]

20. Thank you, BradBlog--you and those who have been fighting

so hard for this are heroes! You just changed our country. We are ever in your debt.

[Roland99]

22. Awesome!!

[Not Me]

23. I have never voted on an electronic machine...

I live in Orange County and there have been two ways here to vote with a paper ballot.
1.) via absentee ballot. (which is becoming the norm out of convenience) or,
2.) by specifically requesting a paper ballot at the poll.

I voted as recently as this past 4/24 (in a special statehouse district election) and said to the poll worker that I would like a paper ballot as I don't trust the DRE; she handed my one and said that she too won't use an electronic machine.

We've never used 'butterfly' ballots here. The paper ballots are fed through an optical scanner and then locked away in the event a recount is necessary.

[VegasWolf]

24. Punch card or optical scanner? In San Mateo County, they are all optical scanners. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

43. before voting absentee here's something you might do

anyone considering voting absentee by mail, consider attending some
of your County BOE "canvassing" meetings, where they go through
the absentee ballots (which are in envelopes) and determine
which ones get counted.

Learn the reasons that some absentee ballots are rejected.

Besides that, if you mail it in, you have extended the chain of custody to
include the postal service.

If you drop it off, where does it go then, or how long before it is locked in a
box in some room?

[newscott]

25. This is a huge step in the RIGHT direction!

I'm sorry to say this but congrats to the Republicans.

[sakabatou]

26. Kata ze! We won!

[Kurovski]

27. Congrats to all, and thank you.

K&R.

[flvegan]

28. Glad you got folks to look at this.

I posted it early yesterday and it was totally ignored.

Thanks for getting this important vicotry out to the masses.

[NotGivingUp]

29. very cool! that means my vote will count this time! nt

[lonestarnot]

32. Most excellent news!

:applause:

[The Doctor.]

33. I knew they were still out there. nt

[uppityperson]

37. k&r!!!!!!!

[Decruiter]

39. Awesome news!

[StarryNite]

40. That's great news!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Laurab]

44. K&R !!! n/t

[Dumak]

69. This shows promise

They probably still need the statutes that will help make the ballot-handling and counting procedures secure (will it happen?). Vague statutes (intentional or otherwise) will allow cheating loopholes. For example, a law specifying a 5% "random" recount might allow an unscrupulous governor to say "ok, I have rolled a die in my office, and here are the precincts that need to be recounted...".

And please, let's not get extremist here and assume that any usage of computers is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with having tabulation computers, as long as they are used redundantly with hand tabulation. In fact, computers can assist us greatly with the detection and prevention of election fraud. They just have to be used wisely.

[JCMach1]

78. Three points: Tabulation software, servers, offsite connection to central servers

Think something in that chain isn't hackable?

Remember, if it doesn't appear to be a problem no one will recount the ballots.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

89. its always going to be about checks, balances and oversight

Oh yes, optical scan ballots (and to a lesser degree, paper trails) do get counted.

We had recounts across North Carolina in Nov 2006.

Hand Counted Paper Ballots Aint going to happen in the US until
we either start voting for parliament (let them pick our Prime Minister)
like the countries that do HCPB, or if we do something else to get our
ballots down to single contest ballots as used in HCPB countries.

See for yourself:
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Hand_Counted_Paper_Ballots.pdf

But theres always Nigeria for an example of how well hand counted paper ballots
worked for them:

http://www.sabcnews.com/article/images/0,1059,44132,00.gif

May 3, 2007. Nigeria's election results still opposed
SABC News, South Africa - 22 hours ago
The All Nigerian People's Party, Nigeria's main opposition, has described the upcoming inauguration of Umaru Yar'Adua, the president-elect, as "a clear case ...

Muhammed Buhari, the leader of the main opposition, says the inauguration of Yar'Adua will mean Nigerians have agreed that cheating does pay.

In a statement, the former military leader says the planned inauguration will amount to institutionalising rigging and fraud among politicians. Buhari called on supporters to close ranks to stamp out recurring electoral fraud by rejecting the latest outcome of the polls.

http://www.sabcnews.com/africa/west_africa/0,2172,148340,00.html

Its all about checks and balances, and the ability and will to excercise oversight.

[w4rma]

103. Thank you, BradBlog! (nt)

[orleans]

111. good. n/t

[LaPera]

113. Yes, paper ballots before 2008...Let's move forward....

Electronic counting will always be subject to manipulation....

Write your congressional representative.

[texpatriot2004]

117. Thank you BradBlog nm

[MasonJar]

119. Paper ballots are essential. The counter must be either a machine

which can be scrutinized and checked after the election tally or dem/rep counters in the precinct. There should be one of each party counting each ballot. The precincts are not so big that the citizens cannot count the ballots in a reasonable amount of time. So what if we do not know for a day or two who won. I have always voted by marking a paper ballot and putting it in a counter. The ballot was stored in the machine in case it was later needed. As to Florida...a giant step forward for y'all. Now you need to ensure that the law does not prevent the paper ballots from being used to recheck machine tallies if there is a problem with the machine's results, actual or perceived. Thanks to all you for helping restore democracy....one step at a time.

[Dumak]

122. There are many security issues involved

For example, in a precinct where all the election workers are Republicans (or stealth Republicans), it may be easy for them to insert many additional ballots, all filled out with their favorite Republican candidates. Or, it may be easy for them to "lose" many ballots in precincts where most of the votes are expected to be Democratic. Live electronic tabulation can help to thwart these common kinds of cheating. (And, of course, I am talking about using electronic tabulation IN ADDITION TO hand counting of the very same ballots.)

[Marnieworld]

120. What kind of ballots though?

This is better but what safe guards are there to ensure that the chad thing etc. doesn't happen again? Voter verified trail?

OMG we might actually get Florida now. Yay!

[Marnieworld]

121. dupe

[Dumak]

124. Look at the bill

Here is a link to the text of the bill: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=35049

My very brief inspection indicates that only 1-2% of precincts are manually audited, and each of these audits is only conducted within one randomly-selected race. Perhaps this method of audit can detect problems that affect all precincts and races equally, but what about cases where election fraud is focused on specific precincts, and only on the presidential election?

Let's say there are 6000 precincts in Florida. This means that a manual audit would be done for 60 random precincts. If we were to greatly modify the election results in 10% of precincts (where it would make the most difference), that means we would expect about 6 of those precincts to exhibit problems. If the presidential election represents only 10% of the races on the ballot (our ballot had a lot more than that because of all the judges), then it would seem that we might expect that we would notice a problem with the presidential election in just one precinct.

Looking at the bill, I couldn't find anything related to taking immediate corrective measures should an audit "fail". If this is the case, then the audit does very little for election security and accuracy - it only provides a false sense of security. It seems designed only to detect widespread problems with voting hardware.

I believe the audit should be at least 5%, and should always include the presidential race. Each political party should also be able to designate specific precincts for audit (say, 1% for each party). If the audit fails in any precinct, then there should be language in the bill to automatically trigger a complete manual recount. I don't see that here.

[SarasotaDem]

126. YES ....... :)

Finally ........ Hope this gets some Dems off their kiester in congress.

[burrowowl]

127. BUT! will they allow eligible voters

to VOTE, they still haven't cleaned up their act on putting eleigible people back on the list.