It's Official Paper BALLOTS for the State of New York

[DogPoundPup]

Source: The Brad Blog

Congrats to Bo Lipari and the NY Verified Voting crew, on a milestone in their long, and continuing fight for election integrity in the state of New York. Writes Lipari this morning:

It's now official. Liberty Election Systems has withdrawn their DRE from the New York State and has informed the State Board of Elections that they will not pursue further certification testing or fill their one current order. LibertyVote/Nedap was the only remaining vendor offering a DRE in New York. The move represents the end of an era in New York State, and could be a harbinger for what lies ahead in the rest of the nation...
...
So for the first time since HAVA passed in 2002, New York State has no DREs of any type being purchased by any county, or undergoing NYS certification testing for 2009 purchases. For the vendors who for 6 years told us “New York is a DRE state”, we tell you now as we told you then, “Wrong. New York is a paper ballot state.”
Now, of course, the fight will continue to make sure the state actually bothers to count those paper ballots when they get them, as it will be error-prone, hackable, optical-scan devices that are purchased across the state.



Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5922

---

[mac2]

1. You can still hack a scanner.

I fill out a paper ballot and then it is scanned into a machine. I get back a number...#201. How do I know my paper ballot was even counted? It's not done in public either.

[Eric J in MN]

2. In Minnesota, there are random audits...

...in which a small percentage of the paper ballots are hand-counted.

[mac2]

3. We voted by absentee ballot hoping they

wouldn't count them by machine or computer. Wrong. They collected them and counted them all on the scanner.

[sabbat hunter]

16. but the paper ballots can be hand counted

if there is a problem.
how can you ever know for sure that your vote was counted? under no system do you get a "copy" of your vote.

What more do you want?

[Wilms]

18. "the paper ballots can be hand counted if there is a problem"????

Really???

Then why weren't they counted in FL 2000, or in OH 2004???

If there's a problem, you'll often be unaware without a good audit (which few states have) or something triggering a recount.

Think about it.

[sabbat hunter]

19. because the SCOTUS

stopped the count in florida.

A hand count being the primary counting method, is actually the most inaccurate way to go, why would you want inaccuracy?

[Wilms]

20. No matter that it was SCOTUS, the recount wasn't completed.

And I'm not really sure you are wrong about a hand-counts accuracy.

But it isn't accuracy of the count but of the outcome that is most important. I realize that's a bit awkward but you may agree.

Short of maintenance issues or humidity problems I have a sense that these machines do a good job of what they are programmed, mis-programed, or maliciously programed to do.

HCPB at the precinct does make a lot of sense. Even then, I'd prefer statistically significant auditing.

-edited to add-

I think NY would do well to fight to keep it's levers (because HAVA doesn't call for them to be replaced) and use ballot markers for accessibility.

[mac2]

21. You count the paper ballots in public at a local level

The media only reports the results. Right now the media gets to collect the vote results and report them. There is little over sight.

Yes..the lack of enough paper ballots when the machines break down is another ploy to steal them. They break down in minority areas mostly. Is that because they aren't new or just manipulated?

The Supreme Court, state legislative bodies and election officials, the media, and the Democratic Party leaders themselves all stopped the vote counting before they were finished. Re-counting never happened as required by state law in a close elections. No way do I believe my vote matters.

[Wilms]

24. "You count the paper ballots in public at a local level"?? Really?? Where???

Are we having two different conversations?

All I'm saying is that you fill out a paper ballot and feed that into a machine.

That machine COUNTS your vote.

You trust that? :shrug:

[sabbat hunter]

28. what would you trust then? n/t

[Wilms]

31. I wouldn't TRUST anything. I want elections verified.

HCPB at the precinct AND random statistically significant audits.

[sabbat hunter]

36. paper ballot hand count

is inaccurate. with that random statistics get thrown off.

[Wilms]

37. A statiscally significant audit accounts for that, if only through an amount of fraud it assumes.

[Bill Bored]

43. I don't know what a "random statistic" is, but random errors do NOT favor specific candidates.

These are the kind of errors you may have with lever machines and hand counts. Not necessarily with computers however.

[Bill Bored]

42. "if there was a problem?"

How can you know if there was problem? You need the hand counts to determine that. Suspicions might be raised by some wack-a-doodle results, but there are much more subtle ways to rig elections and they include the use of computerized paper ballot scanners.

[Bill Bored]

41. Don't confuse us with the facts. nt

[BadgerKid]

4. May there be no ballot shortage either. n/t

[magellan]

5. For the cost of buying, maintaining and storing all those opti-scanners

...precincts could instead hire ballot counters and watchers at a flat, nominal fee for the time required to hand count the ballots. Seems to me that'd be less of a conflict of interest than paying private firms to come up with machines and software that aren't open source.

[notesdev]

7. Automation is good

There's nothing wrong with scanners and the like, as long as there are audits and a paper trail to refer to in case of a dispute. Pure hand-counting is less accurate in general. Look at how a bank counts money - they have machines to handle the bulk counting of cash, but when they pay out cash to you at the counter they count it out by hand. The problem comes when there is no paper trail and no audit - a hand-counted paper ballot system can also result in false vote counts, it's just harder to do.

[magellan]

9. Learn about tabulators.

They're the computer part of the opti-scanner system that can be made to do anything with the counts, regardless of audits and paper trails.

[notesdev]

10. But they don't need to be computers

Tabulators can be mechanical... they may be using electronic tabulators but that doesn't necessarily need to be the case. The interface between scanner and tabulator ought to be audited routinely where these things are in use.

[Bill Bored]

44. NY has mechanical tabulators now. They are called lever machines.

And some of the so-called "verified voting" crowd can't wait to get rid of them. They prefer the theory of being able to get a fair recount, to the reality of how difficult that might be based on things like election laws, chain of custody problems, etc.

[mac2]

22. Hand counting is cheaper and more accurate than

computers. Many developed countries have all their votes counted in days. Ours take longer.

Computer programming is easy not complicated to just count and add the sum. Why keep the programs secret? Stealing the vote and switching to the other party is more complicated is it not?

[BigDaddy44]

40. If hand counting is cheaper and more accurate than computers....

How come banks rely on electronic counters for large sums of money instead of hiring people to do it? I am not a luddite. Yes, computers can be hacked, but with some routine analysis, they can be checked and verified. Guess what, people can intentionally count wrong also.

[Bill Bored]

45. You ask, "How come banks rely on electronic counters?"

Because those are not anonymous transactions. People can complain when they are shortchanged, and so can banks. Not so with secret ballots. This can easily be exploited.

[LiberalFighter]

11. The cons with counting paper ballots by hand

consider that each ballot has how many races? It would increase the odds of the votes not being tallied correctly.

If there is only one or two races on the ballot then it would be simple.

The old machines might be better.

[aquart]

6. I want my levers. Nothing wrong with my levers.

Bastards are taking my levers.

[snot]

8. Congratulations!!!

[Wilms]

12. Bo sold out the levers. HAVA doesn't require replacing them.

Look. It's wonderful to see DREs kicked to the curb (a national trend, BTW). Bo Lipari worked his tail off to warn the world against getting involved with DREs. But did he really have to advocate tossing levers and IN FACT argue to have New Yorker's votes counted by computer?

Awful.

HAVA doesn't require replacing levers. Read the law!


Why doesn't Bo Lipari get a job selling Optical Scan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=495422&mesg_id=495422

[sabbat hunter]

30. I love the levers

but they are prone to breakdown and are very old.

[Wilms]

32. Get new ones.

You think Optical Scans aren't prone to breakdowns and age?

Do you really need to review Bo Lipari's talking points??

[sabbat hunter]

34. does anyone

still make the lever machines?

[Wilms]

38. Probably not.

Watch what happens for a state to put out a bid.

[kster]

13. Optical scanners are the same as a "get away car"

they not only count our ballots in secret, they lock up our ballots and get them out of our precincts, RIGHT BEFORE OUR VERY EYES!

Mom always said (hand) count your change before you leave the store or bankers want you to (hand) count your money before you leave the window.

But yet, we don't see a need to (hand) count our ballots before they leave our precincts.

K&R...

[mac2]

15. It is voting fraud right in front of our eyes.

[sabbat hunter]

17. when the votes are tabulated

under any voting scheme, it is done in "private" albeit with poll watchers from the democratic and republican party present to make sure there is no hanky panky being done.

What more do you want?

[mac2]

23. Standards and exit polls to make sure the vote makes

sense.

[Wilms]

25. Your statement doesn't actually square with reality.

If poll watchers are there, it isn't private.

And if a machine is mis-programmed, people standing over it is unlikely to accomplish much.

Hanky-panky? :shrug:

[sabbat hunter]

26. by private

I mean that it isnt open to the general public.

relying on a hand count as your primary vote count is not an accurate way of going.

[Wilms]

27. We already addressed the accuracy issue.

Believe what you like and stand over an Optical Scanner while it's tabulating and tell me with a straight face if you can tell if it's been programmed correctly.

Better, tell your college Logic professor.

Are you an NYVVer??

[sabbat hunter]

29. are you saying

a hand count would be more accurate?

and yes if there is a computer screen you can tell if the machine is tabulating correctly by test feeding a few ballots and checking the totals.

[Wilms]

33. You're new to all this?

It's already been shown that the machine can be hacked in a way to pass L&A testing then miscount the election.

I said before that accuracy of the outcome is more important than accuracy of the count. That's what I'm saying. That's most important. Even if you don't agree, I hope you could understand that's what I'm sayin'.

[sabbat hunter]

35. without an accurate count

you may not get an accurate outcome, especially in a close race.

[Wilms]

39. For a really, really, close one. Yes.

That's what a recount is for.

[Bill Bored]

46. You didn't address Wilms' point about rigging L&A tests (not to mention vote counts).

See this stuff from our neighboring state of CT:
http://voter.engr.uconn.edu/voter/Reports.html

[eppur_se_muova]

14. Is McThuselah doing his version of Phil Hartmann's Frankenstein monster in your sig?

I can just imagine him bellowing out "Fire bad!".