BBV: League of Women Voters chapter responds

[creativelcro]

Here is what the LWV said about what I sent them a while back. The link they cite has very little on DREs. I am not sure I understand how they are organized, but it seems like they are saying that at the national level the LWV could endorse a position that is against what all the local chapters want... Almost feel like they are saying that since I'm not paying membership fees I cannot be taken seriously... There is no way in hell I'm giving them money (don't get me wrong, I'm all for women causes)... -CV

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dear Dr. xx:

Your email was referred to me by the LWV of Massachusetts office staff. I have forwarded your publication to Jeanette Senecal at the LWVUS office, as she is the national League staff person following the voting machines issue. I have also shared your paper with board members of LWV of Massachusetts who are involved with election issues. Thank you for sending it to us.

Regarding your question, each level of the League (local, state and national), by action of its board of directors, makes decisions about how it will interpret its positions on issues and whether and how it will take action in support of those positions. State and local Leagues are thoroughly involved in the process of studying national issues and advising LWVUS on what new national positions should be adopted, but once a national position is established, the LWVUS board bears the responsibility of interpreting it as new circumstances present themselves. The LWV of the United States, therefore, did not consult formally with the LWV of Massachusetts or the LWV of Boston in connection with the issue of paper verification for electronic voting machines, though it is possible that informal dialogue may have occurred.

Though I'm sure you are following this issue on the LWVUS website, I want to make sure you have seen the latest LeaguE-Voice Newsletter, which contains the following item and link:

>WHAT DOES THE LEAGUE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ELECTRONIC VOTING?

>You can read the League's position as well as other expert opinions on Direct Recording >Electronic (DRE) Voting Systems at: >http://www.lwv.org/join/elections/hava_resources.html

Thank you for your interest in this important issue. I understand from our state League office staff that you are not a member of the League of Women Voters, and I would like to invite you to consider joining us. For more information about the League and about joining, please visit our website, www.lwvma.org, where you can request membership information or sign up and ask to be billed for dues. If you are interested in joining the LWV of Boston, please contact the LWVM office (617-523-2999 or [e-mail]) and ask them to have the LWV of Boston contact you about membership.

Again, thank you for contacting us, Dr. xx. We appreciate your interest and would be delighted if you choose to become a League member.

Best regards,

Erin

Erin S. Pastuszenski
LWVM Membership & Training VP
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
508-359-8064
fax: [phone]
Your email:

From: xx
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 4:10 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Where you stand on paper ballots.



Hello, I realized a few days ago that the official position of the
League regarding electronic voting machines and paper ballots
is based on wrong information. I am told that the national board
never consulted the local chapters on this issue. I would like
to know if the Boston chapter was ever consulted. I have a thourough
document written by an expert in the field, rebutting the points
made by the League regarding this issue.I include it, hoping you
will find the time to read it and distribute it. This is a serious issue,
and I believe the League is being seriously misled by voting machine vendors
on this issue. I have no conflict of interest in all this, I'm not in the
election business and don't hold any public position. I can provide you
with additional information if you like.Thank you very much!

[papau]

1. What Bull : LWV "does support an individual audit capacity for ..recounts"

http://www.lwv.org/join/elections/hava_dre.html Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting Machines and HAVA Implementation
The possibility of election fraud resulting from the use of DRE voting machines has been a topic of discussion as part of the implementation of the new Help America Vote Act. In an effort to address the concerns that have arisen, the League has considered opinions from all sides of the debate. It has been suggested that DRE machines are inherently subject to fraud unless there is an individual paper record of each vote. This seems extreme. DREs are extremely sophisticated machines and most DREs store information in multiple formats and in multiple places within its program. To tamper with a DRE someone would need to know each and every format and storage capacity and be able to manipulate it undetected. Additionally, it must be remembered that DREs are not an election system unto themselves; they are simply an instrument within a complex election system. The key is to design an overall system that builds in multiple checks making it improbable that the system will be tampered with.


The LWVUS does support an individual audit capacity for the purposes of recounts and authentication of elections for all voting systems, including, but not limited to, DREs. The LWVUS does not believe that an individual paper confirmation for each ballot is required to achieve those goals; in fact this is unnecessary and can be counterproductive. An individual paper confirmation for each ballot would undermine disability access requirements, raise costs, and slow down the purchase or lease of machines that might be needed to replace machines that don't work. Simply because a voter verifies their vote on a piece of paper does not guarantee the same results have been be recorded within the machine and vice versa. And why would we assume that, if the total from a paper count and the total from a machine count are different, the paper count is accurate? Is it not just as easy to tamper with an election by "losing" a couple of paper ballots or miscounting them during a recount? And what about the number of ballots involved? In Florida, in the 2000 presidential election, nearly 6 million votes were cast. Do we really believe that recounting that many paper ballots is more accurate than using certified electronic equipment?


http://www.lwv.org/join/elections/hava_dre_shamos.html
DRE Statement by Michael Shamos PhD, JD, Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Co-Director, Institute for eCommerce. Computer Expert Opposed to "Voter-Verifiable" Paper Ballot


http://www.dbm.maryland.gov/dbm_search/technology/toc_voting_system_report/votingsystemreportfinal.pdf
Risk Assessment Report: Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting System and Processes...Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), an independent IT firm with an international reputation and strength in IT security, was commissioned by Maryland Governor Ehrlich Jr. to provide Maryland with an independent security analysis of Maryland's DRE voting system. SAIC's findings and recommendations support the League's position that DREs can be part of a secure voting system without a voter verified individual ballot paper trail

[papau]

2. I wish they would explain how one does a recount w/o a paper trail

:-(

[eridani]

3. That's easy

Just have it print out the wrong result again.

[Eric J in MN]

4. yes, there can't be a meaningful recount without a paper trail

They say the results are stored in mulitple formats, but if the original
ballot is counted incorrectly, it will show up incorrectly in multiple formats.

[BevHarris]

5. Real progress is being made on this.

Here in Washington State, the local chapters are certainly not cowing to national position, and the national office has said they will rethink their position.

Bev

[creativelcro]

6. Is that an official position ?

I mean, did they say so in writing, somewhere ? Thanks! -CV

"and the national office has said they will rethink their position."

[BevHarris]

7. Have to check my source on this --

Gosh, where was that. One person who would know is RedEagle. I think this was at a public meeting, probably very weak sourcing then; I think one of the participants was the source on this. RedEagle was at that meeting.

Probably shouldn't have posted with such weak sourcing, but I am sure something is afoot. Common Cause is definitely rethinking -- also nothing in writing, but I've been getting calls from them.

Bev

[creativelcro]

8. ok, thanks bev :)

Good that there seems to be some internal change in their position.
Perhaps, while they make up their mind, they should take down that silly web page on why they are so in favor of DREs without voter verified ballots. -CV

>>
Gosh, where was that. One person who would know is RedEagle. I think this was at a public meeting, probably very weak sourcing then; I think one of the participants was the source on this. RedEagle was at that meeting.

Probably shouldn't have posted with such weak sourcing, but I am sure something is afoot. Common Cause is definitely rethinking -- also nothing in writing, but I've been getting calls from them.

Bev
>>