On "Returning to Paper Ballots".

[Wilms]

A lot of the "local paper" articles posted on the Daily Thread, and on the John Gideon/bradblog Daily Voting News, chronicling the unfolding "Train Wreck", often mention the "return to paper ballots" when reporting counties that won't be able to use the DREaded DRE, as had been planned.

And I feel GREAT! Down With Diebold! Down With ES&S! Down With Sequoia! (And don't forget Danaher, Hart/Intercivic, Liberty Election Systems, and Unisyn Voting Solutions, among others.)

My mind wanders down one of Norman Rockwell's streets on a cool moon-lit evening. There's a polling place there. And there's a flag pole from which the Stars and Stripes had waved before being lowered at sunset by the local Girl Scout Troop. Now, tethered to the pole, a dog (ok, my dog) is waiting patiently, yet excitedly, for his buddy. Inside, party officials stare over the shoulder's of poll workers, who, like Santa and good craftsmen, are checking twice. Excited onlookers clutch themselves and one another, daring only hushed exclamations. Except for the reporter. He has the same expression on his face as the party officials...

BUT WAIT! Oh NO!

("Poof" sound effect as thought bubble dissipates, and Drum and Bugle Corp music fades...abruptly.)

There's no Hand Counting being done! It's Optical Scan!

And THERE IS NO AUDITING!!!

An OpScan election without rigorous auditing ain't worth the paper the ballot was printed on.

[rumpel]

1. Exactly. Tabulators are thy enemy. n/t

[kster]

2. Oh the memories

Glass globe ballot jar
Like the slot-top wooden ballot box, this 1884 box with a glass chamber is typical of the devices used to secure single party tickets. The image of the glass ballot box became a symbol of democratic self-government.

[riqster]

14. The demon is named 'privatization'

By outsourcing a critical governmental function, the Repugs abdicated their responsibilities and handed large amounts of cash to their buds. The ability to control the outcome of the elections was the payoff for the elephants.

We need laws mandating governmental control of elections and making it easy to verify counts.

[autorank]

3. You're right. There are other complications too. Recount laws, for ...

...example. You need to be with in a certain percentage of your opponent to request a recount. Each state is different. We had one here in Virginia, 200,000 optical scan ballots were part of the mix. The recount judges didn't allow them to be hand counted. How crazy is that.

We're screwed. Citizens are incidental to politicians and we're a nuisance to bureaucrats even though we pay their salaries. In order to get anything, we need a voice which is difficult absent publicity and a single, not one single, leading politician who even understands the issues.

We have a right to know that our votes are taken and counted and we have a right to observe the process and examine the ballots after the fact. We also must demand that all citizens be allowed to vote, period. No more nonsense about ex felons or voter ID cards. Just let people vote and let them know that the votes counted.

btw, Tell the people the truth. That is you. Nice hair cut;)

[neoblues]

4. Step One: Deny

Deny there's any need for a paper trail...
Step Two: Pretend to address the problem (while retaining full falsification capabilities)
Step Three: Proclaim loudly "Mission Accomplished" (non-issue "fixed" to satisfy the paranoid fringe)
Step Four: Further belittle the "Paranoid Fringe" for not being satisfied--despite getting exactly what they asked for, paper ballots.

Oh, and relatedly, did I hear (a rumor?) aright? Somewhere, I read that next time we wouldn't even have the traditional "Exit Polling"?

That's because? Their thinking: Exit Polling was such a waste of time last time--having produced "false" numbers apparently indicating Bush (Our Savior)(sure) was actually in danger of losing (gasp) for part of the day (at least until the adjustment (Holy Intervention) later in the evening when the numbers were brought back (fudged) in line with sanity (insanity)). Worse yet, some damned Democratic troublemakers actually captured the data prior to the "perfectly reasonable" late evening come-back (inexplicable upward manipulation) of the tallies--which just fed their paranoia. (Now, whether it was the strange increase in Bush's numbers in the evening, or it was the difference in the actual exit polling data from that which was published--which had been adjusted to match the outcomes, whatever--it showed some tricks were being played). No sir, we cannot allow for any such data collection--data that could cast doubt upon the absolutely sure, certain, totally trustworthy, beyond questioning tallies provied by the Electronic Voting OR Electronic Counting Machines--to cause problems yet again in the next election!

What scared me was that I'd read (if I understood it right) where even Jimmy Carter had voted (in some organization's meeting to discuss vote fraud and fixing the problems) to actually keep the Exit Polling Data Secret. Ouch, how then would we know when "readjustments" have been made to make the Exit Polling Data match the Final Outcome? If J.C. himself would suffer such flawed thinking or be an agent supporting the ability to coverup improper exit polling data changes... what's the world coming to? I hope I just misunderstood what I read (though, it was the opinion of whoever reported that fact that it was a troubling development too).

If anything, we need an entire, formal, independent secondary voting system... where every person votes twice... and when the final results from the two independent voting systems diverge by too much--either a recount or a second election day is called for that area (yes, that does mean more than twice the cost--double gets the second system, more than double provides for handling a rapid second election)(of course this is fantasy)

All in all, it seems we must go back to the most basic voting system--with enough security/auditing to cover every counting effort.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. naw, looks like they're polling

Yes, you read somewhere that there won't be exit polling -- it appeared on Mark Crispin Miller's blog -- but the NEP says that there will be exit polling. I assume the NEP would know.

The Carter-Baker Commission recommended that exit poll data shouldn't be released "until elections have been decided" -- not that they shouldn't be released at all. I think that CNN handled it right by posting the preliminary tabulations as soon as the polls closed, although it would've been better if they had posted more information about why the results weren't robust. CNN and all the others are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Since most survey researchers don't think the exit polls provide strong evidence of fraud, and some other people do, it was pretty much inevitable that the pollsters and media would end up being accused of a cover-up. I mostly blame the people who just made stuff up about exit poll accuracy.

[neoblues]

7. Thanks for Clarifying

So are you saying that you conclude there was no fraud, preliminary tabulations we're simply misleading so other sources didn't actually cover anything up and exit polls aren't necessarily very accurate? Are you also saying that the Carter-Baker Commission's recommendation doesn't make it simple for a cover-up to occur (since there weren't any coverups anyway, no independent real time analysis is needed)?

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. I need to break this down

"no fraud" -- probably there was fraud (it is a big country), but (1) I don't think it was decisive, and (2) I don't think the exit polls measure it.

"preliminary tabulations were simply misleading" -- well, if people thought they showed that Kerry would win Ohio, then they were misleading; the Ohio result was inconclusive even if we assume no bias in the poll, which is presumably why no one called Ohio for Kerry.

"so other sources didn't actually cover anything up" -- not sure what you mean by this. I'm sure someone covered up something, but I don't think the exit poll discrepancy was covered up. That strikes me as largely an urban legend rooted in failure to understand how the election night projections work. (I can say more about this, as I have in the past.)

"exit polls aren't necessarily very accurate" -- this is just true. There is a pretty large literature documenting various ways that exit polls can go wrong, and the 1992 discrepancy was almost as large as the 2004 discrepancy. (I suppose that could prove massive fraud in 1992, but then, how do we "know" that exit polls are accurate in the first place?)

the Carter-Baker Commission's recommendation -- well, first of all, I don't agree with the recommendation as I understand it. As I said, I thought it was appropriate to post the tabulations immediately after the polls closed, no matter what false conclusions people may have drawn from them. As for "real time analysis," again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Your question seems to presuppose that the exit polls are by far the best evidence of fraud, but survey analysts just aren't likely to accept that a 48/51 exit poll in a 51/48 race proves anything, no matter how many people were interviewed. Apparently, "real time analysis" would have suggested that fraud was heaviest in Vermont and Delaware.

[neoblues]

10. Okay, that helps.

"other sources" covering up... refers simply to networks or pollsters improperly changing their data and covering it up by attempting to remove the prior data. Worded awkwardly to match your phrasing about one network handling it well, while others... wherein "sources" meant those others. No need to attempt to clarify this further--it's already muddled enough I scarcely know what I'm talking about--and you answered the point with: "I don't think the exit poll discrepancy was covered up".

Exit polls could hardly be absolutely accurate as they're just a sampling and the selection process is not well controlled or randomized. Obviously, I can't claim even a good knowledge of the process, but my opinion, formed by reading a few articles from what seemed to be valid sources was to the effect that they should have been a bit more accurate than they were. Even so, I'm sure it wasn't decisive enough to "prove" (a rather strong word) more than a suggestion of potential fraud. I don't have enough of a knowledge of how the exit-polls are tallied and feed into election night projections to speak to it, but it was pointed out sometime after the fact that the actual collected data counts were in the days following the election in order to make them in some way match the actual vote counts; It was suggested that such was rather devious--for all I know it's standard operating procedure. Still, that's one of the reasons people have been concerned about a 'cover-up' of fudged exit poll results. Unless it is reported what the data was and what changes are made after the fact, it does seem rather suspicious since who would even know what the actual exit polls even were.

As for the Carter-Baker recommendation, it concerned me and those whose concerns I was reading in that it would allow those in possession of the exit polling data to do whatever they wanted with it, including change it, before releasing it--thereby hiding any such changes. "Real-time" analysis was just an example of poor wording--and was meant to refer to timely analysis--as in primarily requiring that people would have access to the data as it was collected (for trend analysis throughout the day) and certainly be in full possession of it as reported at the end of the day (and before those who might want to alter it would even know by how much to alter it). Even so, I grant that it's not necessarily the best evidence for fraud whatever happens, but surely it is a helpful peice of information.

While I'm not sufficiently informed to make my own estimation of the level of fraud that occurred, I have read numerous articles and presentations that certainly seemed to make reasonable, educated calculations to arrive at the conclusion that fraud indeed did occur over considerably large areas and of sufficient magnitude that it could actually have been decisive in such a tight race. I'm certainly not in a position to argue one way or the other, but my suspicions have been highly aroused. There seem to be an inordinately large number of questionable but unexplained events. In any case, I want an electoral process that can relatively decisively put such suspicions to rest. Curiously, the very fact that there is such seemingly organized efforts to prevent even the production of a paper trail seems to suggest someone wants to be able to hide and prevent proof of fraud if it did ever occur. Since I do not trust that significant fraud didn't alter the results of 2004, I seriously want some system of verification in place before November. Alas, the world doesn't seem particularly concerned with my wants (go figure).

[BeFree]

11. Good points, neoblues

What I've just read - the discussion between you and otoh, leads me to say this:

The one piece of possible evidence that the election was NOT stolen is the final exit-poll. But, as you have read, the exit-polls are not favored by otoh, or as he says - other researchers. Does it not strike you as rather odd that, one the one hand, a $10 million dollar exit-poll was requested by the media, and on the other hand $10 million exit-polls are claimed to be useless?

The phrase "Speaketh with a forked tongue" comes to mind, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. who claimed that? citation, please n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. ok

The way the exit poll projections work (basically) is: the pollsters start with a pre-election estimate and with exit poll interviews. When the polls close, the pollsters figure a projection based on the interviews (not just raw percentages -- the interviews are compared against results from past races, and some other subtle stuff happens) AND the pre-election estimate. That shows up in the Edison/Mitofsky evaluation report as the "Call 3 Composite Estimator." The pollsters also calculate tabulations based on those projections, which is what appeared on CNN.com.

Then, as election results come in, the pollsters update their projections based on the results. Every so often, they also update the tabulations. In theory, adjusting the tabulations to the official results should make everything more accurate. Of course this would not work very well if the official results were wrong. But whether the official results were right or wrong, the point of adjusting the tabulations wasn't to cover up the discrepancy. It is indeed standard operating procedure.

I think probably everyone would agree that the exit polls should have been more accurate than they were -- they were way outside the range of random sampling error. As far as I can tell, most people familiar with surveys assumed that the problem was with the polls rather than the count. But it was always possible that the problem was with the count. (Or both, of course.)

Exit poll interview data has been released and archived for exit polls back at least as far as 1972. These data can be hard to interpret, because as I said above, the projections aren't just based on raw percentages in the returns. (For instance, if the precinct sample oversamples heavily Democratic precincts, that should not throw off the projections -- because they compare to past races -- but it could throw off the percentages.) But you can download the 2004 data right now and verify that sure enough, most of the respondents said they voted for Kerry. Certainly nothing in the Carter-Baker proposal would be likely to change that. I would like to see more openness, not less.

Some weird things happened in 2004, and some bad things happened. And no matter what happened in 2004, verifiable elections make sense, don't they? There are actually some decent reasons, in the abstract, for thinking that a paper trail isn't all that great -- but really existing paperless DREs are downright awful.

[Peace Patriot]

5. OK, but we've got to tell people what to do NOW--this year!

That's how they do it in Canada--paper ballots hand-counted at the precinct level. And they do the count in less than a day, usually--although speed should not even be a consideration, only accuracy and verifiability.

And in Germany, they have that old-fashioned glass jar. Everybody watches the ballots go in; everybody watches the ballots come out. Their exit polls are clean (not controlled by corporate news monopolies), and are used to verify elections and check for fraud. (Transparent elections are a no-brainer, really. So...why do we not have them???!!!)

BUT, we now have a wholly transformed and wholly corrupt, NON-TRANSPARENT, UNVERIFIABLE election system, almost everywhere in this country, and furthermore, we have the private Bushite corporations which control it hanging onto their power with tooth and claw.

So, what do we do NOW--this year? Here are my suggestions...

1. Think long term. Closely monitor the coming elections, watch everything they do (that is watchable), gather evidence, document it, get ready for challenges and lawsuits, and for presenting evidence later in battles against the machines. See activist web sites below.

2. Demand that the Democratic Party fund INDEPENDENT EXIT POLLS in every Congressional election (and I'd like to see them in the primaries, too). Badly needed. Exit polls are the best tool for verifying elections. They are used worldwide for this purpose. The war profiteering corporate news monopoly exit polls cannot be trusted. And the Dem Party owes us this--for their failure of vigilance and corruption on election integrity. (See exit poll analysis, below.)

3. Go for whatever paper ballot you can get. For instance, urge people to request absentee ballots. Absentee ballots are not the total answer, by any means, but they, a) provide a tangible record of the vote for challenges/recounts (and were very helpful to investigators in 2004); and b) are a form of protest against the machines!--and if enough people do it, the machines will be obsolete, and then we can work on getting rid of the central tabulators. (See below, "MythBreakers" - www.votersunite.org.)

4. Engage the public in this fight for our democracy. Bumper sticker: "Help Us Beat the Machines--VOTE!" The American people NEED TO KNOW! Don't lie to them! Tell them the truth! They will be so relieved that the country didn't go batshit crazy in '04--that we're just suffering from rigged elections. It will confirm what they know in their gut. And it may well be possible to beat the machines with big turnouts (--the evidence is that they have to be pre-programmed, and the programning is not so easy to change on election day, so if they underestimate the turnout and the anti-Bushite vote, we can beat them with sheer numbers).

5. Support good Sec of State candidates. Two listed below: Debra Bowen in Calif, and John Bonifaz in Mass. SEND DONATIONS! This is where the fight is going to be won or lost--in who we put into office to oversee elections. Our support right now is critically important. Spread the word!

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

SOME RESOURCES FOR AMERICAN REVOLUTION II:

Hopeful signs - latest news:

TODAY: New York Times: "New Fears of Security Risks in Electronic Voting Systems" (5/12/06)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2278829

California voters sue the state over Diebold:
www.VoterAction.org is suing the state of California and 18 Calif county registrars on behalf of 25 California voter/plaintiffs, on the illegal Diebold "certification" by Schwarzenegger appointee Bruce McPherson.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2180496
Seven of these counties just promised the judge they would use PAPER BALLOTS, and were dismissed from this lawsuit (4/27/06).
http://kcbs.com/pages/29285.php
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2249205

Maryland rejects Diebold:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x418263

Florida - anti-trust accusations against Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia, re: heroic Florida election official Ion Sancho:
(FLA AG subpoenas the companies)
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,110192,00.html
http://www.tbo.com/news/politics/MGBKSY8W8LE.html
(info & discussion)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2183630

Utah county clerk fights back!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x419226

-----

More resources for American Revolution II:

www.votersunite.org (MythBreakers - easy primer on electronic voting--one of the myths is that HAVA requires electronic voting; it does not.)
www.UScountvotes.org (statistical monitoring of '06 and '08 elections--they need donations)


(Activist sites with links to state activist groups or info)
www.votetrustusa.org (news of this great movement from around the country)
www.votersunited.org (good general info, and state links)
www.verifiedvoting.org (great activist site)
www.solarbus.org/election/index.shtml (fab compendium of all election info)

www.freepress.org (devoted to election reform)
www.bradblog.com (also great, and devoted to election reform)
www.TruthIsAll.net (analysis of the 2004 election)* :patriot: :applause: :patriot:
www.votepa.us (well-organized local group of citizen activists in Pennsylvania, where important legal issues are at stake, including state's rights over election systems)
Provisions of the PA lawsuit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x423739

The Voter Confidence Resolution
http://tinyurl.com/rlnr2 (“We Do Not Consent”)
http://guvwurld.blogspot.com (GuvWurld blog main page)
http://tinyurl.com/amryg (Voter Confidence Resolution

www.debrabowen.com (Calif Senator running for Sec of State to reform election system)
www.johnbonifaz.com (running for Massachusetts Sec of State on strong election reform and antiwar platform)

*Some tributes to TruthIsAll, who is very ill:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x417007
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x417231
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x675477

Congressional bills:

Russ Holt's HR 550 requires a real paper ballot, bans secret software in "voting machines", and has more than 170 co-sponsors, but the audit required is too weak, it promotes electronic voting and centralized power, and the secret software might be permitted to continue in the central tabulators (the bill is not clear). To sign the HR 550 petition: http://www.rushholt.com/petition.html
At lot of discussion at DU of the loopholes/pitfalls in HR 550:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x422926
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x421136
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=422967&mesg_id=422967
(Note: Senate Bill-SB 330 and House-HR704 simply require a "voter verified paper audit trail" (VVPAT), which may be best for the moment.)


Also of interest:

Michael Collins (Autorank)'s searing election reform article for New Zealand's Scoop.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x971363

Bob Koehler (-- four recent election reform initiatives in Ohio, predicted to win by 60/40 votes, flipped over, on election day, into 60/40 LOSSES!--the biggest flipover we've seen yet; the election theft machines and their masters are now dictating election policy! Title: "Poll Shock" 11/24/05)
http://commonwonders.com/archives/col321.htm

Bob Koehler's latest: "Trust us: Take this box and stuff it" (3/16/06)
http://commonwonders.com/archives/col337.htm
More Koehler:
www.tmsfeatures.com/tmsfeatures/subcategory.jsp?file=20051124ctnbk-a.txt&catid=1824&code=ctnbk

Amaryllis (Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia lavish lobbying of election officials - Beverly Hilton, Aug. '05)
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

HOWARD DEAN remarks on electronic voting machines 04/06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x994507

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

Throw Diebold, ES&S and ALL election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

:think: :patriot: :woohoo: :patriot: :think:

-----------

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." --Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

[rumpel]

17. In Los Angeles, absentee ballots are excluded from random sampling

recounts, according to McCormack as I recall.

We will use Inka Vote, again, but tabulation is "invisible". She will also not allow access to the room where the "main" machine resides. While I agree, it would be silly watching a computer's exterior...

[ginnyinWI]

9. Vote-By-Mail

This is the best option. The ballots are paper and there can be no voter suppression on election day. We'd get higher turnouts. Oregon is doing it, Washington will be at 100% soon, and California is starting the transition process. This is a movement coming up from the grassroots--the more the people know about it, the more they want it. Local governments want it because it saves them tons of money. It's win-win. Not 100% foolproof (nothing is) but it goes a long long way toward fair voting.

see this article: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11419

[Febble]

15. Comment from David Mills

Wilms is partly right in that if only optiscans count paper ballots we are not much better off if there never is any hand counting of the ballots.

But I would argue that paper ballots give us a true election contest -- one where, if necessary, the ballots can be subpoenaed to court, marked as exhibits, and given to the JURY to count for a very true valid election contest. This is an election contest that actually can declare a winner rather than just creating enough doubt to require a new election.

The threat of this kind of simple, cheap, quick and highly effective lawsuit will do a lot to discourage fraud. That is the real problem now. With paperless systems the fraudsters know they probably can not be easily caught. If you want to deter fraud, deter recklessness, or deter simple negligence, you have to have easy and effective access to the legal resolution.

So I argue that we need to look at this process backwards -- from the end game, the election contest -- to the front game, the actual election process.

Make the election lawsuit simple, cheap , quick and highly effective and one that declares a winner, and not one where the only remedy is a new election, and this system will right itself.

They may also want to read my posts on my brief for further information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x427759

[Wilms]

16. Thanks David.

I'm glad you made those points.