Vermont's "audit" wil not be random. What do you think about this?

[garybeck]

From the office of the Secretary of State:

Concerning the post election audits of "tabulator" jurisdictions, they will
be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 17 VSA section
2493(a)(2). After this office sees what recount activity occurs, it will
select some polling places to deliver ballot bags to Montpelier for an audit
in accordance with the recount sections (2602e and h) of Title 17. Random
here is not read to mean the process of polling place selection for audit,
but that polling place selection for audit will not be known by the polling
place(s) in advance (prior to the election). When polling places have been
selected for audit this office will let any and all interested parties know
of the time and place of audits, as well as the audit results. And the
audits themselves will be conducted in as public a way as can be effectively
accomplished.

[Kip Humphrey]

1. So, the SoS will know ahead of time which precincts to audit and

therefore, which precincts to avoid when flipping votes!

Niiiice!

Makes stealing elections sooo much easier and safer.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. True

[garybeck]

3. well your assertion is theoretical, but the fact that it's possible is

what bothers me

whether or not you like the Brennan Report, it does state specifically that the audits have to be random to be effective.

I just don't understand why my Democratic Secretary of State is doing everything she can to subvert democracy and protect the private companies.

[aquart]

4. Ask her.

Then get someone to audit her.

[garybeck]

5. I have asked many questiions to their office. I get canned answers.

if you want to really hear how a democratic SoS can lie on the air, check this out:

from a radio interview:


Markowitz: What was really great about this (Brennan) study that came out is that it showed that Vermont's on track and that our procedures and the procedures we have in place are the recommended procedures and, so, we can feel really confident here; it was affirming.

VVI Commentary:
This is simply not true. Vermont does NOT have several of the recommendations of the Brennan Report in place. The very first recommendation of the Brennan Report is "CONDUCT AUTOMATIC ROUTINE AUDIT OF PAPER RECORDS." The audit that will be conducted this November is not automatic or routine. The audit is at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and she (or a future Secretary) could just as easily decide not to have an audit in the next election. As the report states, we need automatic audit procedure in place for every election. We call on our legislators to enact legislation to this effect, and for Deb Markowitz to support such legislation, which we do not currently have.

Another recommendation Vermont is not in compliance with is #5 which states "ENSURE DECENTRALIZED PROGRAMMING AND VOTING SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION." This refers to the fact that the greatest vulnerability exists when the election is set up by a small group of people at a single company. In Vermont this is a very real problem because all the memory cards for the optical scan machines are sent to one centralized location before each election, where they are programmed by a small number of people at a single company.

And recommendation #6 states "IMPLEMENT EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING EVIDENCE OF FRAUD OR ERROR." This refers to the importance of having guidelines and procedures in place ahead of time for if the random audit finds a "red flag." Vermonters for Voting Integrity has requested such information from the Secretary of State's office, concerning the procedures and guidelines of the audit. With 2 months to go before the election, the office has not released any details of the audit, what percentage will be counted, or what would happen if a discrepancy of the vote count is detected. Without specific guidelines in place ahead of time, it is possible a problem could be found but no corrective action be taken.

We feel it is misleading to say Vermont is in compliance with these recommendations because we simply are not.

full article and audio from interview:
http://www.solarbus.org/vtvoters/articles/060830.debmarkowitz.shtml

[Febble]

6. Random doesn't mean

"not known by the polling places(s) in advance (prior to the election)".

This is an abuse of language. "Unpredictible" is important. "Random" is no good if known in advance.

But the two things are quite different concepts. Audits need to be both random and unpredictable.

[garybeck]

7. yes, I replied to him and explained

it is not random in any way as he describes and they cannot use the word "random" to describe their audit.

I also reminded him that this is just one more example of how they are NOT in compliance with the Brennan recommendations, even though our SoS said on the radio that we are in compliance. That is an outright LIE. I'm still waiting for them to take the opportunity to clarify this statement and if they don't I'm going slam the media that she's lying to Vermonters about our system.

[sean in iowa]

8. The Brennan Center Report has weighed in on random selection

http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/downloads/Full%20Report.pdf

From page 89:

"Recommendation # 4:
Mandate Transparent and Random Selection Procedures.
The development of transparently random selection procedures for all auditing
procedures is key to audit effectiveness. This includes the selection of machines
to be parallel tested or audited, as well as the assignment of auditors themselves.
The use of a transparent and random selection process allows the public to know
that the auditing method was fair and substantially likely to catch fraud or mistakes
in the vote totals. In our interviews with election officials we found that, all
too often, the process for picking machines and auditors was neither transparent
nor random."

See also Appendix F of the report. Good examples of transparent random selection procedures.

As more states move toward audit requirements, the selection process is going to have to be legislatively defined to the maximum degree for the audits to be truly effective.

[Wilms]

9. Important Discussion

Thanks.

[Bill Bored]

10. How about posting the actual law to see if she's breaking it? nt

[garybeck]

13. the law he cites basically

it gives the SoS the authority to conduct an audit. It doesn't have any specifics. She says they've never done one before because they didn't have the authority. So they site that law when people ask them just about anything relating to the audit.

-gary

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. similar problem here, we did solve it

NC had a similar problem.

We had language requiring post election audits randomly selected.
WE didn't think of everything, and "assumed" that random meant the audit targets
would be selected after the election!

Well, the first audit - the SBOE had already picked 2 precincts for each county.
Agh.

We did find anomalies, though, so the audit had value.

Anyway, in some other pending election legislation, we were able
to insert improved audit language that specified that the election targets must
be selected after the initial election results or 24 hours later, and the targets
must be selected and announced at a public meeting.

Our SBOE was fine with the change once they understood why we wanted it.

[garybeck]

14. we don't even have mandatory audits. this one is voluntary.

it's becoming something of a joke.

[kster]

12. I'm not

surprised.............