National | CTVotersCount.org

Activists for hand-counting ballots don’t acknowledge drawbacks: More mistakes, time, and money

We have said it before, we will say it again: The best protection is machine counting in polling places on election night followed by sufficient post-election audits and recounts. <for example>

A recent article in Votebeat: Activists for hand-counting ballots don’t acknowledge drawbacks: More mistakes, time, and money

Years ago a minority of liberals wanted only hand-counts now its election-denying conservatives.

It seems that those who have never tried have opinions that are not informed by sufficient facts.

We have said it before, we will say it again: The best protection is machine counting in polling places on election night followed by sufficient post-election audits and recounts. <for example>

A recent article in Votebeat: Activists for hand-counting ballots don’t acknowledge drawbacks: More mistakes, time, and money <read>

Years ago a minority of liberals wanted only hand-counts now its election-denying conservatives. From the article:

Despite widespread coverage of the follies of hand-counting ballots, the quest to expand use of the method continues. This year alone, there have been 16 bills in 8 states that would ban the use of tabulators. It’s a really bad idea. And so, Votebeat has decided to compile a list of our favorite cold-hard evidence.

I’m sure many of you already understand the broad strokes of this: years of evidence and basic common sense shows that hand-counting is less accurate, more time consuming, and significantly more expensive than using tabulators. Still, the same arguments continue to motivate local officials and activists to attempt to upend elections systems. Let’s go through them here, point by point.

Contrary to the article, I assert that hand-counting can be quite accurate, yet it takes a lot to do that. A good plan with lots of double checking, high quality people, and high quality supervision. That is why when I led teams in the 25,000 ballot Citizen Recount of Bridgeport, I used teams of four supervised by a fifth person. Yet, even then for many of the counts we could compare to original machine counts of ballots and votes to further check everything and pursue any differences.

It seems that those who have never tried have opinions that are not informed by sufficient facts.

Editor’s Note: I have been publishing less lately. Mostly because, it seems, there is less novel to discuss.

Report: Security Analysis of the Dominion ImageCast X

Report released this week on vulnerabilities of the Dominion ImageCast, used for the vast majority of the votes in Georgia <Report>

The report was actually submitted to a court on July 1, 2021 – the court considered the information so dangerous to elections that is has largely been suppressed until now!

However in two years, Dominion has made several fixes, yet Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is in no hurry to update Georgia machines at least until after the 2024 election.

Note: After planning for a couple of months, I launched CTVoters Count in late 2007, Little did I know that the California Top To Bottom Review would be release at that time! Many are claiming that this report may rival the impact of that California report.

Report released this week on vulnerabilities of the Dominion ImageCast, used for the vast majority of the votes in Georgia <Report>

The report was actually submitted to a court on July 1, 2021 – the court considered the information so dangerous to elections that is has largely been suppressed until now!

However in two years, Dominion has made several fixes, yet Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is in no hurry to update Georgia machines at least until after the 2024 election.

You do not need to read the whole report. Better to start with a summary from the author, Prof. Alex Halderman. <Summary Report>

…we discovered vulnerabilities in nearly every part of the system that is exposed to potential attackers. The most critical problem we found is an arbitrary-code-execution vulnerability that can be exploited to spread malware from a county’s central election management system (EMS) to every BMD in the jurisdiction. This makes it possible to attack the BMDs at scale, over a wide area, without needing physical access to any of them…

The report was filed under seal on July 1, 2021 and remained confidential until today, but last year the Court allowed us to share it with CISA—the arm of DHS responsible for election infrastructure—through the agency’s coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD) program. CISA released a security advisory in June 2022 confirming the vulnerabilities, and Dominion subsequently created updated software in response to the problems. Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has been aware of our findings for nearly two years, but—astonishingly—he recently announced that the state will not install Dominion’s security update until after the 2024 Presidential election, giving would-be adversaries another 18 months to develop and execute attacks that exploit the known-vulnerable machines…

The right solution is Voter-Verified-Paper-Ballots and sufficient post-election audits, recounts, and sufficient ballot security. Then even with election systems subject to errors and fraud, election results can be verified and corrected.

Hand counting alone not the solution to election integrity

Some in Nevada want to eliminate machine counting altogether in elections. Not a good idea in our opinion, especially for the United States.

Editorial: The best solution, in our opinion, is machine counting followed by sufficient audits and in close votes full hand recounts. Why?…

Some in Nevada want to eliminate machine counting altogether in elections. Not a good idea in our opinion, especially for the United States. Recently they started on an experiment in Nevada, stopped by their Supreme Court, for good reason: <read>

The Nevada secretary of state’s office has ordered the hand counting of mail-in ballots in Nye County, Nevada to stop, after the state Supreme Court said the method violates state law.

In a letter sent Thursday night, Nevada’s deputy secretary for elections Mark Wlaschin told Nye County’s interim clerk Mark Kampf that local officials “must cease immediately” counting ballots. The counting, he added, “may not resume until after the close of polls on November 8, 2022.”

In a statement Friday morning, Nye County spokesman Arnold Knightly indicated local officials still were looking for a way to resume the laborious task – a step they are pursuing as a precursor to potentially ditching voting machines in future elections.

Editorial: The best solution, in our opinion, is machine counting followed by sufficient audits and in close votes full hand recounts. Why?

Hand counting is error prone. It can be accurate, but accurate counting and totaling across batches, teams, polling places and jurisdiction it just as hard as counting a batch of ballots accurately.
Hand counting is time consuming, especially in the U.S. where we have huge ballots with many votes to be counted. It can take many days and hours to count our huge ballots. This adds to how error prone the process can be. We also want the results right away, on election night or shortly thereafter.
Are we really ready to pay the price? And end up with just as risky a process? I think not.

But if some insist, then count originally by machine followed soon after by full hand counts. Then batch by batch the hand counts can be matched to machine counts and original hand counts of ballots that could not be counted by machine. Then compare batch totals to the machine totals. And when they do not match, hand count again until the results can be reconciled to determine which count is accurate.

Warning!

Reminder: Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) beyond redemption

A new article by Andrew Appel reminds us: Magical thinking about Ballot-Marking-Device contingency plans .

The Center for Democracy and Technology recently published a report, “No Simple Answers: A Primer on Ballot Marking Device Security”, by William T. Adler. Overall, it’s well-informed, clearly presents the problems as of 2022, and it’s definitely worth reading. After explaining the issues and controversies, the report presents recommendations, most of which make a lot of sense, and indeed the states should act upon them. But there’s one key recommendation in which Dr. Adler tries to provide a simple answer, and unfortunately his answer invokes a bit of magical thinking…

This the magical thinking: “election officials should have a contingency plan.” The problem is, when you try to write down such a plan, there’s nothing that actually works! .

Fortunately Connecticut uses Hand Marked Paper Ballots except that it allows the IVS BMD to serve those with disabilities.

A new article by Andrew Appel reminds us: Magical thinking about Ballot-Marking-Device contingency plans <read>

The Center for Democracy and Technology recently published a report, “No Simple Answers: A Primer on Ballot Marking Device Security”, by William T. Adler. Overall, it’s well-informed, clearly presents the problems as of 2022, and it’s definitely worth reading. After explaining the issues and controversies, the report presents recommendations, most of which make a lot of sense, and indeed the states should act upon them. But there’s one key recommendation in which Dr. Adler tries to provide a simple answer, and unfortunately his answer invokes a bit of magical thinking. This seriously compromises the conclusions of his report. By asking but not answering the question of “what should an election official do if there are reports of BMDs printing wrong votes?”, Dr. Adler avoids having to make the inevitable conclusion that BMDs-for-all-voters is a hopelessly flawed, insecurable method of voting. Because the answer to that question is, unfortunately, there’s nothing that election officials could usefully do in that case…

This the magical thinking: “election officials should have a contingency plan.” The problem is, when you try to write down such a plan, there’s nothing that actually works! Suppose the election officials rely on voter reports (or on the rate of spoiled ballots); suppose the “contingency plan” says (for example) says “if x percent of the voters report malfunctioning BMDs, or y percent of voters spoil their ballots, then we will . . .” Then we will what? Remove those BMDs from service in the middle of the day? But then all the votes already cast on those BMDs will have been affected by the hack; that could be thousands of votes. Or what else? Discard all the paper ballots that were cast on those BMDs? Clearly you can’t do that without holding an entirely new election. And what if those x% or y% of voters were fraudulently reporting BMD malfunction or fraudulently spoiling their ballots to trigger the contingency plan? There’s no plan that actually works.

Fortunately Connecticut uses Hand Marked Paper Ballots except that it allows the IVS BMD to serve those with disabilities.

Next Up: Supreme Court may let legislatures decide the 2024 Presidential Election

The Supreme Court has taken a redistricting case for next year that could take the 2024 Presidential Election out of the hands of the voters and the the Governors and put them exclusively in the domain of the state legislatures. Tom Hartman has the best explanation I have seen: Beware: The Supreme Court Is Laying Groundwork to Pre-Rig the 2024 Election

This scenario isn’t just plausible: it’s probable. GOP-controlled states are already changing their state laws to allow for it, regardless of how their people vote…

This scenario isn’t just plausible: it’s probable. GOP-controlled states are already changing their state laws to allow for it, regardless of how their people vote…

It’s not particularly ambiguous, even as clarified by the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Neither mentions the will of the people, although the Electoral Count Act requires each state’s governor to certify the vote before passing it along to Washington, DC. And half of those states have Democratic governors.

Which brings us to the Supreme Court’s probable 2023 decision. As Robert Barnes wrote yesterday for The Washington Post:

‘The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider what would be a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats.’
While the main issue being debated in Moore v Harper, scheduled for a hearing this October, is a gerrymander that conflicts with North Carolina’s constitution, the issue at the core of the debate is what’s called the ‘Independent State Legislature Doctrine.’

It literally gives state legislatures the power to pre-rig or simply hand elections to the candidate of their choice.

Daughters (Sons and Elders) head Jonathan Simon’s advice to his Daughter.

Jonathan Simon, via WhoWhatWhy.org Letter to My Nonvoting Daughter:

“My daughter, 28, recently wrote in an email to me, “I’m so disappointed in how the world is right now, I don’t vote because of it.”

Here is my response to her.

Dear L_____,

A lecture is coming that you’ll probably feel you could live without. Nevertheless, I persist.

Reminiscent of our past post:

THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE YOUR VOTE WON’T COUNT – IS TO NOT VOTE.

Jonathan Simon, via WhoWhatWhy.org Letter to My Nonvoting Daughter:

“My daughter, 28, recently wrote in an email to me, “I’m so disappointed in how the world is right now, I don’t vote because of it.”

Here is my response to her.

Dear L_____,

A lecture is coming that you’ll probably feel you could live without. Nevertheless, I persist.

I don’t blame you for being disappointed, or worse. But when you’re disappointed and frustrated and angry with how the world is, that’s just the time to vote!

Now that may sound strange coming from someone who you know has challenged the honesty of our electoral process for 20 years.

If you wanted to organize a mass boycott of elections (or a mass consumer boycott or general strike, for that matter), perhaps I could support that. But that takes a lot of work. Simply not voting yourself takes no work — in fact, it saves time and energy. Great!

Just recognize, though, that what you’re doing, others like you are also doing — others who are, like you, “disappointed in how the world is.” (By the way, the world has always found ways to be disappointing.) So then who is left to change it?

And yes, one vote (or two or three) seems very tiny, not at all powerful or consequential. If you don’t vote, it won’t be missed — after all, how many elections are ever won by a single vote? Virtually none. And add to that your doubts about the count to boot! You can certainly make a logical case that it’s not worth your time.

But then, do you see, it’s not worth anybody’s time! And that’s the end of democracy…”

Reminiscent of our past post:

THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE YOUR VOTE WON’T COUNT – IS TO NOT VOTE.

Insiders are a great threat to elections

It is refreshing to see that main stream media is beginning to recognize the threat of insiders to elections. I agree that election officials are by and large of high integrity, however just like other officials a few are not. Insiders can have access to a wide range of election equipment, ballots, and other data that create and verify election results. A recent Associated Press article by Christia A. Cassidy points that out:

In a handful of states, authorities are investigating whether local officials directed or aided in suspected security breaches at their own election offices. At least some have expressed doubt about the 2020 presidential election, and information gleaned from the breaches has surfaced in conspiracy theories pushed by allies of former President Donald Trump.

Insiders are not just election officials, other insiders include town hall employees in the mail room and network/computer staff, janitors with access to storage areas and election offices; They include post office workers and various vendor personal with access to networks or to repair election equipment. Here are some examples from Connecticut and elsewhere:

In a handful of states, authorities are investigating whether local officials directed or aided in suspected security breaches at their own election offices. At least some have expressed doubt about the 2020 presidential election, and information gleaned from the breaches has surfaced in conspiracy theories pushed by allies of former President Donald Trump.

Adding to the concern is a wave of candidates for state and local election offices this year who parrot Trump’s false claims about his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

“Putting them in positions of authority over elections is akin to putting arsonists in charge of a fire department,” said Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat and former law school dean who serves as Michigan’s top elections official.

Here are some examples from Connecticut and elsewhere:

CO: Colorado clerk is indicted for election tampering and misconduct

CT: VotING fraud via Absentee, this time in Stamford

CT: Chain-Of-Custody Education In Haddam

CT: Sometimes it is just incompetence, insufficient laws and procedures:
Judge orders primary after Bloomfield Democrats sue their own party registrar over petition rejection

Dead Men Don’t Vote (New Podcast)

My friends at OSET (Open Source Election Technology just officially launched a new podcast yesterday: Dead Men Don’t vote. Its goal it to explain all that officials do under the covers to run our elections. The 1st episode, Do Dead People Actually Vote?, lived up to that goal. They packed a lot into 33 minutes. <link>

A provision of the Freedom to Vote Act reduces credibility, defying common sense

There is a lot that needs to be improved in our elections. The current bill before Senate and House, the Freedom to Vote Act, is well intended yet in at least one provision it actually makes elections less secure, less likely to provide public confidence. This is a change from previous bills H.R.1 and all version of S.1.

This new provision would prevent observers from within eight feet of ballots until after certification. That would make it impossible for observers to actually see that votes were counted and totaled accurately in audits and recounts (recanvasses in CT).

From page 298:

‘‘(1) I N GENERAL.—A person who is serving as a poll observer with respect to an election for Federal office may not come within 8 feet of
‘‘(A) a voter or ballot at a polling location
during any period of voting (including any period of early voting) in such election; or
‘‘(B) a ballot at any time during which the processing, scanning, tabulating, canvassing, or certifying voting results is occurring.

Like other provisions it is well intended but has unintended consequences. Observers need to be closer to observe ballots being adjudicated, votes determined and counted. Without public verifiability, justified confidence in elections is not possible. We have covered the details of this before in our editorial series: Common Sense, specifically Justified Confidence and Public Transparency and Verifiability.