National | CTVotersCount.org

Faith in Internet voting? Prepare for “ShellShock”!

Continuing with facts to put in front of those with blind faith in the Interned, a disease that attacks those with little knowledge of computers, data communications, and software.

Shellshock can be used to take over the entire machine. And Heartbleed went unnoticed for two years and affected an estimated 500,000 machines, but Shellshock was not discovered for 22 years.

New York Times: Security Experts Expect ‘Shellshock’ Software Bug in Bash to Be Significant <read>

Continuing with facts to put in front of those with blind faith in the Interned, a disease that attacks those with little knowledge of computers, data communications, and software.

From the article:

On Thursday, security experts warned that Bash contained a particularly alarming software bug that could be used to take control of hundreds of millions of machines around the world, potentially including Macintosh computers and smartphones that use the Android operating system.

The bug, named “Shellshock,” drew comparisons to the Heartbleed bug that was discovered in a crucial piece of software last spring.

But Shellshock could be a bigger threat. While Heartbleed could be used to do things like steal passwords from a server, Shellshock can be used to take over the entire machine. And Heartbleed went unnoticed for two years and affected an estimated 500,000 machines, but Shellshock was not discovered for 22 years.

That a flawed piece of code could go unnoticed for more than two decades could be surprising to many. But not to programmers.

A bit of good news, followed by more bad news:

Working with Mr. Ramey and people who work on open-source security, Mr. Chazelas had a patch within hours. Then they contacted major software makers while trying to avoid tipping off hackers.

An official alert from the National Institute of Standards and Technology warned that the vulnerability was a 10 out of 10, in terms of its severity, impact and exploitability, but low in terms of its complexity, meaning that it could be easily used by hackers.

Security researchers say that as soon as the bug was reported they detected widespread Internet scanning by so-called white hat hackers — most likely security researchers — as well as people thought to be cybercriminals. The worry is that it is only a matter of time before somebody writes a program that will use Shellshock to take them over.

That a flawed piece of code could go unnoticed for more than two decades could be surprising to many. But not to programmers…

“I don’t think this is an open-source problem,” Mr. Zemlin said. “Software is eating the world. The bad news is software is hard and complex.”

So to those who trust software, without knowledge, and lots of faith, please don’t apply your blind faith to elections effecting our democracy.

Two Reminders: Transparency and the Limits of All Paper Elections

This week we have had two demonstrations of themes we have discussed in theory at CTVotersCount.
From Connecticut, the importance of transparency.
From abroad the limits of paper only elections.

This week we have had two demonstrations of themes we have discussed in theory at CTVotersCount.

First from Connecticut, amid the sad tale of our past Governor, heading once again for food and shelter at the expense of the public: Jury Finds Rowland Guilty On All 7 Counts; Attorney Vows Appeal <read>

A reminder from the prosecutor:

Prosecutors called the verdict a victory for transparency and the electoral process. The jury agreed that Rowland conspired to do work on two Republican congressional campaigns and had pitched a scheme to keep his pay hidden from federal election regulators.

“It ought to be — no it has to be — that voters know that what they see is what they get. In this case, the defendant and others didn’t want that to happen,” Michael J. Gustafson, Criminal Division Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, told reporters.

We would add that transparency is insufficient. Somebody, like the public, has to use the transparency. And occasionally the system needs to assist in assuring transparency. As we have pointed out in theory: <Vote Audit Observe> <Public Transparency and Observability>

Second a reminder from Scotland, pointing to some of the same risks and the insufficiency of paper only counting. As we have discussed in theory:
Common Sense: Paper Ballots are Insufficient for Voting Integrity <read>

Take a look at this video alleging irregularities in the Scottish Independence vote:

We cannot vouch for the accuracy and know the actual implications of the allegations in the video. Perhaps some of the footage is rigged. Perhaps the incorrectly classified ballots and stacks were double checked and corrected. Yet the video reminds us of several theoretical questions and issues with paper only counting and elections:

It would be much more credible and provide higher confidence to have a machine publicly count and print results then followed by solid ballot custody and an audit or recount. To accomplish fraud or cover error then would be much harder, since the numbers have to at least come close to matching when machines are rigged ahead of time, and ballots must be changed in a corresponding way.
Paper counting demands double checking by multiple individuals, observed by opposing interests.
In addition, central counting of paper ballots requires strong ballot security from the polling place ballot box to the counting place.

In Connecticut we are fortunate to have paper ballots, recanvasses, and post-election audits. Unfortunately, we also have very weak, vulnerable ballot security, and a post-election audit that is weal in many regards, and far from adequately executed.

What is FVAP hiding? Whom if anyone are they assisting?

Electronic Privacy Information Center sues the Department of Defense to release Federal Voting Assistance Program test of Internet voting. <read>

We find it hard to believe the tests went well. What could possibly be the reason to withhold tests that could be used by states to learn about the risks and possibly any safe ways discovered to perform Internet voting?

Who would benefit by withholding such data? Internet voting vendors? Proponents of Internet voting? Those who would like to compromise elections or intimidate voters?

Electronic Privacy Information Center sues the Department of Defense to release Federal Voting Assistance Program test of Internet voting. <read>

Who would benefit by withholding such data? Internet voting vendors? Proponents of Internet voting? Those who would like to compromise elections or intimidate voters?

From the complaint:

PIC has constructively exhausted its administrative remedies. EPIC asks the Court to order prompt disclosure of all responsive records…

Computer scientists have long expressed concern about the reliability, security, and integrity of online voting. E-voting “not only entails serious security risks, but also requires voters to relinquish their right to a secret ballot…

n 2011 FVAP requested $39 m to study online voting. In the budget request to Congress, DOD wrote “Funds will complete the kiosk-based system testing eval uation of results, and support similar tests on remote PC-based systems…

Later in 2011 , the FVAP deputy director stated publicly “We also did voting system test laboratory testing against the UOCAVA pilot program testing requirements to give us an assessment moving forward and perhaps provide some additional context as to where we are when it comes to security and overall usability of these systems as we move forward
with standards to support the electronic voting demonstration project. And then lastly of the completed objectives so far we also did penetration testing on those same systems, the electronic voting support Wizard as well as those systems that originally are (unintelligible) for Internet voting.”

When asked if the tests of the online voting systems that the FVAP were funding would be made public, the FVAP deputy director responded, “Not publicly available as of yet but it will be publicly available.”…

On August 13, 2012, California Secretary of State Bowen wrote to FVAP and requested the results of its tests of the FVAP online ballot marking systems. Secretary Bowen wrote, “California and the state’s military and overseas voters that may use such a system would benefit from being able to examine the results of any testing of ballot marking wizards arranged, paid for, or conducted by FVAP.”…

EPIC, and many of its expert advisors, believe that it is absolutely critical for the documents sought in this matter be disclosed prior to further deployment of e-voting systems in the Unit ed States.

It should be obvious that California is not the only state starting with a “C” that could use that information. Perhaps you can think of such a state with a lot less resources than California, a state with a Legislature and Governor bent on Internet voting.

Read the complaint for more justification of releasing the report produced with taxpayer dollars and for more in the epic saga leading to EPIC’s complaint.

Revisited: What could a Secretary of the State Do?

Four years ago, we posted a list of actions that a Secretary of the State could do on his or her own to improve the election process. Lets revisit that list as the 2014 campaign begins in earnest.

**************

Much of what we hear from candidates is proposed cheerleading and leadership from the bully pulpit: the bills they would propose to the legislature, the leadership they would provide to improve the business climate, encourage voting, and voting integrity in Connecticut. Don’t get me wrong these are useful and legitimate roles for the Secretary of the State. However, there are items that the Secretary of the State can do on their own initiative to improve business registration, public access to information, and the election process.

When I talk to candidates for Secretary of the State, one of my main themes is what they could do on their own authority as Secretary of the State to improve election integrity and public confidence.

Here is my initial list of items from 2010:

Provide detailed, accurate, downloadable, election information and notices on the Secretary of the State’s web site, while increasing the integrity of the post-election audit. Create jobs, efficiency and election integrity in Connecticut by changing the way memory cards are programmed and tested

e.g Military and Overseas Voters (Added 4/4/2010)

Improve documentation and training for election officials, in substance and format

Provide written directives and responses to inquiries from election officials

We recognize that everything costs money, however, most of these items are relatively modest items that appear to be within the authority of the Secretary of the State.

Further Details

Provide detailed, accurate, downloadable, election information and notices on the Secretary of the State’s web site

In a PEW study the Connecticut site ranked 48th out of 50 states. We could debate if we should be higher in the rankings, or instead work to emulate and surpass the top ranked states.

The process of accumulating voting results in Connecticut is an error-prone three step process of addition and transcription, from polling place, to town hall, to the Secretary of the State’s Office, and to the web. Citizens have identified errors large and moderate – errors of a magnitude which could change election results, the initiation of recanvasses, or ballot access. See <here> <here>

Without reliable, publicly posted results, post-election audits cannot be accomplished which inspire confidence and provide integrity. A trusted audit requires selecting districts for audit against previously posted results. Since we audit against optical scanner tapes, and the tape results are not posted, then we fail to meet that requirement.

What can be done?

Post copies of the original documents: All district and central count absented ballot Moderator’s’ Reports and copies of scanner tapes should be faxed to the Secretary of the State’s Office and posted on the SOTS web site. (We know this is easily possible since the SOTS web site has recently included images of all local ballots, and is capable of the quick addition of press releases)

Post detailed and summary data: The SOTS could use temporary employees or outsourcing to input and double check the input of all that data, then post it to the web site in human and downloadable formats.

>Side benefit: A free public audit: As a byproduct the public, candidates, and parties could check and audit the data at no cost to the state. To do that today would involve visiting town halls across the state and performing all the calculations done today by hand – efficient auditing of selected districts is not possible because detailed data is not currently posted.

Consider using the Overseas Vote Foundation facility for empowering military and overseas voters, now in use by seven states. This is an example of what could be done to empower all voters. (Added 4/4/2010)

Improve post-election audit integrity: Stop accepting reports showing wild discrepancies as extremely accurate and make all audit investigations public and transparent. (added 7/31/2010) <Extremely Accurate> <Audit Reports>

Since 2010: We have had a little progress and some attempts in this area:

Starting in recent election, the actual election results data faxed from towns is posted to the Secretary’s web site, so it can be checked by citizens and a bit more transparency is thus provided. Yet the results are not in detail, covering each election district and each voting method.
The Secretary initiated a well intentioned project to have all data from all districts input over the web and immediately reported. Unfortunately, the system was a failure and for at least two years, the Secretary’s Office remained tone-deaf to the complaints of election officials that the system and its requirement that each polling place moderator have an ID and input their own data was effectively unworkable. In 2013 there was some indication that a more effective system of collecting data by spreadsheet, which could be input to officials charged with that function would be made available some time in the future. Many towns already compile detailed data in spreadsheets, using rested officials assigned to data entry, to take and double check data from moderators who are often elderly and who all have just completed a demanding seventeen-hour-plus day.
Nothing significant has been accomplished in post-election audit integrity. In 2013 the Citizen Audit did a study of the audit drawing and found huge discrepancies on the list. We have long been a critic of the official audit reports created by Uconn, the only change is that Uconn has apparently stopped producing the reports since the November 2011 election. We do acknowledge an improvement this year in the official audit procedures, with several corrections and small but useful improvements suggested by the Citizen Audit and accepted by the Secretary’s Office.
There is on the SOTS Election web page information specifically for Military and Overseas Voters <view>, yet nothing like what is possible <see MN>.
Yet we applaud the SOTS and Registrars because Connecticut now does a good job of implementing the Military and Overseas Voters Empowerment Act (MOVE), resulting in Military voters achieving ballot return rates comparable with all absentee voters.

We would be remiss if we did not applaud, once again, the report on the Secretary’s Election Performance Task Force, while its promise has yet to be matched with an equal measure of progress.

Another area of irritation and loss of integrity in the post-election audits is that while the Secretary of the State’s Office is able to post ballots for every municipality, they are not provided with a reliable list of polling districts in those municipalities. By requiring the faxing of district Moderator’s Reports and posting them, this uncertainty would be eliminated.

As we said above: In 2013 the Citizen Audit did a study of the audit drawing and found huge discrepancies on the list.

Another problem is public notification of audit dates, times and locations. By procedure (unfortunately not by law), registrars are required to inform the Secretary of the States’s Office three days in advance of the local audits. If these dates were posted by the SOTS Office within 24 hours of receipt, then the public, candidates, and parties would have much better access to actually observing audits.

Beyond audits, having centralized voting district locations and assisting voters in finding their polling place would help the public and partially relieve that burden from towns.

Create jobs, efficiency and election integrity in Connecticut by changing the way memory cards are programmed and tested

Currently, before each election, memory cards are programmed in Massachusetts by our distributor, LHS Associates. The cards are shipped to local election officials for pre-election testing. There are two problems:

We have no effective supervision over the process. One of the risks is insider fraud or intimidation of those who program and ship memory cards.

The process is not perfect, and the memory cards are physically unreliable. Extra effort is required when bad cards are discovered by the Registrars and new cards need to be ordered and shipped. See <UConn Report.>

What can be done?

Perform the programming in Connecticut: In other states (outside of New England) large counties program their own cards and often perform programming at a fee for small counties. We have paid for two machines which we can use to program the cards. They could be used by state employees or outsource the programming within Connecticut.

Independently test the cards nearby the programming: UConn has developed, at taxpayer expense, a program to eliminate many causes of error in the cards and easily detect bad cards with “junk” data. Currently this program is underutilitzed in no non-random testing of cards selected by local officials after pre-election testing and after the election. We can exploit this program to 100% pre-test the cards, enhancing integrity and reducing wasted effort by local officials when they discover “junk” cards.

Side Benefit: Jobs: It might be small, yet every job moved back to Connecticut would be a benefit to the state. Like large counties in other states, we might provide the service to other states in New England – we could compete with LHS for business and with the added advantage of the UConn testing program. Perhaps we could expand beyond New England to service other states.

We also note a large cadre of very part-time election officials, many of whom served as lever mechanics and later as vendor trained optical scan technicians. We expect that several of these same individuals could quickly train to meet the seasonal demand for programming and testing, and appreciate the opportunity for work and public service. It would not take many.

Once again, slow if any progress. Over the last couple of years memory cards have continued to degrade, while Uconn continues to report that less and less cards are sent in from towns for testing. Nobody seems to be taking responsibility to see that the cards are sent as requested by the Secretary (or is that a fiction that the Uconn reports continue to maintain).

In the meantime, some new cards of a new design are tested in each election, yet there seems to have been no systematic effort of the State to hold the vendor accountable for selling such unreliable technology, and quite a price.

Improve documentation and training for election officials, in substance and format

The current Secretary of the State and her staff have worked to improve documentation and training. This work should continue and be taken to a new level.

What can be done?

Update and improve the value of manuals: The Moderator Manual, the Absentee Ballot Moderator, the Recanvass Manual and the Post-Election Audit Procedures were modified after the commitment to optical scanners. They need to be updated and expanded based on experience. They need to be rewritten and edited by professional technical writers to make them more effective as training and reference documents. For instance,Improve and expand certification: The Secretary has begin efforts for Registrar Certification and Training to complement the current Moderator Certification and Training. The Registrars job is much more involved than that of a Moderator, yet Registrars have no formal training and certification program (And currently there is no requiremen for Registrars to be certified Moderators or to attend training. Moderators are supposed to be certified, yet that is not enforced – these are issues for the Legislature and an example of where the Secretary of the State could be an effective cheer leader)

The Absentee Ballot Moderator’s Manual still calls for multiple counting throughout the day, but only one count is necessary with optical scanners. The Post-Election Audit procedures should provide more details in several areas: Counting incomplete bubbles, counting write-in votes, exactly what levels of differences should call for recounting and investigation, and help with accurate and efficient counting methods.

The Recanvass Manual should also cover details of counting incomplete bubbles, counting for voter’s intent, voter identifiable ballots, and the role of designated observers.

There may be value in following the examples of other jurisdictions in creating observer manuals for post-election audits and recanvasses.

Here we have seen some laudable progress and some questionable progress.

The Moderators Manual has been completely revised and is much more readable, has clear sections and checklists for each position and function. Not as polished and some we have seen in other states, yet a vast improvement.
The Moderator Training has been revised with an online course which must be passed as a prerequisite for taking the in-person training. Unfortunately, this apparently costly outsourced training, suffers from some problems that tend to irritate officials required to take the training. The training itself and the quizzes, apparently done by out-of-state consultants makes some glaring errors in Connecticut election law, and the quizzes score is based on incorrect answers to some questions. The training suffers from too long, too simple presentations on the basics of elections and on serving those with disabilities – one suspects that it is easy boiler-plate sold to every state. Further, the training is very choppy with short videos and many different/inconsistent navigation between videos, slides and quizzes – it all takes extra hours of time and frustration, especially for those not especially skilled in the web or loaded with extra patience. A good idea, not well done. We have heard that many Moderators are reluctant to take it a 2nd time (required every 2 years) and threaten to quit. We will see. Once again, we have heard anecdotes of a tone-deaf response from Hartford.

Provide written directives and responses to inquiries from election officials

One responsibility of the Secretary of the State’s Office is to advise election officials on proper procedures according to law, regulations, procedures, and directives. We have heard registrars complain that the advice given depends on who one talks to, and on what day. We have no way of determining if that is true or how prevalent the problem is. The uncertainty and over-reliance on verbal communication should be eliminated.

We hear the same from committee political treasurers. In fact it is the subject of a proposed law before the Legislature. The law would require the State Elections Enforcement Commission to follow-up with a written version of any verbal advice within ten days. <H.B. 5470> However, it is difficult to write law that distinguishes from a simple inquiry from one that provides a critical distinction that the caller must rely on to avoid error and avoid potential fine or jail time.

What can be done?

All directives should be in writing and publicly available. Like any laws, regulations, and procedures there is usually some ambiguity, unanticipated situations, new regulations can take years to be approved, and problems which must be overcome. The Secretary of the State Office from time to time must issue directives to cover these situations. Such directives should be in writing and posted publicly.

All substantial advice and rulings should be recorded in writing. The current Secretary of the State’s Office keeps track of all citizen inquires. The Office should keep track of all official inquires, and summarize any significant election advice and rulings for future reference.

Economies of Scale: Perhaps the state would be best served by a common system, that tracked similar advice for the Secretary of the State’s Office and Elections Enforcement. Perhaps we should use the same or similar laws, and the same system for all agencies that have a similar requirement. The Environmental Protection Agency comes to mind. What do other agencies do today? What do other states do? We have only one Freedom Of Information law for all agencies. Perhaps we need a uniform law for agency directives, rulings, and advice? There will always be a need to consider economies of scale vs. excess bureaucracy – but the third option is to search for the ways that increase economy of scale, increase democracy, while also streamlining bureaucracy. Once again, the Secretary cannot change the law alone, but could cooperate with other agencies to produce efficiency and provide leadership in going beyond requirements of the law.

Perhaps we ask too much. We did support a bill in the Legislature that would have at least made the Secretary of the State’s directives enforceable, with the caveat that they be marked as such and centrally posted.

Perhaps soon, we will do a similar review of the progress on the report on the Elections Performance Task Force referenced above.

“It happens all the time.” All over the place (Part 5)

We continue our review of some of our posts of past errors surfaced in Connecticut and around the country, selected from our over 900 posts.

Here we continue our review of some of our posts of past errors surfaced in Connecticut and around the country, selected from our over 900 posts. Last time we covered CTVotersCount posts from 2010. Continuing from there:

Colorado chain-of-custody violation: Secret count by candidate before official recount <Jan 2011>

Six tries and NJ still can’t seal voting machines <Jan 2011>

Absentee ballot fraud in Ohio <Jan 2011>

Citizen audit show hundreds of votes not counted, more voters than ballots, elsewhere fewer voters than ballots – Bridgeport <Jan 2011>

Citizen audit shows hundreds of votes not counted, hundreds extra elsewhere – not Bridgeport, but SC <Mar 2011>

Indiana Secretary of State indicted on election fraud charges <Mar 2011>

Wisconsin channels Bridgeport and SC, with counts off <Apr 2011>

Election rigging in KY yields 156 years in slammer <May 2011>

Wisconsin, faith based recounts, tapes dated before election etc. <May 2011> <also>

That completes the 1st half of 2011. We will continue another time.

NY: don’t follow CA in making “Top Two” error

NY considers “Jungle Primary” we call it another “Centrist Dream”

Political Insanity – doing the same thing that has failed elsewhere, over and over.

NY considers “Jungle Primary” we call it another “Centrist Dream”.

Political Insanity – doing the same thing that has failed elsewhere, over and over.

We have positions on a variety of election issues. The Top Two Primary is one we oppose with a moderate level of intensity. It is a failed idea, not a complete disaster, hopefully an idea that fails after a few tests in States. We and Ralph Nader warned California. Now it is time to warn New York not to make the same mistake..

For once we have progressive opposition from the American Prosepct/Madison Capitol Times editorial: ‘Jungle Primary] Brings Untended Consequences <read>

Would the dysfunction of U.S. politics be dispelled if we got rid of partisan primaries? That’s the contention of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. In an op-ed for The New York Times, Schumer argued that the primary system in most states, in which voters choose nominees for their respective parties who then run head to head in November, gives too much weight to the party faithful, who are inclined to select candidates who veer either far right or far left. The cure Schumer proposes for this ill is the “jungle primary,” in which all primary candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot, with the top two finishers, again regardless of party, advancing to the general election. The senator cites the example of California — once the most gridlocked of states, now a place where legislation actually gets enacted — as proof that such primaries work. But Schumer misunderstands what got California working again. In so doing, he also misses the fatal flaws of the jungle primary…

Schumer misunderstands what got California working again. In so doing, he also misses the fatal flaws of the jungle primary…

And what has the jungle primary accomplished? Its adherents had hoped that, in heavily conservative districts where the top two primary finishers were both Republicans, the more centrist of the two would win the November runoff by corralling more Democratic and independent votes. So far, however, that hasn’t happened. Democrats representing more centrist districts, generally in inland California, do tend to be less liberal, but that was the case long before the jungle primary came into effect.

The jungle primary has had one stunningly perverse effect, however. In a new congressional district east of Los Angeles, Democratic voters had a clear majority — so clear that four Democratic candidates and two Republicans sought the seat in the 2012 primary. Democratic votes split four ways, enabling the two Republicans to advance to November’s ballot. The eventual winner, Gary Miller, chose not to run for re-election this year — understandably, since his record in no way reflected the desires of most district voters.

A weird one-off result? This June, three Democrats and two Republicans sought the statewide office of controller. More Democrats than Republicans tend to file for statewide office in California, and for good reason: The GOP is in free-fall in the state; its share of registered voters has dropped beneath 30 percent; just one Republican (Arnold Schwarzenegger) has been elected to any of California’s 10 statewide offices in the past 20 years. But since Democrats split their votes three ways for the controller’s slot and Republicans just two, a shift of less than 2 percent of the vote would have saddled voters with a Republican-vs.-Republican runoff.

And perhaps the most interesting prediction in the piece, based directly on the example above.

Fast-forward to 2018, when Democrat Jerry Brown, almost certain to be re-elected this November, will be term-limited out of the governor’s office. More Democrats than Republicans will surely line up to succeed him. But under the jungle rules, even though it’s all but certain that the Democratic candidates will collectively aggregate more support, it’s a distinct possibility that two Republicans will face off in November.

This is your solution, senator? Think again.

This all goes to show why it is called a Jungle Primary. We prefer to call it a Crap Shoot, because, like many reforms, its intention is to correct a perceived past problem, but just replaces one imperfect system with another – fighting the last war.

(And who said that centrism is a worthy goal – its usually defined only in the vision of a particular pundit or politician, completely in agreement with that pundit’s own views)

Senator Schumer’s Op-Ed in the New York Times: End Partisan Primaries, Save America <read> Anyone should be suspicions of such a dramatic headline “Save America”.

And a couple of informed letters the Op-Ed generated to the New York Times make additional points <read>

Rather than keeping fringe characters out of office, an open primary would allow a pair of well-funded zealots to lock up a “top two” primary by driving turnout of a few passionate voters in what are typically pretty apathetic primary environments, especially in a gerrymandered district…

California’s June primary under the new system resulted in the lowest voter turnout ever for a statewide election, with just 25.2 percent of voters participating.

The “top two” system has also led to a number of legislative and Congressional districts where voters will be able to choose only between candidates of one party in November, which is hardly democratic. Despite the fact that Democrats have an overwhelming registration advantage in the state, the top-two system nearly resulted in no Democratic candidate on the ballot for one office when multiple candidates split up the Democratic vote.

In addition, it has had the effect of eliminating third parties and write-ins from the November contest, giving voters less choice.

And perhaps the worst result of all — the proliferation of independent expenditure committees, which spent more nearly $4 million to try to win a Bay Area Assembly seat for corporate interests.

Crumbling infrastructure – its not just highways and bridges anymore

The big news in Connecticut these days is Congress’s patched-up highway bill to continue patching-up our highways, while Connecticut has the the worst highway conditions in the nation.

But we are also just as dependent on electricity and the Internet. A Washington Post editorial highlights the risks, while Ed Snowden through Glenn Greenwald confirms the reality.

The big news in Connecticut these days is Congress’s patched-up highway bill to continue patching-up our highways, while Connecticut has the the worst highway conditions in the nation. CTMirror: White House says CT roads and bridges deficient <read>

The White House issued an alarming report Monday that said 41 percent of Connecticut’s roads are in poor condition and more than 9,500 jobs in the state will be lost unless Congress acts quickly to replenish a fund that pays for a lion’s share of the state’s infrastructure construction and repair.

But we are also just as dependent on electricity and the Internet. A Washington Post editorial highlights the risks: Congress is overdue in dealing with the cybersecurity threat <read>

THE INTERNET security company Symantec revealed recently that a group of hackers known as Dragonfly infiltrated malware into legitimate software belonging to three manufacturers of industrial control systems — the stuff that controls factories and power grids. In one case, the contaminated control software was downloaded 250 times by unsuspecting users before the compromise was discovered.
This kind of cyberattack is not new, but it is audacious and dangerous. One of the first such assaults was the Stuxnet campaign, which had sabotage as its primary goal, against the Iranian nuclear program. By contrast, Dragonfly was a multi-pronged infiltrator, aimed at cyber- espionage and gaining long-term access to computers, with sabotage as a future option, perhaps flicking off the electrical power to a city or shutting down a factory. Dragonfly probably was state-sponsored from somewhere in Eastern Europe…
A torrent of cyberattacks — disruption, espionage, theft — is costing U.S. business and government billions of dollars. This is reality, not science fiction. In March, Chinese hackers broke into the U.S. government agency that houses the personal information of all federal employees.
For several years, it has been clear to many in government and the private sector that the nation needs to vastly improve protection of its private networks and that only government has the sophisticated tools to do that. But Congress has balked at legislation that would ease the necessary cooperation….

State Sponsored – is that some kind of official conspiracy theory to spend gobs of money on another threat beyond terrorism? Of course that could be the result even if the threat is real. But we don’t have to believe the Government – we could read proof from the Snowden documents: Hacking Online Polls and Other Ways British Spies Seek to Control the Internet<read>

The secretive British spy agency GCHQ has developed covert tools to seed the internet with false information, including the ability to manipulate the results of online polls, artificially inflate pageview counts on web sites, “amplif[y]” sanctioned messages on YouTube, and censor video content judged to be “extremist.” The capabilities, detailed in documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, even include an old standby for pre-adolescent prank callers everywhere: A way to connect two unsuspecting phone users together in a call.

The tools were created by GCHQ’s Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), and constitute some of the most startling methods of propaganda and internet deception contained within the Snowden archive. Previously disclosed documents have detailed JTRIG’s use of “fake victim blog posts,” “false flag operations,” “honey traps” and psychological manipulation to target online activists, monitor visitors to WikiLeaks, and spy on YouTube and Facebook users. [Hi English spy guys, welcome back to CTVotersCount]
Prime Minister David Cameron has justified as an “emergency” to “help keep us safe,” a newly released top-secret GCHQ document called “JTRIG Tools and Techniques” provides a comprehensive, birds-eye view of just how underhanded and invasive this unit’s operations are. The document..is designed to notify other GCHQ units of JTRIG’s “weaponised capability” when it comes to the dark internet arts, and serves as a sort of hacker’s buffet for wreaking online havoc.

Yes, nothing to worry about, just our friends the British and probably our friend Israel is even farther along, every body does it…ask Germany about their friend in North America. What chance is there that the Russians and Chinese are up to the same things, along with all sorts on non-government friends and non-friends as well? And of course nobody inside the U.S. Government itself would have any interest in influencing election outcomes, would they?

Internet voting, that is probably as safe and trustworthy as Facebook.

Ignore this post – it is based on facts and reason.

Like Don Quixote, we have spend almost seven years tilting at myths. Unlike Don, we arm our posts with facts and reason. According to a new report, that is a losing strategy.

Note: That report itself is based on facts, reason, and that most untrusted Science, known as statistics. Therefore, it is unlikely that the report will make a significant difference.

Like Don Quixote, we have spend almost seven years tilting at myths. Unlike Don, we arm our posts with facts and reason. According to a new report, that is a losing strategy.

Note: That report itself is based on facts, reason, and that most untrusted Science, known as statistics. Therefore, it is unlikely that the report will make a significant difference. Yet, we remain committed to our best efforts to base our recommendations on facts and reason.

New York Times: When Beliefs and Facts Collide <read>

Do Americans understand the scientific consensus about issues like climate change and evolution?

At least for a substantial portion of the public, it seems like the answer is no. The Pew Research Center, for instance, found that 33 percent of the public believes “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time” and 26 percent think there is not “solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades.” Unsurprisingly, beliefs on both topics are divided along religious and partisan lines. For instance, 46 percent of Republicans said there is not solid evidence of global warming, compared with 11 percent of Democrats.

As a result of surveys like these, scientists and advocates have concluded that many people are not aware of the evidence on these issues and need to be provided with correct information. That’s the impulse behind efforts like the campaign to publicize the fact that 97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming.

In a new study, a Yale Law School professor, Dan Kahan, finds that the divide over belief in evolution between more and less religious people is wider among people who otherwise show familiarity with math and science, which suggests that the problem isn’t a lack of information. When he instead tested whether respondents knew the theory of evolution, omitting mention of belief, there was virtually no difference between more and less religious people with high scientific familiarity. In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

Mr. Kahan’s study suggests that more people know what scientists think about high-profile scientific controversies than polls suggest; they just aren’t willing to endorse the consensus when it contradicts their political or religious views…

The deeper problem is that citizens participate in public life precisely because they believe the issues at stake relate to their values and ideals, especially when political parties and other identity-based groups get involved– an outcome that is inevitable on high – profile issues. Those groups can help to mobilize the public and represent their interests, but they also help to produce the factual divisions that are one of the most toxic byproducts of our polarized era.Unfortunately, knowing what scientists think is ultimately no substitute for actually believing it.

We see such from partisans of all stripes, when we work to disrupt the “common wisdom” on election issues, tilting with facts and reason:

Internet Voting. No matter the theoretical risks of the Internet attested to by Scientists, the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and our CT utilities regulatory authority, and actual breeches by the NSA, foreign governments, bank fraudsters, and hackers, objections are met with claims of complete confidence in election officials to provide secure voting systems.
Voter Fraud. There is very little actual fraud by individual voters – the challenge is to get people to vote – very few illegal aliens would risk their deportation to vote. In any case, most cases of fraud or voting in error would not be prevented by voter ID.
Mail-in Voting (Absentee Voting). Here sides change. It is more convenient to vote by mail for many. Yet at what price. There is proven absentee voting fraud after almost every national election. Opening up to more mail-in voting, simply opens up more opportunity and benefit for fraud. Like climate change denial, we have many that deny the fact and opportunity.
Electronic Voting without audits and recounts. Officials and many in the public subscribe to the belief that “If it seems to work and I have noticed no problems, then it must be safe”. Just like nuclear power, DDT, and many other risks, our intuition can be wrong.

Until a year ago many thought that the NSA spying on everyone was a myth. Today, many still believe that “I have nothing to hide, so they can look at all my emails, bank accounts, and health records”. For those with those beliefs, please send me all your passwords (and be sure not to encrypt the email).

Suggestions for reading and viewing on the 4th of July

Once again, we have some suggestions for the 4th of July. A Centennial address from 1876, a short video from last month, and a historical movie from the late 1600’s.

Robert G. Ingersoll was likely the most widely known orator of the late 1800’s, following Emerson, and preceding Mark Twain. In 1876 he gave this oration on “The Meaning of the Declaration of Independence” <read>

all things considered, it was the bravest political document ever signed by man. And if it was physically brave, the moral courage of the document is almost infinitely beyond the physical. They had the courage not only, but they had the almost infinite wisdom to declare that all men are created equal. Such things had occasionally been said by some political enthusiasts in the olden time, but for the first time in the history of the world, the representatives of a nation, the representatives of a real living, breathing, hoping people, declared that all men are created equal. With one blow, with one stroke of the pen, they struck down all the cruel, heartless barriers that aristocracy, that priestcraft, that kingcraft had raised between man and man. They struck down with one immortal blow, that infamous spirit of caste that makes a god almost a beast, and a beast almost a god. With one word, with one blow, they wiped away and utterly destroyed all that had been done by centuries of war—centuries of hypocrisy—centuries of injustice….

“What more did they do? They then declared that each man has a right to live. And what does that mean? It means that he has the right to make his living. It means that he has the right to breathe the air, to work the land, that he stands the equal of every other human being beneath the shining stars; entitled to the product of his labor—the labor of his hand and of his brain.

What more? That every man has the right; to pursue his own happiness in his own way. Grander words than these have never been spoken by man.

Two years ago we recommended a biography of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. This year we recommend a video of a talk by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island from last month.

Finally, the movie Belle, if it is playing in your area. A true store, a love story, a story of the evolution of freedom and law <trailer>

What price convenience? Another confirmation that the Holy Grail of voting is not found in conventional wisdom

When you vote in November, consider: What price convenience? What cost convenience? What individual effort is Democracy worth?

To listen to elected officials and many activists, the Holy Grail of Elections, would seem to be Turnout. Given the emphasis you would think that almost nothing else matters: Integrity, candidate access, campaign finance, media bias, or costs – when focusing on turnout, it seems everything else is forgotten. A report from Ohio, confirms earlier studies that early voting does not increase turnout,

We posted a news item from Ohio, earlier in the week from the the Columbus Dispatch: Early voting hasn’t boosted Ohio turnout <read>

Early voting has not led to more voting in Ohio, at least not in terms of total votes cast.
A Dispatch analysis of the vote totals from the past three presidential elections in the state shows that overall turnout in the 2012 race, when Ohioans arguably had the most opportunities in state history to vote early, was lower than in the 2004 election, when there was virtually no early voting in Ohio.
Turnout in 2008, the first presidential race in which Ohioans had no-fault absentee voting and also the first time an African-American was on the ballot, was about 1 percent higher than in 2004.
“People who vote early are people who are typically going to vote anyway,” said Paul Beck, a political science professor at Ohio State University. “So, early voting hasn’t really succeeded in turning out more people to vote. We’ve made it a lot easier to vote, but on the other hand, some people are very discouraged about politics and might not care how easy it is to vote.”

This November voters in Connecticut will vote on a Constitutional Amendment to let the General Assembly to chose early voting methods, if any, for Connecticut. Conventional wisdom is that early voting will significantly increase turnout, wrong! That ignores the evidence. Proponents will tell us that there is almost no absentee voting fraud, wrong! that ignores the evidence.

We posted the evidence almost years ago: Researchers: Early Voting alone DECREASES turnout <read>

States have aggressively expanded the use of early voting, allowing people to submit their ballots before Election Day in person, by mail and in voting centers set up in shopping malls and other public places. More than 30 percent of votes cast in the 2008 presidential race arrived before Election Day itself, double the amount in 2000. In 10 states, more than half of all votes were cast early, with some coming in more than a month before the election. Election Day as we know it is quickly becoming an endangered species…

But a thorough look at the data shows that the opposite is true: early voting depresses turnout by several percentage points…Controlling for all of the other factors thought to shape voter participation, our model showed that the availability of early voting reduced turnout in the typical county by three percentage points…

Even with all of the added convenience and easier opportunities to cast ballots, turnout not only doesn’t increase with early voting, it actually falls. How can this be? The answer lies in the nature of voter registration laws, and the impact of early voting on mobilization efforts conducted by parties and other groups on Election Day.

That was just one, will conducted study. Here in Connecticut, Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill created an Election Performance Task Force. Election administration expert Doug Chapin summarized his review of available studies, covered here: Elections Performance Task Force: Technology Fair and Doug Chapin <read>

Early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and voting centers are strong trends. They can provide voter convenience. They can save money or add to costs. Data does not support significant changes in participation.
Once you start early voting, taking it away can have an impact, once people are accustomed to it. (As taking away local polling place voting may also have a similar impact)
Survey voters to determine their levels of satisfaction and confidence in the process.
Do not expect increases in participation based on changes or reforms in election administration. Satisfaction and convenience can be increased but not participation.

Thus the Ohio research tends to confirm the other studies. (We say “tends to confirm”. It is not as thorough a study as the early ones, since it covers whole statewide elections and is not a thorough comparison between matched districts in states with and without early voting – there are a lot of factors which affect turnout, so just comparing elections in a single state cannot attribute differences to any one factor.

Plus we highlight many instances of votING fraud after almost every election via absentee voting, in Connecticut and across the country <here>

Here is the bottom line:

Early Voting (unlimited absentee voting or in-person early voting) does not increase turn out. Alone it decreases turnout.
Election Day Registration increases turnout (Except perhaps in Connecticut, where we have implemented in a much less convenient way than in states where it has proven effective)
When Early Voting is combined with Election Day Registrati0n (maybe not in Connecticut) turnout is not harmed or helped by Early Voting.
In-person Early Voting would be expensive or impossible in Connecticut, given our New England style town by town election administration and jurisdictions. It might be done expensively, and in a way biased against some populations.
Fraud has been demonstrated in absentee voting. In Connecticut with excuse absentee voting, it occurs frequently.
It does increase convenience.

When you vote in November, consider: What price convenience? What cost convenience? What individual effort is Democracy worth?