Why We Vote: To Keep A Republic

Robert Koehler, Huffington Post, Keep The Republic, <read>

The ground feels a little soft, but we’re going to stand it.

Premise one: Having a fair election — all votes counted, all who are eligible and want to vote allowed to vote — is far, far more important, even in 2008, than who wins.

Premise two: Fair elections are not a given. They never have been, but things are worse now than ever before because of a perfect storm, you might say, of factors that have converged in the new millennium: officialdom’s seduction by unsafe, high-tech voting systems; the seizure of power by a party of ruthless true believers who feel entitled to rule and will do anything to win; a polite, confused opposition party that won’t make a stink about raw injustice; and an arrogantly complacent media embedded in the political and economic status quo.

The result: Benjamin Franklin’s worst nightmare.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

“This really is the serious business of our lives,” said Ion Sancho, election supervisor of Leon County, Fla., a fair-elections hero and one of the participants. “My goal is waking people up. My tactic is to put myself in the middle of the road and say” — to anyone who would suppress or interfere with the vote — “hey, you’re going to have to hit me.”

These are just words unless you sign on with your life.

Connecticut vs. New Jersey

Pam Smith, President of VerifiedVoting, editorial in the NJ Times <read> pointing out how long it has taken New Jersey to actually obtain paper ballot election equipment:

Why hasn’t New Jersey done in three years what New Mexico, Connecticut, North Carolina and other states — even Florida! –were able to do in far less time?

The New Jersey Legislature passed a requirement for a voter-verifiable paper record of each vote cast nearly three years ago. The 2005 law required voter- verified paper records by January 2008, an eminently feasible deadline. (It even added a cutting-edge audit law this January, requiring random checks on the paper records to make sure the machines are counting accurately.)

Unfortunately for NJ without paper, they cannot implement the “cutting-edge” audit law. But lets not rest on our (Mountain) Laurels and give up the “Nutmeg State” nickname. We need a cutting-edge audit law and dramatically improved chain-of-custody so we can use the paper, otherwise Connecticut and New Jersey will  both remain State’s of Illusion. (See Myth #10 )

Update…believe it or not, NJ has an even more publicity challenged voting machine vendor than we have <read and weep for NJ>

Courant Editorial: Don’t Overlook The Assumptions

We agree with the overall thrust and purpose of the editorial, to support the encoding in statute of privacy measures in the polling place to protect secret ballot and voters’ confidence in privacy.

Where we disagree is with some of the assumptions of the ediorial which subtely reaffirm the Courant’s blind faith in the integrity of our optical scan systems

In an editorial today, Protecting Poll Privacy, the Hartford Courant supports SB 444, “An Act Concerning Certain Revisions and Technical Changes to the Election Laws” <read editorial>

We support provisions of the latest versions of H.B. 444 and H.B 5888, “An Act Concerning Revisons To The Optical Scan Voting System”. Revised versions of both bills (not yet available online) passed the Government Administration and Elections Committee last week,

We agree with the overall thrust and purpose of the editorial, to support the encoding in statute of privacy measures in the polling place to protect secret ballot and voters’ confidence in privacy.

Where we disagree is with some of the assumptions of the ediorial which subtely reaffirm the Courant’s blind faith in the integrity of our optical scan systems. Recall a myth based editorial in September that said “So far, no one appears to have figured out how to tamper with the machines” completely ignoring research from around the country including our own University of Connecticut and a full court press to dismiss polls after the New Hampshire primary.

Continue reading “Courant Editorial: Don’t Overlook The Assumptions”

The Perils Of Online Voting – PA Voter Reg System Vulnerable

Pennsylvania has taken down its voter registration system. It seems that a hacker can easily change voter registration information for other people. <read>

Online voter registration PDFs are left unsecured on the server for anyone to access. Simply change the request ID at the end of the URL. Valid IDs appear to be working from 50000 and up to 58500+ This was discovered after filling out a registration myself. Being a security conscious programmer, I decided to test. Very bad PA…very very bad!

The entire application has since been replaced with a message that says the site is temporarily offline, but the basis of the flaw was that an attacker could force the application to retrieve arbitrary PDF voter registration files of other voters by simply modifying a request parameter sent in a request to the PrintVoterApplication.aspx page.

Brad Friedman sums up the bipartisan problems with dangerous voting ideas and lack of technical knowlege: <read>

We can’t even do online registration securely, and yet Democrats have been talking about actually voting by Internet?! There is, apparently, no bad voting idea (touch-screen voting machines, “paper-trails,” vote-by-mail, now Internet voting) that Democrats aren’t all too willing to leap at before bothering to look.

Of course, where Democrats fail with often the best of intentions, Republicans often aim to “fail” in the first place with such systems. We’re still not sure exactly which of those is worse. Either way, there seems to be plenty of failure to go around these days. Luckily, there’s nothing important coming up for voters in Pennsylvania anytime soon.

I have been disturbed by the Democratic Party’s use of internet voting for the selection of eleven convention delegates to represent expats. Also by the suggestions of vote by mail primaries and also that the selection of our president is partially determined by states with vote by mail. If we believe in a secret ballot that cannot be bought or intimidated then we cannot tolerate Internet and mail-in voting.

Nothing to worry about in Connecticut. We can be assured that at least on the day before an election our voter registration system is almost impossible to access by anyone, including hackers and registrars <read>.

E-Voting Is Very Different From E-Banking

One more time, in detail from techdirt <read>

the security model of an ATM is totally different from the security model of a voting machine. The most important line of defense against ATM fraud is not the machines themselves, but the fact that they produce a lengthy paper trail. If a hacker breaks into a bank’s network and transfers funds from someone else’s account to his own, two important things will happen.

Continue reading “E-Voting Is Very Different From E-Banking”

American Statistical Association: Hard Copy Audits Critical To Election Integrity

Press Release: American Statistical Association Calls for Audits to Increase Confidence in Electoral Outcomes, ASA Board adopts position on Electoral Integrity <release> . This should erase all lingering doubt on the part of legislators, election officials, and non-statisticians:

“Trustworthy elections demand integrity throughout the entire electoral process, from voting laws and regulations to details of implementation, including maintaining voter registration lists and a secure chain of custody for voted ballots. All processes and data of US elections should be subject to statistically sound, continuous-quality monitoring and improvement. Data releases should be comprehensive and timely and follow standardized, readily analyzable formats. It is critical that the integrity of central vote tabulations be confirmed by audits of voter-verified hard-copy records in order to provide high — and clearly specified — levels of confidence in electoral outcomes...

Certification of any electoral outcome should require substantiating evidence that the putative winner was the intended selection of the plurality of voters. Compelling statistical evidence of electoral failure should be accepted as a basis for judicial remedy.

This is in addition to an earlier statement covered here several months ago:

The American Statistical Association’s Science and Public Affairs Advisory Committee has recommended that post election audits have at least a 90% level of confidence.

Election officials need to make sure the person elected winner is the person the most voters want..Election results are most trustworthy when the entire election process can be audited, not just the vote counts…the audit should have the statistical power to trigger additional action at least nine out of 10 times when the wrong winner is declared.(emboldening added)

There should be no remaining question that statistical audits represent the only recognized mainstream scientific method for insuring effective audits and are a necessary component of audits that can provide true confidence in election results.

HB 5888 – New Audit Law – Including Hand Count Recounts

Update 3/16/2008 Please see the 1st comment from George Cody correcting my impression that he was against the bill.

Yesterday, I testified in favor of HB 5888 recommending some suggested changes. With some improvements the bill would be a big step forward providing an Independent Audit Board, more effective statistics based audits, removes some of exemptions in the current law, and provides for “Hot Audits” close to election day.

The bill text is close to the recently passed New Jersey bill. It can be made clearer and stronger with some additions and revisions from proposed Federal “Holt Bill” HR 5036. It also needs some tweaking in its customizations for Connecticut. It should also remove all of the loopholes and exemptions from the current law passed last year. <my testimony>

HB 5888 also includes a Voters’ Bill of Rights and a provision calling for manual counting in recounts:

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective from passage) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, if a recanvass is required by law in a municipality that uses marksense voting tabulators, such recanvass shall be conducted by hand count.

George Cody, representing the Registrars Of Voters Association, Connecticut (ROVAC) spoke later in the day. As expected George spoke in opposition to the bill. Mentioning in particular statistical provisions and the hand counted recanvass. Here is what I said yesterday:

We all know that people can count accurately – that manual recounts can produce results that can overcome any machine counting errors and accurately determine voters’ intent.

It is the burden of those proposing machine recounts to come forward with a detailed plan. It is their burden to prove that their detailed plan is workable. It is their burden to prove that their plan would be reliably accurate.

Although I doubt it, perhaps there is a reliable and workable machine recount plan possible. I have not seen a written detailed plan proposed. What I have heard is speculation of what might be done. Speculation and ideas that are incomplete – Speculation that is inconsistent and unworkable.

I wish we did not have to do manual audits and manual recounts, they are inconvenient. However, the promise of democracy and the necessity of election integrity are more important than wishes and inconvenience.

I will have more to say about hand and machine recounts in the next few days.

George Coty cited <Dr. Shvartsman’s slides> from his forum on Monday 3/10 to the GAE Committee as indicating in Coty’s opinion that our machines are statistically accurate. Coty and others may have seen Dr. Shvartsman’s answer to a question from the committee, aired on CT-N, stating that machines could be used to recount votes.

What was not covered was my conversation with Dr. Shvartsman after the forum, discussing the obvious problem that if an identical memory card is used, programmed from the same source as the first, that any errors or fraud in the original memory card would likely be repeated in the second card. I don’t have an exact quote, but Dr. Shvartsman agrees with me on this point. I pointed this out to the committee chairs, with Dr. Shvartsman confirming.

Also in questioning by the committee , Dr. Shvartsman agreed with the value of 100% independent testing of memory cards, after programming, and before shipment to registrars.

Secretary Bysiewicz Responds To CTVotersCount Petition

About three weeks ago we delivered the CTVotersCount petition to the Government Administration and Elections Committee and to Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz. Secretary Bysiewicz sent a letter in response to the petition to each signer <letter> <petition>

Special thanks to each Connecticut voter who signed the petition. Your support will substantially contribute to the effort to provide voting integrity.

We extend our appreciation to the Secretary for taking the time to respond to each of you:

I am very grateful for your time and dedication, and I expect that you will have a continuing significant role as we refine our election process. We still have a lot of work to do and we need concerned citizens like you to stay involved. Thank you for your efforts.

At CTVotersCount we do not take lightly the role of representing your interests in election integrity and confidence.

We also appreciate the Secretary’s commitment that our audit law be the strongest in the nation, along with her articulation of the value of and testimony in support of an Independent Audit Board.

I recommend reading the entire letter. <letter>

Voter Registration System – Lots Of Finger Pointing

Stamford Advocate article has Registrars, Secretary of the State, and the Department of Information Technology statements about the unreliable voter registration system <read>

A few years ago, registrars of voters in Stamford and Norwalk faced off with the state over their reluctance to join the new centralized voter registration system.

The registrars unsuccessfully argued the technology, which is meant to prevent registration and voting duplication, was unreliable. Norwalk’s two registrars were fined by the state for noncompliance.But it turns out they were right.

Citing “tremendous difficulties” in the week before Connecticut’s Feb. 5 presidential primary, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz has asked the governor and the state Department of Information Technology to prioritize an upgrade of the voter system before November…

Bysiewicz’s letter to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, which said efforts to improve the system this spring have “stalled,” prompted a scathing response from Diane Wallace, the state’s chief information officer.

Wallace said her office will continue to work with Bysiewicz to resolve the issues. But she also accused Bysiewicz of finger-pointing.

“Your letter minimizes your office’s involvement and responsibility, casts blame where it is not deserved, and seriously undermines the mutual trust that we have worked as an IT service provider to develop,” Wallace wrote Bysiewicz. “As you know, the application was developed by private consultants, hired by the secretary of the state’s office. . . . The system has a well-known history of sub-par performance and requires more than the seasonal and sporadic attention afforded to it by your office.”

Bysciewicz replied that she is not trying to blame the information technology department but wants assurance her office’s needs are prioritized.

Susan Bysiewicz: LHS Invented Our Voting Machines

Surprising information on Colin McEnroe. This is not what I have understood, yet I am always open to new information. <listen>

“We have a type of machine that was invented by LHS Associates in Massachusetts, twenty years ago” – Susan Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State, Connecticut

This is worth a bit of research. How can I doubt the word of a Constitutional Officer who evaluated and signed a $15 million dollar contract for our optical scanners? Perhaps UTC should check into the patent issue.

Continue reading “Susan Bysiewicz: LHS Invented Our Voting Machines”