3 Responses

1. 

   1)

   Dredd said on 6/13/2007 @ 4:51am PT: [Permalink]

   John, so much for “banter”, we are now in what Brad calls just short of “a shooting war”.

   I went back over HR 811 as offered in Feburary, 2007, before the amendment to it came out.

   One of the stated purposes of HR 811 is:

   “to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot”

   That is 4 things:

   1) voter-verified
   2) permanent
   3) paper
   4) ballot.

   The definitions, in the text of the bill, of those 4 things are:

   1) voter-verified = “made available for inspection and verification by the voter before the voter’s vote is cast and counted”

   2) permanent = “the full duration of the retention and preservation period called for by title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 1974 et seq.) or under applicable State law, whichever is longer”

   3) paper = “durable paper of archival quality capable of withstanding multiple counts and recounts without compromising the fundamental integrity of the ballots, and capable of retaining the information marked, printed, or recorded on them”

   4) ballot = “examples of … a ballot include”: (a) “a paper ballot marked by the voter for the purpose of being counted by hand or read by an optical scanner or other similar device”; (b) “a paper ballot prepared by the voter to be mailed to an election official (whether from a domestic or overseas location)”; (c) “a paper ballot created through the use of a ballot marking device or system”; and (d) “a paper ballot produced by a touch screen or other electronic voting machine, so long as in each case the voter is permitted to verify the ballot in a paper form”

   I think it can be fairly said that, in the clear absence of the term “paper trail”, this bill is intended to focus on paper ballots to a significant degree.

2. 

   2)

   Dredd said on 6/13/2007 @ 6:36am PT: [Permalink]

   Those four things mentioned in post #1 are given pre-eminence in the case of “any recount or audit”. So far so good, but what triggers a recount or an audit?

   This does:

   In the event of any inconsistencies or irregularities between any electronic vote tallies and the vote tallies determined by counting by hand the individual permanent paper ballots produced pursuant to subparagraph (A), and subject to subparagraph (D), the individual permanent paper ballots shall be the true and correct record of the votes cast and shall be used as the official ballots for purposes of any recount or audit conducted with respect to any election for Federal office in which the voting system is used.

   This is where the rub comes to some of the detractors of the bill. The phrase “electronic vote tallies” is scary because the bill does not trigger audits or recounts unless the election is very close.

   Very close is a very small one or two percent difference between first place and second place. Thus, all the good things will not be invoked unless the election is almost too close to call.

   There is one section of the text that could be read to require a random, unannounced audit of every election to be determined by the Election Audit Board, created by the new bill:

   … an Election Audit Board to administer, without advance notice to the precincts selected, random hand counts of the voter-verified paper ballots required to be produced and preserved pursuant to section 301(a)(2) for each such election held in the State (and, at the option of the State or jurisdiction involved, of elections for State and local office held at the same time as such election).

   (Sec. 321(a), emphasis added). That would really be a good thing. But it may not be the case.

   Brad has argued that this is not operative and the real operative mechanism is only those cases where the vote is very, very close.

   Thus, all hackers or fraudsters would have to do is hack the vote or design the code with an eye toward making sure the election’s unofficial count is outside the small percentage required to invoke the audit mechanism.

   And that is a valid criticism because the text is ambiguous enough that a tribunal would so hold IMO.

   The bill could be easily fixed to clearly state that the Election Audit Board must do a random audit of a proper number of precincts scientifically selected (as in the case of exit polls) no matter how far apart first and second place was.

3. 

   3)

   MaryShelley(author) admirer said on 6/13/2007 @ 1:54pm PT: [Permalink]

   Amen, Dredd!

   Statistical random sampling is an exact science.

   “… an Election Audit Board to administer, without advance notice to the precincts selected, random hand counts of the voter-verified paper ballots required to be produced and preserved pursuant to section 301(a)(2) for each such election held in the State (and, at the option of the State or jurisdiction involved, of elections for State and local office held at the same time as such election).”

   We cannot assume that votes are properly accounted for without the science that proves it in each election of every jurisdiction. Like CPAs can assume nothing in audits and then state that they concur with whatever financial statements they are rendering a professional opinion about. If they cannot prove the accuracy of the financial statements, the CPA can be held liable in court and be sued by any entity or person who relies upon the assertions contained in those statements.

   The Election Audit Board must be as sure as the CPA who is liable for financial statements for which he/she/they render an opinion or be just as liable in court.

   We cannot afford to guess any longer that our elections are accurate and democratic. We demand proof!