Brad,

Thanks for your comments on my article. The issue of unverifiable election machines is close to my heart, and to yours it seems. Anyone calling those who expect their votes to be verified "Luddites" is missing the big picture. The issue here is not (just) technology, but the rules and process wrapped around it. Those criticizing the current generation of electronic voting machines (like myself) do so because of ample scientific evidence that both the process and the technology undermine trust in elections. Several noted scientists and research groups have looked at the machines and *demonstrated* multiple ways in which a small number of people can infiltrate the electoral process in a few key districts of a few key states and swing entire elections. We should all be worried about that.

I call for paper+pencil elections not because machines cannot be built to do electronic voting. Even Internet-based secure and voter-verifiable voting is possible. But not with the current mish-mash of rules and lackadaisical attitudes towards security and auditability of elections.

*Until then* paper+pencil is a better alternative.

By the way, I am a member and fan of dkos and have commented on these issues there for years, but under a pseudonym that I would not want to "out".

Keep up the good work!

Andreas -

Thanks for the quick thoughts. As well as for your piece on the SC mess and the larger picture. If you're a Kossack, I hope you'll be able to help knock some common sense into a lot of the heads over there, where they've been (self-defeatingly) regarding these matters as "conspiracy theory" for years.

You've got the concerns precisely right, though we'll have to disagree on your still-optimistic solution. Specifically, you wrote above:

I call for paper+pencil elections not because machines cannot be built to do electronic voting. Even Internet-based secure and voter-verifiable voting is possible. But not with the current mish-mash of rules and lackadaisical attitudes towards security and auditability of elections.

I have, for years, been open to the notion that machines and/or processes could be created for exactly what you describe.

Having studied the issue for some 6 years (virtually non-stop), I've concluded that any form of concealed vote counting, no matter how secure and accurate, is ultimately a no-go when it comes to the unique issue of transparent democracy and the citizen oversight necessary for self-governance.

In short, even if an election is counted 100% accurately and securely --- as even the SC primary might have been, as far as we know --- unless the citizenry can know that, for a fact, after an election, it's a fail to the requirements of the type of democracy we (theoretically) have here.

With all due respect, of course, all the testimony from computer scientists and experts that an election was held "securely" does not meet the high bar we must hold for such things.

I remain open to persuasion on these matters, as always, but after this many years, and this much information, knowledge, scientific reports, real-world elections and on-the-ground case studies, interviews and discussions with scientists, security experts, elected officials, election officials and, most importantly, plain old citizen voters, I've not found anything that meets the bar, other than 100% transparent hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted at the polling place after the close of polls, in front of the entire citizenry, with decentralized results posted at the polling place, before ballots ever move anywhere.

That system meets the high bar we have in our democracy, and is *exceedingly* difficult to game. (And, if done correctly, shouldn't take much longer, if at all, than machine counting, in truth --- just to respond to one of the points you made in your piece, with which I gently take exception.)

There are a few possible solutions to voter-verifiable double-blind anonymous electronic elections based on the work of David Chaum. These allow votes to be submitted and tallied electronically, yet provide each voter an anonymous "hash" that allows the voter to verify that their vote was part of the tally, all without revealing either the preference or the name of the voter.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chaum)

Now, do I think any of that applies to *real* elections anytime soon? Not really.

For now, I like the idea of a combination of paper ballots and optical scanners. The scanners can offer a quick count for media purposes, but the verified and official result is hand-counted and tallied at the local level as you suggest. Easy to use, transparent, voter verifiable, decentralized and very hard to subvert without massive collusion or intimidation.

Any system with computers can be subverted by insiders.

HCPB!

Don't forget the criminals that are part of this EVM scam want to get rid of the exit polls too.

That's how to easily identify the traitors.

#3

For now, I like the idea of a combination of paper ballots and optical scanners. The scanners can offer a quick count for media purposes, but the verified and official result is hand-counted and tallied at the local level as you suggest.

Right On! Thats what I've been saying.

We only wish it were that way tho

Hi Brad,

Thanks for all you do.

As you well know, but some people who come late to this issue may not, Stephen Spoonamore is anything but a luddite. He is a Republican computer security expert who has worked in the financial industry, where all computer transactions have to be secure. He makes the most compelling case that having computers involved in vote-counting is fundamentally asking for fraud and stealing of elections.

Anyone can watch him do his thing and get informed about the nature of the problems in just a few minutes, via YouTube.

btw, I think S.S. should get a Medal of Freedom award, as should you, Brad!

For what I think is the best interview, start here:

There are two series of interviews with him available on internet video. The older one is with a woman-interviewer. The later, and (I think) more telling interview can be found on youtube or google, and can be recognized because there is an ornate white stairway behind him, going up and to the right, and a male interviewer.

In very compelling terms, Spoonamore explains why it is fundamentally impossible to have secret ballots, and a secure voting system run on computers.

I don't think anyone could possibly listen to either interview, (they are both broken up into segments) and still hold the position that touch-screen no-paper-trail voting is anything but a recipe for stealing elections.

Court documents are not becoming paperless any time soon, just because of these issues.

With paper ballots, votes have to be stolen one at a time, and it's hard to move thousands of ballots around without being seen, to stuff the ballot boxes. And when votes are counted, it becomes obvious that there has been tampering if there are runs of hundreds of votes for one candidate, with no votes at all for the other candidate.

Germany is not a Luddite country by any means, and they do all of their voting on paper ballots, counted by hand. So there.

So send the name callers to Stephen Spoonamore to get theyselves ejicated (sic)!

wow, I sure screwed up the link. sorry. can someone fixe please.

ouch.

[Ed Note: Fixed. - BF]

Andreas @ 3:

I know David and his suggested e-vote scheme, and find that it has a number of problems. Among them, having a computer tell one that one's vote has been counted, is no replacement for being able to verify that with ones own eyes.

Moreover, if you see what happened to me when I tried to e-vote in June of '08 myself (and then again just two weeks ago) out here in L.A., my vote would have been recorded, but would have been recorded inaccurately. Depending on how Chaum's scheme is used, either I won't know it's recorded inaccurately, OR, if able to find out how it recorded that vote (and if I wish to trust the computer telling me how it recorded my vote), I'd then be able to sell my vote.

FAIL and FAIL. Unfortunately.

For the record, in NH they still count the ballots by hand, at the precinct, in some 40% of jurisdictions. In many of those jurisdictions, the hand-count is often done, signed, sealed and delivered before the machine tally has finished.

That's why I say, "if it's done right" it shouldn't take any longer than the machines. If it takes too long, that means you need more people counting. With all the money to be saved on the e-voting junk, we should have more than enough to cover the costs of paying people appropriately for this.

Consider experience in two Canadian cities: Calgary, population 1,000,000, where ballots are counted by hand; and Edmonton, population 700,000, which uses opscan systems.
In two elections, Calgary totals came in earlier than Edmonton’s.
Costs: Calgary, $2/voter; Edmondton: $7/voter.

“Automated vote count 'too costly'”
Sun [Calgary] 2007-10-17 03:03:05 MST
http://calsun.canoe.ca/N...7/10/17/4582641-sun.html

The SC "debacle" is JUST one MORE example of the "unreliability" of electronic voting apparatus. The Nation MUST completely discard ALL of these despicable monsters of destruction from our political system. Having contested "official" election results for Florida's 5th congressional district in 2006 BECAUSE we identified firm evidence of vote flipping. SC should not be allowed to be swept under the rug. IT IS FIRM AND VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF WHOLESALE VOTE MANIPULATION/FRAUD... and should provide the undeniable wakeup call to the voters that we are being SCREWED! Please review my section on election reform from my campaign website. I am not a candidate this cycle 2010, however I am making revisions in order to keep information current. SC evidence will be added soon to this page. LINK http://www.johnrussellfo...s.com/page.asp?PageId=68
John Russell, 2006-08 Dem. Nominee U.S. House, Dist. 5, Fl.

"Court documents are not becoming paperless any time soon, just because of these issues."

Actually, that's not true. Many courts are moving to e-filing, based on pdf files. Of course, I still agree with Brad that paper is the way to go. However, it doesn't help our cause to present false information in support of our arguments.

@lmk-- thanks for correcting me on that detail. Your point is well taken.

Brad, or anyone,

Is there any way to get more details about the places in SC where there were more votes than voters? Do you know if anyone is working on that?

Thanks.

In the love of truth,