California’s election clerks — or at least those who are members of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials (CACEO) — are freaking out in light of CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s newly proposed draft criteria for her promised, “first-of-its-kind top-to-bottom review” of all electronic voting systems in the state.
Bowen’s most welcome and strictly drawn draft criteria, as we reported last week, are open for public comment through April 6th, after which testing will begin on systems which will lose their certification for 2008 if they do not meet the refreshingly strict standards to be reviewed (finally!).
In a document dated today and obtained by The BRAD BLOG, the CACEO — who worked very hard, if unsuccessfully, to see Bowen’s irresponsible predecessor, the hapless Bruce McPherson, re-elected — filed their comments on Bowen’s test criteria. And they don’t like ’em. They don’t like ’em one bit.
While we can hardly say we’re surprised by that, or that they didn’t bother to post the document on their own website yet, we can say that we’re surprised that these folks who run elections for a living still seem completely and utterly unaware of the one thing that matters to voters — and any successful democracy — the most…
The CACEO’s comments are available here [WORD] and we’ll let you enjoy a smile or two in
reviewing the 6-page, panicky document in which the elections officials — who have, until now, had a free ride to do pretty much anything they wanted for so long under McPherson — finally find their precious Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems hanging directly under the Sword of Damocles…or Bowen, as the case may be.
And though McPherson is gone, he’s hardly forgotten, as the CACEO folks pick up with the same horseshit that was rejected by the voters when it came out of McPherson’s maw.
Here’s an example of the CACEO’s echo of McPherson’s nonsense, in defending their precious DRE voting systems:
Really? Prove it.
Oh, yeah, they do. By referring to the ridiculous report [PDF] that a desperate-to-save-his-legacy McPherson filed on the way out the door on his last day of office. The point of the report, claiming “100% accuracy” in the state’s voting systems during the 2006 election, is summarized in the title of his strategically placed press release announcing the report at a government tech website: “California Monitoring Program Reports Votes Cast on Electronic Machines Were Accurately Recorded.”
Don’t bust a gut while reading this, but the CACEO clerks go on to actually say in their comments on the draft criteria (using McP’s nonsense as their evidence) that:
Seriously…that’s what they actually said.
Just a few more before I leave you to the CACEO’s caca on your own.
They pull the same deceptive nonsense that Rep. Rush Holt’s federal Election Reform legislation (HR811) does in claiming “paper ballots” when they’re actually referring to uncounted “paper trails.” Sure, they’re “verifiable,” but they are anything but verified by the voter and, oh yeah, they’re not actually ever counted. Here’s those crazy clerks again…
Well, with as many concerns as we have about Holt’s legislation, we’ll add that it is far stricter than what California currently has in place. No matter what the CACEO would like you to believe.
But that then leads us to the biggest point of all: What the CACEO would like you to believe about their electoral system…versus what you can actually find out about it yourself. Something that, incredibly, even now, they don’t seem to care anything about.
In their list of “basic tenets of elections” as embarrassingly included in their comments to Bowen on what the the “Scope of Review” ought to be in her testing, they leave out the one most important tenet of all — underscoring yet again how clueless these folks must be about what the voters actually need in a democracy:
- Accuracy
- Privacy
- Reliability
- Security
- Accessibility for Voters with Specific Needs
- Speed of Counting and Results Reporting
Uh…Notice anything missing in that list? We’re sure BRAD BLOG readers have guessed it already: Transparency.
Apparently, however, that’s not even the “last thing” on the minds of these elections clerks…It’s not even in the picture for them!
Until they figure that out, they will remain as clueless and out of touch with the voters as they transparently are, when it comes to understanding the needs of the voters whom they are supposed to be serving.
So the vendors and those to whom they sold the bill of goods are screaming that they shouldn’t come under scrutiny and offer transparency to the voters. Hmmm, could it be the vendors are shaking in their boots about loosing billions of dollars in future sales and maybe even having to pay back to the counties billions for making false claims.
Or could it be the Elections Officials and their bosses (the Boards of Supervisors) are puckering about the embarassment they will suffer when the public finds out what a boondoggle they bought into. And they won’t always be able to claim no one warned them, as election integrity groups throughout the state warned them time and time again – DON’T DO THIS – the machines are garbage – you can’t PROVE they are accurate.
And therein lies the reason Registrars of Voters DENY any attempts to see the audit logs, to watch the input screens for error messages, or to even see the central tabulator main screen. The curtain is ALWAYS drawn when it comes to meaningful observations – we are always told – “Pay no attention to that man behind the screen”, “move along, nothing to see here”, and “TRUST US”!
There are going to be an awful lot of butts on the line when this review is over with. And those who were warned the loudest, will have nowhere to hide.
҉ۢ Reliability
“It is the position of the CACEO that all systems should undergo a volume test as a minimum requirement of any review to assess the basic reliability of all equipment and software currently in use. This test should include an analysis of the durability of equipment that must be transported to polling places.”
I agree with the above. They should do volume tests and require all of the systems checked to meet the federal standards. The standards are simple and too lenient but I don’t think most of the systems presently in use would meet those standards.
*********************
Security testing and paper ballots. What they fail to point out is that security of paper ballots is totally an administrative problem and not a problem from within a voting machines internals.
*************
“The source code review section is vague, seemingly arbitrary, and contains no clear and measurable requirements. Since source code is already reviewed by independent testing authorities under standards developed by the EAC, it is critical to outline how this proposed source code review will differ from the EAC-sponsored review already conducted.”
This is pretty much a no-brainer. Ciber reviews the source code? The ITAs only look at what they are asked to look at.
**********************
The “Disability Access Testing” comments clearly are a concern for this group. They admit that not all of the systems are accessible. In fact, the act of admitting that would be important to any attorneys looking into accessibility of voting systems. HAVA gives standards that must be met. DRE systems do not meet those standards.
Most County Officials Have No Credibility in My Opinion
They have evolved into just shills for the software/hardware companies that “sold” them their equipment?
Accountability:
(The Accountability Ladder, emphasis added).
It is that essence of democracy, and that essence only, which is the DNA of true democracy and constitutional government of the american soul.
It is the essence of any government by, of, and for the people because it applies only to government officials.
The neoCons do not even begin to get it, because it is the one essence that puts them in their place … servants of the people.
The EVM companies have made EVM’s in their own image … and being neoCons … accountability, which comes in the form “verifiable” for EVMs, is not even considered. I remember The Lone Tester Shawn Whitworth saying it was not relevant to testing the machines … so they do not consider security.
It is little wonder, then, that CACEO chaffs at the prospect of having to become accountable to the voters, the people.
Since they did not rejoice with us we can conclude that they are not of, by, or for the people.
Accountability also seems to be missing from their list.
Fortunately, accountability appears to be headed their way.
Dan #5 “accountability appears to be headed their way”
A refreshing new experience for them we trust.
And lets hope the same for the war mongers.
It is difficult for the Senate since the majority is barely one vote.
The CACEO’s response is like what the Bush White House is on record as saying : “”The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ … ‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'”
Well, no, you can’t front on that any longer.
“The voting systems in use in California today exceed national certification requirements and have been tested and certified under more rigid technical and security standards as adopted by the State of California. ” The CACEO appears to be an ostrich organization with it’s head in the sand; can they read? It is now well documented that the ITA process is not only a complete travesty, it’s also a vendor driven process, not something that addresses voters needs or desires.
“Speed of Counting and Results Reporting” ; the only entities this matters to are the political parties, mass media and,apparently, the SOS office itself when it issues directives that the preliminary results must be transmitted to the SOS office within a half hour of the polls closing (yes, that is what the SOS office told the Registrars/County Clerks prior to the Nov. 2006 election.)
“Since source code is already reviewed by independent testing authorities under standards developed by the EAC, it is critical to outline how this proposed source code review will differ from the EAC-sponsored review already conducted.” – again the argument is ‘trust the authorities’ when such authorities have already been discreditted.
“Preparing for elections is a year-round process in California.” -Really? San Diego can’t prepare properly for an election given the Diebold DRE’s and the Procedures for Usage created by Diebold and accepted by the SOS office; using just 6 machines out of 10,000+ machines and 80 memory cards out of the 10,000+ memory cards that were to be used. it took the SD ROV 2 weeks to do logic and accuracy testing on 80 precincts. San Diego has about 1700 precincts. Do the math; it works out to over 40 weeks just to do the precribed logic and accuracy testing for all the machines that are used in a County wide election; AND that doesn’t count all the other preparations necessassry for holding an election such as the creation of ballot ‘styles’ etc.
So it’s actually more than an a “year round process”; simply stated, the CACEO folks can’t properly prepare the machines and provide proof of the logic and accuracy of such machines and still hold an election.
The CACEO needs to have a session where they all repeat one hundred times the prologue to the Brown Act:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
how about verifiable or auditable?
can we get those on the list?
The CACEO Demon. need I say more?!
I think it’s high time we destroy these people.
It’s high time that we educate the public about physics and electronics. About doping at the manufacture level.
Then there’s no excuse. If we all want to burn in hell on earth.
Having been in the “fast food” eyeglasses business for most of my life, it’s good to see others scurrying around in a frenzy. Especially when it’s for the good of honest elections.
They better wake up now and realize nobody’s going to want to work with these machines when accountability is the norm.
I guess what the issue to me is, the review outlaws computers. Any computer can be rendered inoperative (denial of service). Does Bradblog in the end wish to outlaw all computers from all vote counting systems? And what’s with all the spin? Doesn’t the CACEO thing stand by itself without the negative spin? If you think Bowen’s criteria is perfect, you haven’t read it.
CA-FVP #12
The issue with EVM is the same as any other computer. Sometimes one must have security and system integrity. If you follow the realities then you know that EVM’s are not even tested for security. So says the only EVM tester in this country, Shawn Whitman.
We know they are insecure and unsafe because an election official allowed a hack test by H. Hursti, and Hursti hacked the vote in mere moments, never having seen or touched the machine before. See the documentary “Hacking Democracy” for details.
Our mission is to change the nature of elections that use EVM’s from faith based systems, which require blind faith in government officials, to science based systems that are auditable like an ATM is.
You want faith … go to church … you want reliable EVM’s … go to science.
Thanks Dredd but after reading the draft criteria, it says that “…any tabulation system must incorporate as part if its design, hardware, firmware and software…features that effectively secure the computer…and all electronic media…against untraceable…denial of service attacks.”
There’s no such thing as a standalone secure computer. As soon as the red team goes in it can put malicious software onto a thumb drive and another trojan into the vote counting computers and thereby the system fails the test. That makes all computers outlawed. The key words are, “…attacks by any person…”
So, since Bradblog supports Sec.Bowen I can only assume that Bradblog supports only handcounting of ballots and no computers at all.
In all the anti-CACEO rhetoric (including Phil’s psychopathic babbling), I wonder now, how many clerks were elected, along with Sec. Bowen in the last election? Should they be tarred and feathered too? I also wonder if the CACEO has a position on HAVA II? The public has some questions and it’s hard to read through all this political spin to get to the real meaning. And now, back to lurking.