Our friends over at BuzzFlash are featuring an exclusive interview with David Earnhardt, filmmaker of Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections, today.
Disclosure: Though we appear in the film, and Earnhardt advertises it here at The BRAD BLOG, we do not make money on the sale of the film. BuzzFlash, however, does, if you purchase it through BuzzFlash’s sales link, which we recommend you do, in case you’ve yet to see this seminal film. They and Earnhardt deserve the support.
We hope you’ll read the interview, as well.
We’ve got a small, if friendly, nit to pick with both Earnhardt and BuzzFlash’s Mark Karlin in regard to one section of the interview in which they discuss the notion of ballots being printed out by machine, as opposed to marked by hand by the voter.
Machine-printed ballots can never be verified, after an election, as actually reflecting the voters’ intent, and thus — except for cases of disabled voters who wish to vote on such devices, as necessary, in order to vote privately and independently — there is no legitimate reason to use such voting machines. Ever. That is, of course, if such machines even work at all. When they don’t, voters can’t even cast their votes.
The quick, scientific-study-based bullet points on why such machine printed ballots or “paper trails” can never be known to reflect voter intent follow below for those who’d like to know…
NOTE THESE IMPORTANT POINTS, about DRE voting machines (usually touch-screen), and other similar computerized ballot-marking devices which produce computer-printed “paper trails” or paper ballots, as opposed to hand-marked paper ballots…
- A number of studies by the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project show that most voters (as many as 80%) don’t bother to check them before casting their vote. (Diebold’s machines even put an opaque door over the “paper trail” display, which most folks don’t know to lift up. If they do lift it up, they must then view a tiny cash-register style tape through the magnifying glass — you read that right — that Diebold supplies with each machine.)
- According to a Rice Univ. study, more than two-thirds of voters who do bother to confirm their ballots on the machines at the end of the voting process don’t notice vote-flips on the ballots which appear right in front of their face.
- According to studies by NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice, the U. of Calif. and CalTech/MIT, due to the above, it is very easy to hack both the internal numbers and the so-called “paper trail” printout,, such that no count or audit of those “paper trails,” even up to 100% of them (if anyone bothered to do such a check), would reveal that the election had been hacked.
- According to a recent study of DRE machines commissioned by Cuyahoga County, OH after their 2006 election, on at least 10% of the machines tested, the internal numbers and the “paper trails” did not match up.
- Finally, even if voters bother to check their paper trails (when Caltech/MIT says most don’t), and even if they happen to notice any votes flips on then (when Rice U. says most don’t), and even if the machines and paper trails are not gamed (as Brennan and U of C says they can be), and even if the DREs manage to count every vote 100% accurately as cast (as the Ohio study says they don’t), there is absolutely no way to know any of that after an election on such machines.
- Therefore, a paper ballot, hand-marked by the voter, is the only way to be relatively certain after an election that one is actually reviewing the actual voter intent, in the event that anybody ever bothers to examine any of those so-called “paper trails” or computer-printed ballots (which almost nobody, in the entire country, ever does anyway).
As a poll watcher in the 2006 election watching people vote on the Diebold with the magnifying lens and opaque door described above, I can attest to the problems.
I requested to have the doors left open while people voted and was allowed to do so for about 5 minutes before being told the doors “MUST REMAIN CLOSED” by somebody else who had been instructed to close them by a superior.
I watched in frustration all day as about 2% of the people voting knew to open the door. Most pushed the last button to vote and missed their last chance to view their printout as it rolled up into the canister never to be seen again. Lots of people walked up to the judges after voting and said they had heard of problems with the machines and thought they were going to receive a copy. I could not get any of the judges to tell anybody to check the printout before pushing that last button either. I was basically told to sit down and shut up.
“Uncounted” is a great film. Every bit as good as “Hacking Democracy” with some important new faces, (hero’s) being interviewed for the first time on film. Make sure everybody you know sees it!
Well it seems that once again, there were more than a few Floridians whose votes were “uncounted”:
Florida Primary voters reporting problems at polls
One voter was told by poll workers there was no Democratic primary today
(more at TPMMuckraker.com)
And also on TPM – bless his heart, our good buddy Kenneth Blackwell has been invited for a little chat with John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler about voter suppression. (Anyone think he’s got the balls to show? Anyone? *crickets chirping*)
Conyers, Nadler Invite Ken Blackwell for Hearing on Voter Suppression
Hmm. Pelosi shut down Conyers on impeachment. Wonder if she’ll let him take on Ohio? We all know it’s Conyers passion project. Maybe that was their deal. After all everything in politics is–hands off the impeachment, you can go after Ohio.
Please contribute to Clint Curtis for Congress ’08!
I was always suggesting that an electronic device be allowed to PRINT a paper ballot to be hand counted.
When I say this I am thinking about people that have no eyes. But I have also said that being disabled doesn’t mean that you can screw up the elections for everyone else.
But as Earnhardt so well points out there are problems here as well. It angers me that these manufactures have to go and screw around with this to the point where people can’t validate their votes.
I could download a PDF file and print my ballot and have less trouble. But then someone will use bad ink or (WD-40 on the ribbon in a pinch) or some other such stupidity will creep in.
I think the only way to comply with HAVA is to have 100% paper ballots. Great. Where does that leave the disabled?
Either they are going to have to be assisted by someone they trust (loosing transparency, and potentially being scammed if there’s nobody to trust) or they are going to have to have faith in some electronic device that assists them to create a paper ballot.
That brings back these rotten evil electronic device manufactures again, who just want to use the cheapest parts and bla bla bla whatever I am sick of it.
I mentioned somewhere here on the bradblog a year or so back that the census data should be used to COUNT the disabled. This way we know how many people need to use these machines. It could probably be done at the time of registering to vote. Granted there will be a few unfortunate people that are crippled between the time the registered and the time they vote, but the Secretary of State should have a ROUGH COUNT of how many are needed.
With that information, a mobile multi-party’d (as in poll watchers from EVERY party dedicated to traveling with the mobile poll) machine could come to their front door.
This machine needs to be simple. It needs to be adaptable, where say someone already has a computer to communicate with the world, then all they really need is a usb / parallel port output. Failing that, a universal human interface device that is created by the government to specific specs should be created. Spare no expense, no low bidder hidden proprietary junk.
Certainly someone will spin these words to try figure out a way to make this fail as well, and if that’s the case, then what else is left but to discriminate against folks that are disabled.
So in this scenario, the disabled either ARRIVE at the Secretary of State’s special early voting station (my best idea), or they wait for a mobile poll (questionable how that could be rolled out.)
Someone might say they could hack/crack the vote with data on their output port, but that would show up when the paper was printed, with a taskforce made up of every political party working as poll watchers.
Someone might say the disabled computer is broken, from an existing virus or a plethora of other frigging problems, and I’d have to agree.
So what is the answer here? I agree with David Earnhardt all these electronic devices as currently rolled out all suck. But to change that we need to have ideas, brainstorm, and throw out a well thought alternative quickly and accurately.
While I might be able to destroy an electronic tabulation device in 1 second, or really any kind of electronic device in 1 second because of an electronics and programming background, which I believe qualifies me to at least have an input to say that these boxes can never be validated, because the signals are invisible. That’s physics, I understand physics, I understand electronics, but I don’t know enough about the disabled and the devices they use for communications.
And therefore my knowledge stops.
If someone steps up and says, yeah all these devices the disabled use to communicate with all have USB port or a parallel port, then I can come back in to brainstorm again.
Just like the legal parts of all this insanity as well, I might know the constitution, I might know how the military does stuff, orders stuff, and works on stuff, but I don’t know all the pandora’s box full of little piddly ass laws in each precinct in each city in each state. They all need discipline in my opinion. Similar to a military discipline.
You can’t tell me that out of all of us Americans, we can’t create a device that is secure, and has a full chain of custody, that has public oversight, that isn’t owned by some corporation or company, that can assist the disabled to print a ballot.
I didn’t want to even get started with this thread, for two reasons.
1. I am not at odds with David Earnhardt, although it might sound like it.
2. I am not for electronic vote device manufactures, I think all of them that created this exploitable crap we currently use should NEVER be allowed to contract to make such a device as I am suggesting.
Finally, I don’t believe the disabled should be discriminated against, they have a frigging right to vote just like you or I, we might be disabled one day. I am mostly pissed off at the nonsense that these companies have passed off on the unqualified buyers who purchased these machines. In that respect, I would discriminate against say a Secretary of State that doesn’t have some basic understanding of electronics, physics, and programming, or know the leadership skills to find people qualified to do the same.
All this nonsense networking needs to go too.
The vote should be hand delivered face to face. You don’t know who your talking to on a phone.
Serious problems, need serious solutions. We all can bitch about these machines all day every day and we do, but WHO is SERIOUSLY suggesting alternatives?
There isn’t any public advertised place to go to brainstorm to solve these problems. Such a place needs anonymous access. And minimal moderation. But again, these existing companies should not participate. They’ve already blown it. Their greed has shown they can not participate fairly.
… Brad blogged…
“Both they, and Earnhardt deserves the support.”
… Brad, what is our children learning?! 🙂
{Ed Note: Wasn’t that what is our childrens learning? Thanks. –99}
Canada provides – has used for years – a well-thought out, thoroughly accepted process whereby handicapped voters can get human assistance.
What is wrong with a mindset that prefers dealing with a machine to dealing with a human?
… abacus wondered…
“What is wrong with a mindset that prefers dealing with a machine to dealing with a human?”
Actually, nothing seems inherently wrong with the concept… if you are used to thinking of machines as “incorruptible”…
This ain’t Canada. It’s the United States.
I ain’t even saying that an electronic device should be used, I am open to comments, suggestions, theories, and dead end ideas when they are proven as bad. I am just saying what little I know about the device I saw, a plastic tube going to a box, then to a computer, the computer had a parallel port to print.
How does Canada deal with disabled voters?
How did we do it in 1950? 1960? etc.
If we all agree the disabled should vote isn’t it past time for a task-force to start sorting out HOW that’s going to actually happen? What’s acceptable, what’s not.
You talk about mindset, but then only use the term “machine” What do you mean?
Do you mean the mindset that want’s to use an electronic device to send data to a printer to print a paper ballot?
Do you mean the mindset that want’s to use an electronic device to tabulate votes?
Do you mean the mindset that want’s to send vote data across insecure networks?
Do you mean the mindset that refers to a Machine as a mechanical lever that has no electronics?
This is exactly how terminology is being used against us. We don’t know what anyone means.
We need a MILITARY styled discipline, with non-slang terms that get extremely specific. Technical specs that are in plain english. Motorola data book have technical specs in plain English, why can’t voting devices? It’s like we are all using fuzzy logic and rounding numbers when we are talking to each other. Sometimes rounded numbers are a good thing. Sometimes fuzzy logic is a good thing. But not when it is regarding our constitutional republic.
Anyone notice how diebold.com now has Diebold Premier Services® ?
Try to find Premier Voting Solutions on google.
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&q=Premier&btnG=Search
You need to go to wikipedia. Then you might get off track to say… http://www.procomp.com.br/defaultproc.asp
But then by reading, change your search a little in google and finally come up with http://www.premierelections.com/ Premiere (Spelling different) Elections (Solutions?!) these guys are hiding . Big time hiding and obscuring names to throw anyone not determined off.
this is such bull. Their first site diebold.com should link to premierelections (note the name runs together? the “e” is in common with two words.) And then there’s Adobe Premiere that’s nice to muck and hide keywords. I sit here trying to recall old school grammer, i before e except after…c? I can’t even spell it.
premier premiere premeir solutions systems elections english Portuguese
Shall we get into etc.?
Election Technology Council (ETC).
/etc/
etc.
ETC.
I had to use a proxy to access their website
http://sneakyjoe.com/nph-proxy.pl/000000A/http/www.electiontech.org/
This is literally a mind control exercise.
On that website they have new terms.
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG)
Anyone remember VVPAT similar sounding to your mind?
Nevermind. But remember they are “an association consisting of voting system manufacturers in the United States.”
They have “guidelines outlining best practices for election officials to adopt” neat huh?
I got some guidelines to outline the best practices for election officials. Really simple, you don’t need Adobe Acrobat or Adobe Premeire to read it.
OUTLAW ALL ELECTRONIC VOTE TABULATION DEVICES.
Phil, the “Voluntary Voting System Guidelines” are a product of HAVA and the EAC and are basically the e-voting certification measures that were designed to pacify those who had questions about the machines.
Yes… the standards the EAC utterly failed at implementing.
Phil #8
“How does Canada deal with disabled voters?”
Here’s part of it
A voter there can select a person to act as his/her agent. There is a formal agreement. This person is registered with election officials. The
agreement limits the agent’s action strictly to casting the vote.
Here are some clips from the Canadian “Federal Election Legislation.â€
http://www.elections.ca/loi/ref/CEA-LEC_e.pdf
155. (1) If an elector requires assistance to vote, a friend, the spouse, the common-law partner or a relative of the elector or a
relative of the elector’s spouse or common-law partner may accompany the elector into the voting compartment and assist the elector to mark his or her ballot.
(2) No person shall as a friend assist more than one elector for the purpose of marking a ballot.
(3) A person described in subsection (1) who wishes to assist an elector in marking a ballot shall first take an oath, in the prescribed form,
that he or she (a) will mark the ballot paper in the manner directed by the elector;
(b) will not disclose the name of the candidate for whom the elector voted;
(c) will not try to influence the elector in choosing a candidate; and
(d) has not, during the current election, assisted another person, as a friend, to mark a ballot.
(4) No person who assists an elector under this section shall, directly or indirectly, disclose the candidate for whom the elector voted.
S.C. 2000, c. 12, s. 40.
The law has many more sections, covering a wide range of contingencies –
e.g.,
including provisions for taking ballots to the bedside of voters in retirement and medical facilities.
common sense. Wow enlightening.
Seems like you have a good heart too.
Phil #8
Mindset
In a space less focused on current events, I’d be up for a discussion of machine-assisted voting, human-assisted voting, and related concepts. I really did not mean to have that discussion here. But there is a simpler side, which I did aim to touch on. It seems I was too brief.
Many people like the DRE-style voting systems. They score well in many surveys. Imo these systems are inferior to human-assisted voting systems, like Canada’s. especially for handicapped voters. Some of the parameters of the discussion: usability, first cost; maintenance, setup, L&A testing [machines – usually pathetic], storage, BDF programming, audit – and training…
“Mindset: a fixed attitude.†Webster’s.
Your text, Phil, carries an engineering flavor, I come out of Gordon Brown’s MIT feedback control and computer systems programs. So I’m comfortable with hydraulic, mechanical, electrical, analog, digital systems…and, yes, I had a tour with Zadeh’s fuzzy logic. We could maybe agree about one mindset.
At one point I had my hand on the gearshift lever of the transmission of a Rolls-Royce from the 1930s. The designer had fitted it with a ball-bearing detent. The craftsmen who made the parts and assembled them had to be of the old school. Shifting gears was shear kinaesthetic pleasure. Parts moved smoothly, without graininess or hesitation – steel on steel on a thin film of lubricant – until the next position was reached and the ball fell into place and the whole mechanism latched in. See? A mindset that values craftsmanship. The company shared the mindset.
Some in this society value throwaway bright colored plastic assemblies – yes, including voting machines – that wobble when touched, have connectors that malfunction, controls that are often appalling [have you read Neal Runyan’s reports on voting machines for the handicapped?] displays users can’t find without help and can read only with a magnifying glass…a mindset that values cheap and tawdry and doesn’t care about waste.
The makers share this mindset: skimp design; skimp incoming inspection; bamboozle regulatory authority [vastly inadequate anyway – another story] dazzle the prospective customers, negotiate support contracts with provisions aimed at locking customers into dependency – and then failing to deliver parts and service. Snake-oil salesmen’s mndset…
OK?
Now voting systems: a Canadian has vision deficiencies. He goes to vote. Someone is with him to help. There is likely some discussion between them, perhaps, about the election. In any case the voter makes his choices; the other person completes the ballot etc. They shake hands and go their ways, each conscious of the fact that something friendly has happened: a mindset that values our common humanity.
HCPB systems share this mindset.
Our founding revolution was based on: a central idea – the only way people could live free of oppressive governance was to govern themselves; and on the design of the Constitution so we could work together for the common good while protecting each.
I guess I don’t have to convince anyone here that the Constitution is being eviscerated…
A mindset: we are in this together.
So not only do we need voting systems that are sound from an engineering perspective; we need restoration of the Constitution…