the REAL end of thread more on Lynn Landes' analysis of the 2002Elections from RISKS

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Steve Cohen <stevecoh1 () attbi com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:26:35 -0600
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: <[IP]> end of thread more on Lynn Landes' analysis of the
2002Elections from RISKS

Dave -

I make no charges about vote tampering by any side of these elections.
I obviously have no evidence.  And I agree that comparing against polls
will not PROVE anything.

However, I think it is undeniable that the quick turn to these systems
has not had anything near the verification procedures that will be
required to inspire confidence.

The layman cannot perform this verification.  With ballot boxes, one
must merely verify that the box was empty at the beginning and give all
sides the ability to determine that they were not stuffed, by keeping
them in public view.  I have participated in many votes of this type,
and it's absurdly simple to verify them.

With old-fashioned lever voting machines, you simply need to verify that
pulling the lever results in a vote.  The rigor is in the iron so to
speak.  Even with the much maligned punchcard system, verification is
simply that the holes line up and of the counting machinery.  You still
must, I suppose verify that the machine is not programmed to discard one
in twenty votes for one side.  But you still have the punchcards as an
audit trail.

With fully digital voting machinery there's no way to prove integrity,
and once rumors of dishonesty start to get out, there's no way to
disprove them.  The appearance of impropriety becomes harder and harder
to avoid.

Which is something governmental bodies ought to have thought of before
they jumped so fast for these technologies.  The cost of providing this
assurance would make these "solutions" prohibitively expensive.

I don't believe the fear of getting caught would be an absoulte
deterrent.  Certainly didn't work that way with Enron, WorldCom, etc.
Make the rewards for cheating high enough and you will find someone to
take them.

Oh, and as a Chicagoan, even if no friend of Mayor Daley, I must point
out that he was never "caught" at anything of this sort.  It never got
beyond the allegation phase.

Steve Cohen





Dave Farber wrote:
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: "Robert M. McClure" <rmm () unidot com>
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 13:21:42 -0700
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Re: FW: <<[IP]>> more on Lynn Landes' analysis of the 2002Elections
> from RISKS
>
> Since I was specifically challenged by name by Dana Blankenhorn, I
> am directing this response to her.
>
>
> At 12:54 PM 11/10/02 -0500, Dana Blankenhorn wrote:
>
>
> > ------ Forwarded Message
> > From: Dana Blankenhorn <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
> > Reply-To: Dana Blankenhorn <danablankenhorn () mindspring com>
> > Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:53:54 -0500
> > To: dave () farber net
> > Subject: Re: <<[IP]>> more on Lynn Landes' analysis of the 2002Elections from
> > RISKS
> >
> > Dave:
> >
> > I don't know whether what Lynn wrote is correct or not.
> >
> > We both know, however, that electronic systems are very easy to tamper with.
> > I also know that the results in Georgia and Florida, where the electronic
> > systems were used exclusively, were 10% off from what the polls showed
> > before the election.
>
>
> What the polls showed before the election have almost nothing to do with
> whether the poll was accurate.  There are entirely too many ways in which
> polls are *much* less reliable than even the sloppiest election.  Perhaps it
> would be better for Lynn and Dana to challenge the pollsters.
>
>
> > It's also true that there were reports from Florida on Election Day of
> > people trying to vote Democratic, who found out that the machines recorded
> > their votes as Republican.
>
>
> Yes, and there were other jurisdictions in which the opposite claim was
> made.
> These allegations make neither of them true.  But also please note that the
> biggest flap was over the butterfly ballot which somehow manage to confuse
> voters.  The only machine in this case was a tablet which held the ballot in
> position for hand punching.
>
>
> > If a program automatically cast 1 in 10 votes for one party, regardless of
> > what the voter intended, then you have your difference.
>
>
> Any program which arbitrarily cast 10 percent of the votes for one party
> would be very easy to spot with a test run of as few as 10 votes.
>
>
> > The problem is, how do you prove it? If it's true, I consider it treason.
> > Yes, treason. No crime can be as serious as stealing an American election.
> > No crime goes deeper to the heart of the American system.
> >
> > But how do you prove it? Rogue programs can be erased and removed.
> > Irregularities can be attributed to underlings. The conspiracy itself could
> > be very small, and politicians would no doubt (if it were true) isolate it
> > to Diebold, the vendor.
>
>
> While the assertion by Dana that it is easy to tamper with electronic
> systems is true, it is *much* more difficult to tamper with them in such
> a way that the tamperer doesn't get caught.  And getting caught would
> completely undo the rationale for tampering in the first place.  Consider
> that it would be necessary to tamper with a very large number of systems
> in numerous jurisdictions to have any significant effect without being
> noticed.  (The reason that Duval county and Mayor Daley got caught was
> their egregious cheating.)  Just think of the scrutiny that the hanging
> chads
> got in Florida.  How do you get rogue programs in the hundreds of voting
> machines used in Dade County alone and then get them erased again?
>
> While there might be a rogue programmer in some vendors establishment,
> the likelihood that a major vendor instituted such behavior is absurdly
> unlikely given that, if discovered, they would be out of business in a flash
> and those responsible would be behind bars.  If the machines don't do the
> right thing, my opinion is that it is overwhelmingly likely that a
> programming
> error (ie bug) or other form of stupidity is to blame.
>
>
> > Then, how to you guarantee it won't happen again? You have to create
> > print-outs of everyone's vote, and drop them into a box, just as before, and
> > hand count those votes, just as before, for a post-election audit. It would
> > be a major mess.
>
>
> As I noted in my earlier post, paper ballots guarantee nothing.  The above
> paragraph is simply naive to even propose such.  But I do agree, it would
> be a mess.
>
>
> > But democracy isn't designed to be simple or neat.
> >
> > In other words, it's very wrong to dismiss this charge as mere partisanship,
> > or as "everybody does it." The former claim is disingenuous, the latter
> > extremely cynical.
>
>
> A charge may be dismissed if it is so obviously partisan that the motives
> of the writer are called into question unless serious evidence is shown.
> In the original ariticle, nothing was shown except speculation.
>
>
> > Let me repeat this. If this election was stolen it's the gravest crime to
> > our democracy ever.
>
>
> If stolen, I agree that it is one of the gravest of crimes.
>
>
> > Doesn't the impact of the charge by itself require an investigation on the
> > merits?
>
>
> Depends upon whether there is any credible evidence whatsoever, not
> mere speculation.  After the 1960 election, even though a lot of evidence
> was shown to Richard Nixon that he had gotten the short end of the stick,
> he chose not to contest the election on the ground that uncertainty about
> the outcome of the election would do more damage to the country than
> winking at a flawed election.  He may or may not have been right about
> that, but it did put a damper on the speculation that Kennedy was an
> illegitimate president. and that was probably a very good thing.
>
>
> > Let me ask Bob McClure -- if it were Democrats who stood accused, would you
> > still say ignore it? Be honest.
>
>
> I don't ignore any real evidence of malfeasance on either side.  To quote
> from
> my earlier post:  The best that we can do is try as hard as we can to get
> it right.
> Since I believe in full disclosure, let me say that I don't trust either of
> our two
> major parties, and in the last presidential election did not vote for
> either.
>
> Bob McClure
>
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as stevecoh1 () attbi com
> To unsubscribe or update your address, click
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/




------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To unsubscribe or update your address, click
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/