Blackbox Voting contesting ES&S acquisition of Diebold voting systems

[Bayou Bum]

last time he asked for proof, it had to be proved with a 3,000,000,000 year study before he would concede global warming exists.

The problem with global warming is it isn't happening fast enough. I've invested millions on what will be beach property in Greenland, speculating on global warming.

[lindajdunn]

The problem with global warming is it isn't happening fast enough. I've invested millions on what will be beach property in Greenland, speculating on global warming.

Unless it's a few miles inland, it may be underwater.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

last time he asked for proof, it had to be proved with a 3,000,000,000 year study before he would concede global warming exists.

Yes, see, but you fell into his trap.

The Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[jessicasimpson]

The problem with global warming is it isn't happening fast enough. I've invested millions on what will be beach property in Greenland, speculating on global warming.

That reminds me. Two weeks (about) ago a spokesman for greenpeace said on the BBC that greenland could have Ice-free summers by 2030. Of coarse it was a complete lie/scare tactic. The "liberal media" in America didn't pick up the story.

[Hauptman]

The problem with global warming is it isn't happening fast enough. I've invested millions on what will be beach property in Greenland, speculating on global warming.

You're not too far off, BB. There are parts of Greenland where they are seeing ground for the first time that has always been covered by glacier.

And don't forget that the mythical Northwest Passage is no longer a myth.

I've always loved the name "Greenland". The vikings realized that people weren't too inclined to move to Iceland, so when they found Greenland they went for the better marketing approach. I bet there were some pissed off homesteaders on that trip.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

OK...that's two. One more reference to finding the best voting system, and you'll be invoking Beetlejuice---err, Peter G and his Amazing Voting System Analysis Compendium!

You called?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Phaeton]

The problem with global warming is it isn't happening fast enough. I've invested millions on what will be beach property in Greenland, speculating on global warming.

Problem is, you get global warming too severe and you make the gulf stream stop. Then Greenland gets VERY cold VERY fast. Well, colder than it already is.

I say, we should increase our carbon emissions on Tuesdays and Thursdays only.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

OK...that's two. One more reference to finding the best voting system, and you'll be invoking Beetlejuice---err, Peter G and his Amazing Voting System Analysis Compendium!

If you think that my musings are something out of the ordinary, try this. Try the forums on election theory - people are far nastier than anyone here has managed to post. That is not over election outcomes, but the mathematical theories behind them and which goodness criteira are the best.

Yu havnt seen nuttin yet.

That said:
Here is my suggestion for a better way of organizing the FPTP voting system used in the USA, which hopefully combines the pros of computerized and manual voting, while avoiding their respective cons.

1. In the voting booth, there is a touchscreen computer. On the screen, there is a list of all candidates. The candidates are ordered by lots. Once the deadline for running for POTUS is passed, the senior SCOTUS member draws their names (written on paper pieces) out of a bag. The draw order is the posting order on the computer screens, it is the same all over the country.
2. When entering the voting booth, the voter touches the name of the candidate that he wishes to vote for. The screen is then changed, so that only the name of that candidate is shown. There is also a large text reading: "You are about to vote for candidate X. Is this your wish?" Under that are two response boxes with the texts: "YES - proceed to print out vote slip" and "NO - please return to the candidate selection screen". If the voter the touches the YES box, the computer prints out a vote slip, with the candidate name in clear text, and a barcode. If the voter touches the NO box, it it back to candidate selection, and rinse/repeat until the voter touches the YES box. Once the YES box has been touched, the computer stores the result, and it can not be operated by touching the screen. The computer is turned into some sort of lock-down mode.
3. The voter puts the vote slip into an envelope. There is a stack of envelopes inside the voting booth. Voting officials will replenish the stack when necessary.
4. The voter takes the envelope out of the voting booth. On his way out, he passes a oneway-turnstile which reactivates the computer so that the next voter can operate the touchscreen.
5. Once past the turnstile, the voter puts his vote envelope into the ballot box under the supervision of voting officials, just like today. The voter´s part of the election is then over, and he goes home to watch the election coverage on TV.

Vote counting goes like this:
1. Voting officials bring the computers and ballot boxes to safe locations with round-the-clock video coverage. There will be one safe location for each county, or more if the population warrants it. Everyone can observe the locations via webTV, but no one except vote counting officials can actually be inside the safe locations and do anything. I envision big lexan cages with CCTV in which the counting officials work.
2. Firstly, the vote counting officials lock up the computers and take out the memory. Each computer has a write-once, read-many memory device which can only work with that specific computer. (I leave the hardware implementation details to the specialists here.) It also has a key which is specific to that computer, and the key has an inbuilt log so that all attempts to use it are stored on the key with timestamp and GPS data.
3. The memories are read off in a central computer which adds up all the voting results for all candidates. Those results are then relayed to a state computer. Based on the results in the statewide computer, electoral college votes are provisionally assigned.
4. Once the memories have been read off, they are put into larger memory boxes, which are then stored in state vaults for a very long time. New memories are produced for the touchscreen computers in time for the next election.
5. The ballot box results are used in these instances:
a. If the margin between the two leading candidates is below some set amount, triggering automatic recount
b. If the vote count of a given part has changed much (above a set percentage) since the latest election
c. If the race was close in the latest election, the margin between the two leadning candidates being below a given amount
d. If any candidate demands a recount in that precinct
e. If the voting precinct is randomly selected for recount. The precinct computer has a button which generates random selection, sort of like the fencing boxes with random priority buttons.
f. If any of the 3 latest elections showed irregularities. Irregularities include, but are not limited to, instances in which the memory, barcode, and plaintext totals for any candidate do not match. Other irregularities are designated at the discretion of the state supreme court.
6. If a recount is triggered, the ballot boxes are opened and the envelopes are torn open. The individual vote slips are then tallied by barcode reading machines, and then manually for the plaintext of the candidate name. Once tallied, the vote slips are put back into the ballot box which are then locked.
7. If the results do not match, manual tallying results will take precedence. If the state result is close, any of the leading candidates can ask for one recount. Once this is over, the ballot boxes with their votes are stored in state vaults until the next election.

All companies wishing to provide these computers must provide all code in full open source. The computer must be tested on low-importance elections (such as schoolkids voting for next week´s lunch, ore something like that) with the full setup, turnstiles and all.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[erik_blank]

I like the above PG, but ther eis one MAJOR dreawback to this very good system: $$$
The various county governments ahve already sunk lots of local treasure in their investment in the currently (Very) flawed systems. The system that you have proposed is much more expensive, and will be more pone to failures due to the need to have working printers, special paper and working power supplies that can handle multiple hours without power in the even of a power outage. The Turnstile idea is great, but adds more to the cost and the mechanical aspect will add more failure points. In poorer districts the cost of maintenance will be prohibitive and will most likely result in more breakdowns and delays in voting.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

I like the above PG, but ther eis one MAJOR dreawback to this very good system: $$$
The various county governments ahve already sunk lots of local treasure in their investment in the currently (Very) flawed systems. The system that you have proposed is much more expensive, and will be more pone to failures due to the need to have working printers, special paper and working power supplies that can handle multiple hours without power in the even of a power outage. The Turnstile idea is great, but adds more to the cost and the mechanical aspect will add more failure points. In poorer districts the cost of maintenance will be prohibitive and will most likely result in more breakdowns and delays in voting.

I might contrast this with Swedish voting: Over here, the goings-on in the voting rooms are controlled by the national tax authority. Local representatives of the IRS, and some hired hands, run the elections. Before the real election, the local tax office drills the hired hands so that everything will work as flawlessly as is humanly possible. The hired hands are im the great majority of cases veterans from the latest election. Party representatives are present at the door of the voting rooms, but they do not enter, nor to they influence the election during voting day. Everything is payed out of the IRS working budget. The local people carry out orders from the national IRS, but do not decide anything else than the most trivial matters. Since everything is nationally paid, poor counties have no reason to put in a substandard performance. After voting ends, the ballot boxes are taken back to the county tax office, in which they are counted. All votes are saved for recounts - some are done automatically, some are done in districts chosen by lots, and some are done in places where it appears that someone has done an honest mistake. However, it is exceedingly unusual that the parties accuse each other of improprieties in the voting process.

When a Swedish voter reports to his voting room (each voting room cover a district of a few thousand inhabitants) he brings with him his voting card, which the IRS has sent to him a month or so in advance. We have no voter registration in Sweden, the IRS maintains a real-time database of all eligble voters and their present adresses. The voter also brings with him a personal ID (usually drivers licence, but new passports or postal ID´s are also accepted). It is quite easy for a Swedish citizen to obtain the latter two, and the cost of doing so is low, even for unemployed people. However, that does not cause a lot of people obtaining false ID´s - that is so difficult so that only people who wish to have them for non-voting crimes try to obtain them. Those people do not risk exposing their false ID´s for voting, they have bigger plans for their false ID´s. They are quite few anyway.

Generally, somthing like 85-90% of the eligble voters vote in the parliamentary elections. However, that does not lead to lines in the voting rooms - stuff generally works like clockwork over here.

Once the voting has ended, preliminary results start ticking in within two hours after voting room closure. The results are fairly accurate by then, and before midnight the party leaders have hald their consolation/celebration speeches. The latest time when the result was not totally sure by the morning after was 1979.

We do not have "hanging chads" problems over here, since most voters do not do anything to the ballots, they just select three of them. We vote for county, regional, and national parliament at the same time. All national ballots are yellow, the regional ballots are blue, and the county ones are white. For each region there is one ballot for each party. That ballot contains the name of the party in bold block letters, and an ordered lists of the candidates of that party for that region. The candidates are presented by name, age, home adress, and age. The candidates are ordered according to party primary. A voter may select an individual candidate, in which case that candidate will get a boost, or he can accept the party list as-is and just put the party ballot into the ballot envelope. The ballot envelope is intended for only one ballot, so each voter uses three envelopes. The envelopes have their lower corners cut away, so that it is possible to see which color the ballot is. However, it is not possible to see which party the voter has selected without opening the envelope.

Since there is only one party on each ballot, it is really hard to vote for the wrong party - you just have to be able to read your party´s name.

Every time there is a US. presidential election, Swedish print media report on the irregular stuff that goes on. The fact that a country that is not a bona fide 3rd world country can fail to pull off an election where there are other irregularities than the odd minor mistake never ceases to draw snickers - or more, in the Florida case.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Bayou Bum]

Since there is only one party on each ballot, it is really hard to vote for the wrong party - you just have to be able to read your party´s name.

But what if I like to vote for people instead of party? I have voted Republican for President and Democrat for Senate before.

[lindajdunn]

One of the problems overlooked here is that there is NOT an election for President. There are at least 50 DIFFERENT elections for President with at least 50 different methods.

In some states, checking the straight party ticket and then selecting a different party Presidental candidate invalidates the ballot. In some states, selectiing a straight party ticket and NOT also selecting a presidental candidate means you didn't vote for President. In other states, filling in that circle to vote for Pres. as well as straight party invalidates your ballot.

in some places, you fill in a circle. In Florida, you connect TWO horizontal lines beside the candidates' names. In some places, you have touch screens and if they're not properly calibrated, selecting A gives a vote to B.

In some states, you can vote only in one location which may or may not be the location where you live. In some states, voters are automatically purged from the roles for failing to return postcards sent to their home. [Sometimes because they are deployed overseas and sometimes because the postcards are misaddressed.]

There are (imho) too many diverse regulations concerning HOW to vote, let alone the METHOD used to vote.

While I'd like to see the regulations standardized so that people who move from one state to another are not unduly confused, I don't at all like the idea of using one vendor and esp. a vendor whose equipment has been proven to be easily compromised.

[Bayou Bum]

One of the problems overlooked here is that there is NOT an election for President. There are at least 50 DIFFERENT elections for President with at least 50 different methods.

In some states, checking the straight party ticket and then selecting a different party Presidental candidate invalidates the ballot. In some states, selectiing a straight party ticket and NOT also selecting a presidental candidate means you didn't vote for President. In other states, filling in that circle to vote for Pres. as well as straight party invalidates your ballot.

in some places, you fill in a circle. In Florida, you connect TWO horizontal lines beside the candidates' names. In some places, you have touch screens and if they're not properly calibrated, selecting A gives a vote to B.

In some states, you can vote only in one location which may or may not be the location where you live. In some states, voters are automatically purged from the roles for failing to return postcards sent to their home. [Sometimes because they are deployed overseas and sometimes because the postcards are misaddressed.]

There are (imho) too many diverse regulations concerning HOW to vote, let alone the METHOD used to vote.

While I'd like to see the regulations standardized so that people who move from one state to another are not unduly confused, I don't at all like the idea of using one vendor and esp. a vendor whose equipment has been proven to be easily compromised.

That is up to each State. Each State is allowed to determine any method it wants to determine its electoral votes. A State could decide to just let the governor decide who will receive all the electoral votes.

[Hauptman]

That is up to each State. Each State is allowed to determine any method it wants to determine its electoral votes. A State could decide to just let the governor decide who will receive all the electoral votes.

True, but what if the states screw it up? The whole nation can suffer because of it.

Bush ended up winning in 2000, but it could have gone either way because of the mess in Florida. I can't imagine that Republicans are really happy with the process there just because G.W. won in the end, or are they?

[I_luv_saber]

Seems kind of silly to let a federal election fall under the organization of the states. The states should be able to scrutinize in the interests of transparency, but having each state organize and abide by their own methods and standards seems... odd in the case of a federal election.

[lindajdunn]

That is up to each State. Each State is allowed to determine any method it wants to determine its electoral votes. A State could decide to just let the governor decide who will receive all the electoral votes.

This is the way it is.

My opinion is that the methodolgy used was established at a time that made sense due to transportation and communication restrictions and that we would be better served by establishing a standard voting methodology for federal elections.

[Inquartata]

I've always loved the name "Greenland". The vikings realized that people weren't too inclined to move to Iceland, so when they found Greenland they went for the better marketing approach. I bet there were some pissed off homesteaders on that trip.

This old theory is probably not correct.

When Greenland was settled, the climate was much warmer than subsequently, and it probably was quite green. Settlers farmed and raised livestock. Later the climate cooled, and agriculture became much more difficult, while seafaring to the island also became harder. These eventually doomed the settlements, whose members could not adapt...

[Hauptman]

This old theory is probably not correct.

When Greenland was settled, the climate was much warmer than subsequently, and it probably was quite green. Settlers farmed and raised livestock. Later the climate cooled, and agriculture became much more difficult, while seafaring to the island also became harder. These eventually doomed the settlements, whose members could not adapt...

Have you got some documentation on that? I'd love to read about it.

Did the glaciers just move in after the settlers?

[Inquartata]

Pretty much. The Little Ice Age overtook them.

Climate change has been accepted as a big factor in the demise of the Greenland colonies for some years. I first heard of it from a PBS piece, but try

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...greenland.html


for an overview.


There were other factors that exacerbated the plight of the settlers, but the climate and resource depletion seem to have been at the bottom of it.

The sagas do say that Eric named the island in an attempt at marketing, but it wasn't as much of a deception as we tend to believe today.

[Hauptman]

Pretty much. The Little Ice Age overtook them.

Climate change has been accepted as a big factor in the demise of the Greenland colonies for some years. I first heard of it from a PBS piece, but try

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...greenland.html


for an overview.


There were other factors that exacerbated the plight of the settlers, but the climate and resource depletion seem to have been at the bottom of it.

The sagas do say that Eric named the island in an attempt at marketing, but it wasn't as much of a deception as we tend to believe today.

Interesting reading. But according to your reference the glaciers were there already, and drift ice and storms were especially bad along those areas.

And now that the little Ice-Age is long gone, let's face it that even in a good year Greenland rarely lives up to it's name.

ok.... maybe Greenland wasn't so bad compared to Iceland...lol... but I'd still believe the name was a marketing ploy none-the-less.