Letting the Voter Count

[tw]

This election will be very close. Integrity of polls (the system and the equipment) has been a major discussion among science publications. Like it or not, many jurisdictions are still using suspect systems. Some having installed new systems that were worse than the old. But its new and high tech - therefore it must be better. Top of the suspect list are these electronic systems that violate basic voting security.

The voting system must meet two 'criteria'. First, the vote must be written to (stored on) a 'write once' media. Paper does this. Paper votes cannot be modified without detection. Most electronic systems violate this principle.

Second, the voter must be able to confirm his vote is as he intended. Again paper does this.

The problem with paper has been how the paper system worked. For example, those butterfly ballots that earned a bad reputation is directly traceable to how that equipment was setup and how it was maintained by voting officials. For example, those plastic holes that channel the punch into a butterfly ballot must be periodically replaced so that punching is clean and sharp. Maintenance that must be conducted before voting booths are delivered to polls. Poll official must periodically clean out paper punches so that the 'punched out' paper does not clog punch holes. Both problems are said to have existed in FL. Both require human training which is often not done - the bean counter mentality.

IOW the real problem was humans, including a FL Sec of State who was clearly partisan. It was not the machines so much as it was top management - the people who install, train, and conduct the voting. We did not go after the people and their failure to establish standards. Instead we hoped to solve problems with different equipment. We went after the symptoms rather than the reason for voting problems - top voting officials (ie FL Sec of State who did not do her job even years before the election).

Using conventional paper ballots creates secondary problems. A long, painful vote counting takes time. Other corrupting factors occur with too many hands on the ballots. So conventional paper does have serious drawbacks.

Lever voting is an old and expensive method that is often being replaced by electronics. And then the electronics which is often nothing more than an embedded PC - with all the problems created a system created to be cheap rather than secure. Greatest weakness in electronic voting is firmware. Diebold voting machines characterize the electronic machine problem where even source code was leaked. If their hardware is anything like their other secure electronic systems, then engineering is by people still 'wet behind the ears' - questionable. I have very little confidence with anything by Diebold because I have seen previous designs.

Most people really don't know how voting is accomplished even in adjacent counties. For example, NJ once used lever voting in all counties. Today, most of NJ uses electronic voting except in some sothern most counties, in a county adjacent to PA, and a spot near NYC. PA still uses punch ballots in at least eight counties. Other voting methods in PA include lever type, optical, and even one PA county will use electronic. Maybe 12 counties in Ohio use punch card ballots. Almost 40% of IL uses same as well as almost all of Utah. FL uses a combination of electronic and optical. More than half the counties in western TX use old fashion paper ballots. GA is 100% electronic. Optical appears to be the most common choice in western states including all voting in OK. I will be voting on a butterfly ballot.

With so many voting methods, many don't meet the two 'criteria'. One method is to vote, then physically carry that ballot to a confirmation machine. If that vote does not read as intended, the voter requests a new ballot and starts all over again. Few systems, short of paper ballots, meet both 'criteria'.

Do we store counts on a disk drive? Major violation. Completely unacceptable. Disk drives are not a write once media - easily corrupted without any indication of that corruption.

Four years since the 'powers that be' subverted the people and decided a president by political 'confrontation'. Jimmy Carter's organization (that monitors voting overseas) says FL is again ripe for another fiasco. Why? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That top management (be it the presidency, Congress, Supreme Court, and both political parties) did insufficient to solve these problems. Step one would have been to demand the two 'criteria' up front be required in every poll. It is not. Instead, all four were happy to do nothing - not establish minimal standards in part "because it is hard" - which always gives ultimate power to the political party power brokers.