Tabul-eSlate Rosa
Experts: eSlate polling open to mistakes, fraud
Some good, some bad here. What I like about this report is that it puts the debate over the safety of eSlate machines into the context of the prior system, which had far more security flaws. But also, it adds a bit to the story by mentioning Rice professor Dan Wallach's work on investigating eSlate security.
As it is, the only mention of flaws in the eSlate performance were 26 votes cast the day before the election. That strikes me as marginal. Not simply due to the number of votes, but the fact that election officials are trained to check their vote totals before opening up shop. If the votes aren't zero, then there's a problem - an easily fixable one, at that. If 26 votes got through the system, that's as much a problem of the election official not knowing what to do as it is the county for not clearing the machine.
What I find to be a recurring indication, however, is that Dan Wallach's work has not uncovered any more serious technical flaws in the eSlate machinery. Dan Feldstein reports that the great paper trail debate might be of help due to the paper trails being counted only if a recount is necessary. What's left out is that, at least as recently as two years ago, Dan Wallach was making the case that the paper trail should be the officially counted ballot ... not merely used for recounts. That's at least what's in my email inbox.
Feldstein adds some great context to that debate, however, with this entry:
Kaufman says Hart's printers have not been certified by the Texas secretary of state, and that printers are simply another moving part that can break and cause chaos.A major national panel on which Wallach served said this summer that printers should be used. But one computing professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology agrees with Kaufman. Ted Selker designed a study showing that volunteer subjects almost never caught errors he deliberately inserted in their printouts.
Verifiable paper trails won't solve the problem, in and of themselves. If anything, it will only cloud the outcome, muddle the voting process, and add another source of headaches to the voting setup. If you find it funny watching an 80-yr old woman tying to fix a busted computer over the phone, just wait till you see her whip out a toolbox to fix the printer (my apologies to all 80-yr old women who are, in fact, quite handy with a toolbox). But I'm still curious why so many Harris County Democrats (including the Harris County Democratic Party itself) are trying to instill fear into the hearts of voters over the current voting system. Voters that they/we sure could use, come November. "Come out and vote, your vote won't be counted, though" sure is a curious rallying cry.
What I don't understand is why you'd try to sweep this issue under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.
Precisely because I don't see an issue here. When you push to have two forms of a counted vote, you add more complexity and confusion into the process ... and for what net effect? ... to scare people into thinking their vote won't count? When you advocate (as Wallach has) to have the paper receipt be the vote of record, you go back about 50 years in terms of technology and accuracy - and that's assuming there's any degree of trust in the printed receipts, which I don't think is realistic to expect.
What's telling to me from the article is that the only problems Dan Wallach was able to find in Laredo was a problem that should have been elimintated by trained election workers. To date, he's not been able to enumerate a single flaw in the eSlate machinery outside of already verifiable means that are correctable.
So I guess my question in return is how it is that I could possibly sweep something under the carpet when there doesn't appear to be a carpet or a broom ... let alone an issue.
elslate is better than punchcard ballots for sure and we must vote. i believe our votes will be counted, however, there are flaws in this sytem and after 2000 i think we have the right to feel our votes are not equally valued. so yes, do the paper trail and give us a sense of security when we vote. until everyone can feel secure with these systems i think the dems primarily will have turnout issues..
Greg, did you get paid to write this?
One desperate person can cause a heap of problems. There are serial ports on the back of the eSlates and JBCs that are wide open prior to the election. What was the last line of that article again?
'Harris County does not conduct parallel testing.'
Frankly, it should be random parallel testing, not just random parallel testing. If a nasty person wanted to rig an election they only need to persuade a few desperate people. And why not move forward if the County is not even going to look for monkey business during the election?
The desperate people who worked on the Carol Keeton Strayhorn petition signature effort in an area where they could afford for her to be their governor the least are probably not loosing any sleep over the fact that Republicans could be controlling the elections for the next four years in precincts that typically vote 70%+ with the Democratic Party. Why is that? Because the Party of the election judge is decided by which Party receives the most votes for Governor every four years, not the candidate. Oh and 70%+ Democratic turnout is very conservative.
Should we not be talking about that either?
If one desparate person tried to rig an election, as you should know, there are means by which they would be caught. Furthermore, doesn't it suggest something that that hasn't happened yet?
The issue of parallel testing doesn't strike me as a fix for the singular issue Dan Wallach found in Laredo. In short, increasing the amount of parallel testing would increase the likelyhood of the very issue he DID identify.
And since I'm writing this response to someone who does help conduct elections, you should also be more than aware that if anyone tampers with a machine BEFORE the election is conducted, the counts will be impacted. They would show up when you do a zero count at the outset of the election, right? And everyone working the election would be able to oversee that, right? And inspection mechanisms are freely available by political parties and other curious onlookers. Those counts, as you know, are stored on flash memory within each individual eSlate ... not via the nefarious "open serial ports." And if the complaint about all these open serial ports is really an issue, then a paper trail doesn't solve that, does it? I mean, it'll still be the same machine doing the counting ... and printing. All you would have added is a second form of counting votes, with the same amount of risk that some "desparate" person might tamper with an election.
Judging from this response, I'm not sure how much sincerity to place in the concern that Perry may win otherwise Democratic precincts and therefore allow Republicans to run elections in those precincts for the next 4 years. If that were a legitimate concern, then there's a way to deal with it ... work on behalf of Chris Bell or see to it that sufficient effort is expended by others. Of course, if that's not really a major concern, I guess attention would be placed elsewhere, wouldn't it? And if you maintain that it's a distinct possibility, then why is it that so many Democratic voters wouldn't have a problem with it? ... if it were to happen, that is?
So yeah, you can talk about every tangential issue that comes up under the sun with regard to voting paranoia ... but that and wondering if I'm on the take from someone really doesn't accomplish anything. Does it?
I'm doing my best to help all of the candidates on the ticket. I didn't support Bell in the primary but I started supporting him the day after the primary when he won the nomination. Just stopped by there last week to pick up campaign materials. I always thought Chris Bell was a fine candidate, just thought Gammage was more electable during the primary.
I do not conduct the elections anymore. I resigned because I don't know enough and don't have the money to hire a slick attorney to prove that I didn't tamper with the machines if anything were to come back and bite me in the ass.
I thought you had a background in tech support. If you do and you've read the Brennan Center Report then I don't understand how you could write the statement about the zero count.
I'm irked at you right now but will get over it because I know how hard you are fighting to get good people elected.
Still love you,
SPL
thanks for fighting smarty pants
Smarty,
Wouldn't the whole debate be moot if Dan Wallach could actually perform a single, solitary hack of an eSlate with simulated election oversight rules in place?
No.
And shug, you're insulting the intelligence of those who read your blog.
Wish I had more time to engage in this banter but I'm heads down and butt up like a duck working to get our slate elected. Hope I get to see you in the street before out victory parties.
xoxol,
SPL
So, suggesting that reform is needed without any form of evidence of a problem (not counting paranoia, of course) isn't insulting the intelligence of those who read my blog?