L.A. County Registrar: 'No' to Internet Voting, But 'Yes' to Unverifiable Touch-Screens...

[BradBlog]

Source: BRAD BLOG



Exclusive: L.A. County Registrar Says 'No' to Internet Voting, But 'Yes' to Unverifiable Touch-Screen Voting for New Election System
Pay Attention: Nation's largest voting jurisdiction plans to design system for L.A., sell it to other counties in state, country...

The good news: When the largest voting jurisdiction in the nation gets its new voting system, perhaps as early as 2015, it will not including Internet Voting, according to Dean Logan, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of Los Angeles. The bad news: It will very likely include touch-screen computers and, with them, 100% unverifiable voting...

FULL STORY:: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9979

Read more: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9979

[HockeyMom]

1. I was very worried about voting in Florida

I requested an Absentee Ballot first and foremost because I was going to be in NY until 2 days before the election. Mail it? I worried about that, and then of course, Sandy hit. Didn't mail it. Brought it back to Florida when early voting had ended. I brought it myself to the County Clerk's office the day before the Election. The Clerk recorded it herself, which I saw, and gave me a receipt. I liked this. No long lines or worrying about a machine. I think I will do this in the future.

[xxqqqzme]

2. Doesn't a 'new voting system'

have to be approved by CA SoS? Debra Bowen made verifiable voting machine a major part of her campaign. But she is termed out & won't be able to run for SoS in '14.

[BradBlog]

3. Yes, but...

Current CA law says systems must first be certified by the EAC (federal) and then by the state (Sec. of State's testing program).

You are right that Bowen is being termed out and will be gone at the end of 2014.

As I discuss in the article linked above, Sen. Padilla has filed a bill to do away with all federal testing and leave it only up to the Sec. of State (who can certify w/o any testing at all, as I read the bill.)

Moreover, Sen. Padilla has announced he will be running for Sec. of State in 2014.

I've UPDATED the article since publication this morning with an additional response I received from the U.S. EAC. Essentially, all of the reasons that Logan and Padilla offer for working around federal certification have now been debunked.

[Ellipsis]

4. Is the DRE purchase simply addressing a handicap concern for a few machines within the precinct

Or will this be blanket purchases for all voting stations in entire precincts?

[BradBlog]

7. Not just for disabled voters...

The discussion, as detailed in the article, was about ALL voters, not just disabled voters.

And, to be clear, Logan was discussing Ballot Marking Device (BMD) touch-screens, as opposed to Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) touch-screens. Ultimately, they have the same affect, if we must rely on their printed ballots (which can't be verified as reflecting the voter intent after an election), but here's the difference between the two, in general.

DREs record the results of the voting internally, and some print out a "Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail" (VVPAT) as well. But its the numbers recorded internally which are *usually* relied upon by election officials. Either way, we can't know if anyone has actually verified their VVPAT after an election, or if they noticed any vote flips on it.

BMDs do not record the results. Rather, they print out a paper ballot, with the voters selections marked on it. That ballot is then counted by another means (most likely by an optical scan computer). Again, there is no way to know if the printed ballot was actually verified for verified correctly by the voter. It was that type of system that, in LA County in 2008, misprinted 4 out of 12 of my own votes, as I detail and link to in the story.

But please note, the Padilla bill discussed in the article would also allow for the development of DREs as well again in CA, for some reason, along with BMDs.

So, either way, there is plenty to be concerned about here, as in both cases, we would end up with 100% unverifiable ballots after the election.

[blkmusclmachine]

5. Unverifiable black boxes can switch votes. Everybody knows.

Theft at the ballot box? We shall see.

[closeupready]

6. Makes perfect sense.

[davidpdx]

8. Parts of Oregon (I don't think every county) has vote by mail

for those overseas. Mailing the ballot six weeks ahead still was cutting it too close in the event of a major holiday in the country it was mailed to. Right before the General Election we have Korean Thanksgiving which is in September or October (it changes every year as does the length of the holiday) and I always worried about whether my ballot would arrive in time. I never had a problem, but the email balloting is reassuring that I won't have a problem with the mail.

[BradBlog]

9. All Oregon counties use Vote by Mail, unfortunately, but...

What you are talking about is something different. You wrote:

"the email balloting is reassuring that I won't have a problem with the mail."

I suspect it is. If you don't care about having a secret ballot or having it recorded accurately.

BTW, what you describe is not Internet Voting. It's having a blank ballot sent to you via email and sending it back via email (after which someone prints it out, either as you voted it, or some other way, and looks at how you voted in the bargain. Either way, your vote is not actually CAST over the Internet in that scenario.)

[davidpdx]

10. Maybe it would be more accurate to say it is casting a ballot by email.

I think given we are talking about Tillmook County it is a safe assumption with their track record it is recorded accurately. Oregon also has a way to check online to see if your ballot was received (no matter what method you use).

As for the secret ballot, no I don't really care that much. I pretty much posted my ballot on Facebook (yes I know it's illegal, but let them come get me). I still have to option of mailing a ballot back if I choose to. They do physically mail me a ballot.

[BradBlog]

11. To be clear...

I was speaking about the fact that ALL of Oregon is now 100% Vote-by-Mail (unfortunately). If there are certain county's there experimenting with email ballot return, that may be the case. I don't know which ones they are and don't necessarily care.

Whether YOU trust them or not doesn't actually matter. The fact is, that even if they are "trustworthy", it may not be them intercepting ballots and changing them before they even arrive at the clerks office. Moreover, even if they are not intercepted, and even if you trust the election officials, I promise you there are those who do not. And they too deserve an election system in which they can have confidence and oversight.

As to your secret ballot point, you are welcome to tell anybody you like about who you voted for. But the secret ballot is not just meant to keep the ballot a secret for those who don't want to tell the world who they voted for. It's meant to keep employers from threatening employees, husbands from threatening wives, and bad guys from buying and/or selling their votes -- all of which, by the way, pretty much goes out the window in an all vote-by-mail system like the one now used across the state of Oregon. And that is true whether they use vote-by-mail or send-ballots-via-email.

[davidpdx]

12. So now you are saying vote by mail is bad

Well that clarifies everything then.

We (overseas) are not FORCED to use the email ballots, it is a choice. As I stated, I can still mail my ballot in. If it were forced I would probably agree with you. I think you are making up conspiracy theories based on something you know little about since you obviously don't know about Oregon's system and how it was started.

Some of your election coverage in the past has been good, but I'm sorry to say you are starting to sound as crazy as a right-wing TFH.

[BradBlog]

13. Yes. It's is ABSOLUTELY bad. Here's why...

I know Oregon's system very well. And, you may call me whatever names you wish, but it doesn't change the actual facts.

Here are just a few reasons why VBM is a terrible idea for democracy: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6003

If you are unhappy with those reasons, let me know, and I'll be happy to offer you many more. In case you're wondering, by the way, while voter fraud at the polls is almost non-existent, where it does happen is via absentee ballot. Not that I suspect you care, based on your other commentary here.

[davidpdx]

14. I strongly disagree with you on all the points in your article

Also note that is 5 years old and doesn't account for any changes that have been made since then. Ballot signatures are checked against voter registration cards and there is an inner envelope that the voter seals to protect their vote. Those aren't opened until election day. So the things you are saying are flat out false.

If you oppose vote by mail, then you must also oppose early voting and absentee voting (including overseas which includes myself) as well using your argument about ballots being unsecured.

As to the argument of undue influence, if people are stupid enough to take their ballots to church (which is one example you gave) and let other's influence them, then they have no spine. I've been to churches where a pastor will pretty much explicitly tell people how to vote (this was a church I had gone to in my very early 20's, and it was during a service not in a situation where people had their ballots at the time). People have what is called "free will" and if they don't use it they have no mind of their own.

As to your argument about unsecured ballots, Paul Gronke of Reed College has done quite a bit of research. Gronke is a well known political science professor in Oregon:

http://www1.american.edu/ia/cdem/pdfs/rsch_061505_gronke.pdf

I'll take Professor Gronke's opinion over yours any day of the week.

What it comes down to is Oregonians have decided they want vote by mail. If you want to imply we are stupid for choosing it, do so at your own peril. The last I heard we weren't coming to California to advocate changing your system.

And to answer your question, I do care because you are flat out wrong. End of discussion

[BradBlog]

17. Disagree all ya like. To bad u offered no evidence to support your feelings...

You may disagree all ya like. I'm sorry to see you were unable to actually offer evidence to support your disagreement, other than offering your opinion that everything's fine. Apparently you didn't read Gronke's paper too closely, nor did you bother to read up on the Baker/Carter Election Reform Commission hoax you were highlighting (Go to BradBlog.com and search for "Baker/Carter" and see what you find. It was a hoax commission created, secretly, by the same Rightwingers behind the "Democratic Voter Fraud!" hoax and the eventual U.S. Attorney Purge under Bush that was a part of it. I was the one who outed those folks in the first place. All of my reporting on it, dozens of articles, are all well-sourced. So, don't worry.)

While you're willing to allow churches, apparently, to fill out other people's ballots because that's their own dang fault if they let them, I notice you didn't respond to the issue of abusive husbands forcing their wives to vote a certain way, or employers instructing their employees how to vote or face being fired, or those who buy and sell votes (here's a neat recent article -- from Oregon -- on that: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9875)

You are also, apparently, just fine with votes being tallied electronically and unverified in Oregon. That's up to you, of course, but I'd prefer my self-governance actually authenticated by the citizens (the "self" part of that whole self-governance thing.)

I said nothing about Oregonians being "stupid" for voting by that method. They are no stupider than voters in Maryland or South Carolina or Mississippi or Virgina or New Jersey who vote on 100% unverifiable electronic voting machines, because that's the voting system they are given to use.

It doesn't matter whether Oregonians realize or not the dangers of Vote-by-Mail. Those dangers are still there. No matter how much you wish to deny the science. Sorry, chief.

[BethanyQuartz]

15. I still don't trust voting machines

I don't trust the voting machines because of who owns them. Some very crooked right wing companies. I'm fine with better technology as a whole though. Fraud is certainly possible with low tech voting too, as evidenced by the butterfly ballots in 2000.

However voting online has major risk for security potential. I'm thinking a full overhaul of our electoral system by non-partisan and maybe even international voter fraud and computer security experts is in order. I'd like to vote online, but it does worry me. And then voter watchdog groups (with IT security expertise) will have to continue to keep an eye on it. And everyone else will have to keep an eye on them to make sure they're honest, too.

But if such a system is ever put in place it would become practical to vote on issues regularly on a statewide and even nationwide basis. True democracy, something very impractical now.

[Alva Goldbook]

16. I will never trust electronic voting machines.

And I saw it's high time we end the long lines. If we can vote for American Freaking Idol online, and if you can transfer money between bank accounts securely online, then surely we can use open sourced and secure software to VOTE online.

[BradBlog]

18. Umm...did you read what you just wrote?!

So you "will never trust electronic voting machines", but you want to run your elections over the largest electronic voting machine ever devised?! (The Internet?! Really?!)

What you may not understand about transferring money between bank accounts "securely" online, is that a) those systems are hacked every day, but more importantly b) those are open transactions. In other words, you can go back the next day, the next week, the next year, and make sure the transaction went through and was recorded correctly. Every party to the transaction may do so.

In voting, however, we have a secret ballot. So once you "cast" your vote, it is gone, and can be recorded any way that the software or a hacker would like it to be recorded and neither you nor anybody else will ever be any the wiser.

And, no, open source does not change that equation one iota. You might want to read the section entitled "NO INTERNET VOTING FOR L.A." in the article linked from the original post you are responding to (http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9979)

Hope that helps!