Re: [ei] end debate, enter internal vote regarding vote verification requirements

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Howie Duit

unread,
Feb 15, 2021, 7:12:16 PM2/15/21
to Election...@googlegroups.com, s...@sffreeman.com, verified...@aol.com
We might think we generally agree on what makes a quality democracy, and that we each have communicated all the details, but to date I have not seen an internal *poll* taken to confirm such. Given that we are a sample of society at large, then as a means of practicing what we preach, do you think we should?

(Please write Y or N on your secret 'ballot' replied directly to 3 moderators: @Howie Duit @Steve Freeman and @Jonathan Simon; if the majority approves the full poll, we will perform it with *independent* tallies to cross-verify results!)



FYI -- I have been compiling a list of all requirements I have thought of and heard from this list over the past year; if we are generally agreed on doing the poll, I will run the list by the two mentioned above for adds/removes before releasing it.



On Tuesday, February 9, 2021, Bob Klauber <bobkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
A friend of mine likes to say "Vote in secret. Count votes in public."  Maybe a good slogan for us to adopt. Short, not too convoluted for the person on the street, brings home the message in a few words. Something everyone can grok and accept.

On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 9:31:44 AM UTC-6 Peter Oliver wrote:
The secret ballot is important.  It can be preserved while providing the voter with positive feedback that the vote was counted as cast.  The assumption that one is incompatible with the other is valid with current systems but not necessarily valid about future systems. The idea of allowing selfies in the polling place is a poor type of reform to patch up the present systems and provides only proof of how the vote was cast and no proof that the vote was counted as cast.
There is a lot of discussion on this site about one concern or the other many of which are valid, but none help in the search for a complete solution.  
To achieve Election Integrity one has to set out the requirements for a complete system rather than piecemeal reforms of the current systems which are riddled with anomalies.  One cannot design system by committee such as ourselves, but we could define the requirements.  That would comprise a worthwhile undertaking.
What we are doing will never achieve the result we all crave.     
 
The only safe means of ensuring transparent and verifiable results requires a system approach which publicly confirms how each vote was counted in the context of substantiating the result.   Proof which falls short of doing this is insufficient.  This proof can be furnished to the voter in a form which is both public and anonymous.  This conundrum can be solved by using currently available technology;  but not by starting with the currently used technology, concepts and baggage.  
The EI community needs to support any system which is universally available and provides end to end proof to individual voters that their vote was properly attributed to their chosen candidate and that all votes are published in the context of substantiating the declared result.
This superior level of proof could be achieved if the EI community could overcome its prejudice against on-line electronic systems.   A less effective paper system could partially emulate an electronic system, but paper does not have the same ability to encrypt data end-to-end so that it can be securely transmitted in an unintelligible form until it can be decrypted and counted in parallel by officials and observers.  Safe custody is crucial in voting systems; but also crucially absent in both paper and electronic voting system in current use.  These functionally superior attributes would achieve publicly accountable and verifiable elections.  This level of observation of the process and its performance would exceed what was ever possible with exit polls.
The crucial advantage of end-to end verification means that any attempt to subvert the vote is detectable.  In computer science the ability to test a system effectively requires satisfying two criteria:
The test conditions must be identical to the those in which the system is deployed – currently not the case.
Errors are equally detectable in both situations – not currently the case.
Error detection is the minimum level of security of any operational system and no current electronic system incorporates this requirement in its design.  By definition they are all “unfit for purpose”.     

The basic requirement for the security of any operational system is that any error is detectable.   Current systems do not meet this standard.  The fact is that the tests conducted in the testing environment do not transfer a sufficient level of proof to their use in an operational environment.

Some recent contributors to the group have urged that EI requires us to support the notion that elections need to provide positive proof of the result rather than ferret around the outside wondering if anyone knows what went on.   I totally agree.
Quite apart from advocating EI in the current system maybe we should advocate for direct election to the President.  Features of the present system make it overly sensitive to anomalies which hugely distort the importance of votes in a few fringe precincts.  To avoid these undemocratic features direct voting would level all votes and makes all voters equal.
 
Peter Oliver


-----Original Message-----
From: 'Allegra Dengler' via Election Integrity <Election...@googlegroups.com>
To: Election...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 18:57
Subject: Re: [ei] end debate, enter solutions regarding vote verification

There’s a huge danger here in abandoning the secret ballot.  If a voter can prove who they voted for, they can be bribed or intimidated into voting contrary to their wishes.  For example, the battered  spouse of a Proud Boy. 

The secret ballot was a significant reform in the progressive era.  It’s under threat now, including in NY where a bill has been introduced that would allow voters to take selfies of their ballot in the polling place.  I urge everyone on this list to weigh every proposed reform as to whether it would undermine the secret ballot.

Allegra


On Nov 14, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Bruce Korb <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote:

You cannot determine which one is yours. Were that possible, then you could sell your vote by proving how you voted. The only method for ensuring ballot image integrity is being able to find the paper for every image and also being able to find the image for every paper ballot. If your ballot selections were unique, then you could theoretically find your ballot. I don't think such an approach would be an effective integrity attack vector though.
On 11/14/20 7:43 AM, Randy Moor wrote:
If I download the set of all ballots how would the computer program know the number on my particular ballot?
 
It would need that in order to show me my ballot as cast (so I will be satisfied mine was recorded correctly) while showing enough of the other ballots doctored so that when I tabulate them the results match the official announced results.
 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [ei] end debate, enter solutions regarding vote verification
 
Doctoring (or un-doctoring) the number of ballots differently depending upon which ones you tried to download would certainly be within the capabilities of malicious programmers to arrange.
 
--
Lucius Chiaraviglio | luc...@verizon.net (main)
                    | lchi...@gmail.com (photos & BSRA)
                    | lchi...@yahoo.com (alternative)
                    | luc...@post.harvard.edu (fwd only)

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Moor <moor...@gmail.com>
To: Election...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2020 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: [ei] end debate, enter solutions regarding vote verification

Lucius,
So I look up my number and see my own ballot as cast. But if I download all ballots to do my own tabulations I may get doctored ballots that match official announced doctored results. Is that what you are saying?
 
Couldn’t I get around that by downloading all ballots just to get a list of all the numbers identifying ballots and then looking up each ballot identification number individually to see all the ballots as actually cast? Or alternatively couldn’t I just download all ballots and look up my own ballot within that data set? How would the computer know to doctor just my own ballot in that all-ballots set?
 
Perhaps I’m missing something but you seem to be ignoring the second step of Jonathan’s two-step verification/audit process which is to make available the whole set of ballots to those who want to tabulate all the ballots themselves.
 
Randy Moor
 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ei] end debate, enter solutions regarding vote verification
 
As noted before, another source of mischief, if voters have to use a computer to check their ballot:  The computer could lie to them, so that the voters think nothing is wrong.  Doesn't have to be their own computer -- if the server that they have to go to for this is compromised with malware(*) that can do the equivalent of Photoshopping the corrupted ballots back to looking right when a voter asks to see them, they would have no way to find out, because they can't see what is going on inside the computer.
 
(*)Which could come from a cyberattack, but is also likely (probably even more likely) to come from an inside job and/or Urosevich-style vendor, so that system security is simply bypassed.
 
--
Lucius Chiaraviglio | luc...@verizon.net (main)
                    | lchi...@gmail.com (photos & BSRA)
                    | lchi...@yahoo.com (alternative)
                    | luc...@post.harvard.edu (fwd only)

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: 'Jonathan Simon' via Election Integrity <Election...@googlegroups.com>
To: jjtan...@gmail.com; Election...@googlegroups.com
Cc: lehto...@gmail.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2020 12:20 pm
Subject: Re: [ei] end debate, enter solutions regarding vote verification

Not sure what to do, Jennifer. But whatever it might be I think can and must wait until the dust settles on the present crisis. - Jon
 
Jonathan D. Simon
Executive Director, Election Defense Alliance (2006 - 2016)
@JonathanSimon14
In a message dated 11/13/2020 9:17:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, jjtan...@gmail.com writes:
 
Yes Jonathan,, you had me with enough voters catching errors would get the right attention early, good idea,
and then you correctly identified those who will cry foul just to muck with the election. What to do??
Jennifer Tanner

On Nov 13, 2020, at 8:24 AM, 'Jonathan Simon' via Election Integrity <Election...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
 
Thx Paul. Just to clarify, under my thought experiment (not quite yet a "proposal"), voters would not be required to certify (or even verify) their ballots, nor would every voter be expected to or need to check and verify their ballots. It would be an option open to voters - and the expectation is that enough of them would check and verify to serve as a "crowd-sourced" audit.
 
The idea is not for voters to be able to change individual ballots but only spot what they perceive to be alterations. If enough voters found such alterations it would be obvious that the election had been interfered with and investigation would presumably be undertaken. It would not be about voters curing their ballots. The idea is to have the same deterrent impact as a serious audit without concentrating the burden of such on the election administrators - instead distributing it among the electorate itself.
 
Of course it is open to mischief on the part of voters trying to disrupt the post-election process by crying wolf - falsely claiming their ballots do not reflect their intent. This is, as you suggest, a major potential problem, acknowledged.
 
Jonathan D. Simon
Executive Director, Election Defense Alliance (2006 - 2016)
@JonathanSimon14
In a message dated 11/13/2020 7:46:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, lehto...@gmail.com writes:
 
 
As to Jonathan's proposal for every voter to cerify their ballot: 
 
Legally a requirement that voters verify their ballots would need to be written in such a way as to also modify the rule of evidence and cardinal principle in election law with zero exceptions Ive heard of that "NO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE" is never allowed to modify the interpretation of the four corners of the ballot.
 
Thus, even if someone had impeccable video of a touch screen flipping their vote and it being accidentally cast for the wrong party without their knowledge that evidence would be absolutely inadmissible to impeach or modify what the ballot shows. Once you cast your vote for M. MOUSE, it is over. No do overs.
 
Once you open the door to extrinsic evidence with ballots the argument will be that you create universes of ambiguity and uncertainty in election results. E.g. how to distinguish an improper change of heart in ballot choice from a ballot image error or image manipulation fraud?  Or memory error? What are the administrative costs of the more OCD folks poring over their ballots like a document being edited and swamping election officials with requested changes?
 
I've not thought this entirely through but believe this is something to think about
 
PAUL LEHTO, J.D..
 
 
 
 
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 8:35 AM 'Jonathan Simon' via Election Integrity <Election...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Lynn -
 
This is something to which I've also given thought.
 
What about a process, as you describe below, in which each ballot is assigned a unique number, chosen by and known only to the voter who cast it and the image of every ballot is publicly posted by number (i.e., anonymously)? The individual voter could search and verify their ballot. And "watchdogs" could view and count all the ballots to verify the all-important aggregate count.
 
This is essentially a crowd-sourced two-step audit/verification process. The individual voters who checked their own ballots would essentially be performing a random audit. One could assume at least a 10% check rate - it would undoubtedly be much higher, especially for general elections of any import. That's a huge audit for ballot tampering or tossing - with huge deterrence impact. So a rigger couldn't risk altering/tossing any ballots.
 
Then the watchdogs would re-tabulate the whole set of ballots, which would serve as a check against what Lynn points out below is the tabulation process that remains absurdly vulnerable when the only verification is individual voters checking their own ballots.
 
That leaves only digital ballot box stuffing, the creation and casting of ballots with identifying numbers but no voter having cast them. These will not be checked by any voter - since no voter is privy to those identifying numbers - and they would be included in both the original tabulation and the verification tabulation. The answer here is simple: the verified tabulation of total ballots must match (i.e., not exceed) the hard record of voters signing in when they cast their ballots.
 
With all three checks in place, the ballot tracing and verifying process should effectively deter or detect any manipulation attempt, while not compromising ballot secrecy. I've looked at it from a rigger's standpoint and it appears to work. Thoughts?
 
Jonathan D. Simon
Executive .
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ElectionIntegrity/CAD%3D1Ovf4Nsyfwf2MGOMCxRWfLh_XFmAjzqGRBTMG53j__4%2BZkA%40mail.gmail.com
.
 
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ElectionIntegrity/2116080116.3076061.1605284688867%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ElectionIntegrity/AEBFCAC5-4BB3-4581-A792-A9C16C52FDBD%40gmail.com.
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ElectionIntegrity/1849817599.3088418.1605288035769%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Pos


--




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"in your faith supply moral excellence...knowledge...self-control...perseverance...godliness...and in your brotherly kindness, love." (2 Peter 1:5-7, NASB)

oli6...@aol.com

unread,
Feb 16, 2021, 8:47:23 AM2/16/21
to Election...@googlegroups.com
Hi Howie

In principle yes.  

My only reservation is how you frame the question.

I would urge that you restrict the question to "election Integrity"

A quality democracy is a so much bigger question.  It would require a well educated and wise electorate and a media devoid of bias and misinformation.  

That is an even greater ambition.
Peter


Jennifer Tanner

If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/ group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@ googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
.
 
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/ group/ElectionIntegrity/ members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/ group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@ googlegroups.com.
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/ group/ElectionIntegrity/ members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/ group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@ googlegroups.com.
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/ group/ElectionIntegrity/ members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/ group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@ googlegroups.com.
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Pos


--




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"in your faith supply moral excellence...knowledge...self-control...perseverance...godliness...and in your brotherly kindness, love." (2 Peter 1:5-7, NASB)

--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
 
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
 
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Election Integrity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ElectionIntegr...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages