Re: CRIME Electronic Voting Security

From: Marc Schuette (mschuette@private)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 08:01:43 PDT

  • Next message: Bill.McCall@private: "CRIME website pounding"

    overvotes and undervotes are tracked and published:
    
    http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2003-05/index.shtml#results
    
    i was assured by an elections worker that when a signature on their rols 
    does NOT match that on a ballot that the voter is notified and asked to 
    fill out a new voter registration card.
    
    i don't know what would happen if you sent in both of your ballots BUT i 
    don't think you want to get caught doing it:
    
    http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/election_information/voter_registration_info.shtml
    
    Gunderson_Dane wrote:
    
    >Hey k, long time no rant...
    >
    >There are 150 years of dynamic safeguards built into the local trip to your
    >voting booth and just one of them is that the volunteers that did safeguard
    >the process are not beneficiaries of any voting issue.  In our 'absentee'
    >elections we have only election officials assurances that foreseeable and
    >unforeseen issues do not arise.
    >
    >People do vote in predictable patterns regionally even in small elections as
    >in the Multnomah County tax increase where East County zip codes voted
    >against the measure in excess of 70%.  I was not aware I could get
    >confirmation my ballot was counted.  Is anyone else?   If not how would any
    >pattern of regionally discarded votes be discovered?
    >
    >Is there site posting the relevant statistics?  Percentages of signatures
    >rejected, voters registered that voted, percentages of invalid registrations
    >rejected, duplicates?  felons?  etc?  I'm not aware of one but surely these
    >figures are kept?  I am unsure that our absentee elections do in fact have
    >higher participation then our conventional elections did previously though
    >that seems likely.
    >
    >Pro-tax rallies were held in violation of existing, un-enforced, election
    >laws where 'thousands' of ballots were gathered from 'hundreds' of pro-tax
    >initiative attendees.  Is it extreme to suggest enforcement of the law
    >against electioneers supporting your vested interest isn't likely?
    >
    >I've been married 2 years yet we still receive 3 ballots every election, yes
    >we return only two...  But then, who's counting?
    >
    >Dane
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: T. Kenji Sugahara [mailto:sugahara@private]
    >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:39 PM
    >To: Crispin Cowan
    >Cc: warren@private; Marc Schuette; crime@private
    >Subject: Re: CRIME Electronic Voting Security
    >
    >
    >Crispin,
    >
    >There is an assumption that is being made here.... the assumption is 
    >that the mail carrier knows which choices are made on specific ballots. 
    >  Otherwise, if the carrier misdirects mail from certain districts the 
    >mail carrier could be misdirecting ballots that could be in favor of 
    >the mail carrier's perspective.  If there is a larger disappearance 
    >from specific counties, then you could make the argument that there is 
    >a higher statistical likelihood that ballots favoring one party would 
    >more likely have disappeared.  However, to have that much of an impact, 
    >that sort of voter fraud would become apparent quite quickly (by 
    >comparing historical voting records).  In addition, tampering with 
    >ballots themselves would be pretty apparent, and quite time consuming 
    >for the individual hypothetical partisan carriers.
    >
    >In terms of voter intimidation, that still happens at both at and 
    >outside the polls.  For example, certain groups can be dissuaded from 
    >voting by threats of force.  Certain groups/individuals can be deemed 
    >ineligible to vote though they are.
    >
    >In essence, both vote by mail and traditional voting methods have 
    >positives and negatives.  For me, I enjoy being able to vote from home 
    >and not having to go somewhere to vote.
    >
    >k-
    >
    >On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 02:40  PM, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    >
    >  
    >
    >>Warren Harrison wrote:
    >>
    >>    
    >>
    >>>U.S. Mail is typically considered pretty tamper-resistent. In fact, 
    >>>documents that are
    >>>classified as less than TOP SECRET (SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL) can be 
    >>>sent via
    >>>U.S. Mail using some specific safeguards like not using mailboxes 
    >>>(have to send
    >>>      
    >>>
    >>Bizzare. The US Post is famous for losing mail. You'd have to be 
    >>deranged to send something irreplaceable in the mail. Also, the threat 
    >>of "will someone open & read this secret document in this plain 
    >>envelope?" is a completely different threat from "will an irate 
    >>democrat/republican/whatever letter carrier deliberately lose a bunch 
    >>of clearly marked ballots from a specific county/neighborhood?"
    >>
    >>    
    >>
    >>>it form a post office), using either Registered or Express mail, etc. 
    >>>with a return
    >>>receipt. As long as the package doesn't go out of a USPS facility, the
    >>>assumption is pretty much that items are secure. Can mail carriers be
    >>>bribed? Sure, but at least they undergo background checks - the same
    >>>can't really be said for the "election observers" who volunteer to 
    >>>watch
    >>>you and I vote when we do it in person.
    >>>      
    >>>
    >>That makes no sense: election observers are provided from each party 
    >>to provide checks & balances: they watch the ballots, and each other. 
    >>The same is not true of letter carriers working alone. I would far 
    >>rather have observation by 2 conflicting self-interested rascals than 
    >>a single party of unknown loyalty.
    >>
    >>    
    >>
    >>>Voters that want confirmation that their vote arrived can probably 
    >>>send the
    >>>      
    >>>
    >>The voter's interest is not to ensure that their own ballot got 
    >>counted, but rather to ensure that all the ballots were counted 
    >>fairly. A freakishly rare voter verification scheme that is only used 
    >>by 1% of the voters (a wildly optimistic estimate) has no impact on 
    >>election fairness.
    >>
    >>    
    >>
    >>>You of course still can't do much about the controlling patriarch 
    >>>that insists on
    >>>filling out his wife and adult children's ballot in vote by mail, but 
    >>>because of the
    >>>signature, he couldn't send in the ballots without their 
    >>>participation. Anyway
    >>>I have to figure that in 90% of such cases they have their family 
    >>>members so
    >>>intimidated that if they load 'em up in their GMC and drag the family 
    >>>down to
    >>>the polls they'll vote the way they are "supposed to" anyway.
    >>>      
    >>>
    >>There are actual laws prohibiting spouses going into voting booths 
    >>together. These laws are unevenly enforced, but they exist for that 
    >>reason.
    >>
    >>Crispin
    >>
    >>-- 
    >>Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.           http://immunix.com/~crispin/
    >>Chief Scientist, Immunix       http://immunix.com
    >>           http://www.immunix.com/shop/
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>    
    >>
    >
    >
    >  
    >
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 08:26:57 PDT