Don’t you love that term? I first heard it from a couple of longtime activists .

In this eloquent post New York engineer Howard Stanislevic explains that we could use the term ‘voting machines’ for the old lever machines, but it’s better to call the new gadgets either Von Neumann machines (stored-program computers), or merely ‘vote-switching machines’ if we want to emphasize their risks. And he’s not talking about touch screens which have been chased out of Iowa. He’s talking about the stuff we still use right here in River City.

It seems they had a Pottawattamie moment in NY earlier this year. The scanner was programmed wrong so that votes for one guy were seen as the same as votes for another guy. Election officials are supposed to test their gadgets and find these errors. New York did so and found the error. But they ignored it, misreading their own test results. After the election they realized the returns could not be accurate. Too Late.

As Howard says, “Eternal vigilance would be easy compared to what will be required of us” now that we have to guard against computerized elections being miscounted out of our sight.

Save NY’s Lever Voting Machines

After reading some of Novick’s work I came to understand the Iowa law that seals up our ballots on election night and prohibits anyone from examining them until the day they are burned. New York has such a law. It is intended to prevent fraudulant recounts. New York assumed that once the ballots leave the polling place their custody is no longer secure and they can be altered or more can be stuffed into the box or some could fall out of the box, etc. So NO RECOUNTS are allowed in New York.

Of course this law assumed that the election night count was not made by concealed software which hardly anyone present could understand or verify. Perhaps Iowa law had assumed the same thing. Nowadays we have electronic vote counting by anonymous programmers. The election night count cannot be accepted at face value.

I’m getting nostalgic for lever machines. Plus I hear they last for 100 years.

Meanwhile the great state of Montana on Tuesday signed its audit bill into law. A picture of the Montana Secretary of State appeared in GovTech magazine as a result. Let’s tell Senate Democrats that Mike Mauro is just as good looking as Secretary McCulloch and also deserves to be featured in national publications.

cross-posted at BleedingHeartland.org

The warning came from the CIA. An agent said some provocative things such as

“I follow the vote. And wherever the vote becomes an electron and touches a computer, that’s an opportunity for a malicious actor potentially to . . . make bad things happen.”

He also alleged that two highly publicized 2004 elections had seen electronic tampering–Venezuela and Ukraine. Lots of Americans think Ohio should be added to that list of fishy 2004 elections.

Secret Agent guy says opportunities abound when computers are used at the polls:

Stigall told the Election Assistance Commission, a tiny agency that Congress created in 2002 to modernize U.S. voting, that computerized electoral systems can be manipulated at five stages, from altering voter registration lists to posting results.

Internet voting was also panned by Stigall. We have all the bad stuff right here in the USA: internet balloting, computerized counting (in Iowa yet!), paperless voting machines, wireless connections, and motivated politicians, I’m sure. I wouldn’t even trust the CIA.

The price we pay for faster results in close races will be this: wondering if insider knowledge of the Monday count was used to flip the close race.

Pretty ironic! This whole bill is supposed to relieve the anxiety of waiting for close races that get decided by the absentee count. Instead it will provoke a new anxiety about whether the early count leaked out.

Don’t worry about this affecting the election by giving one side a warning that the results may be close. Don’t worry–it will be illegal to leak this information even though some highly political people at the courthouse will know the information on the absentee results. Don’t worry even if the county auditor himself is in a tight re-election race. Having his staff counting the ballots on Monday won’t allow him to be warned about his imminent defeat on Tuesday. Don’t think that the people who went to jail in Ohio for rigging the recount in 2004 have any cousins in Iowa election departments.

If this is HSB 133 we’re talking about (the news reports don’t give the bill number) there’s even less reason to worry. The bill now on the web says only quite a few party cheerleaders will get to bite early on the apple of knowledge:

The only persons who may be admitted to that room are

the members of the board,
one challenger representing each political party,
one observer representing any nonparty political organization or
any candidate nominated by petition pursuant to chapter 45 or
any other nonpartisan candidate in a city or school election appearing on the ballot of the election in progress,
one observer representing persons supporting a public measure appearing on the ballot and
one observer representing persons opposed to such measure,
and the commissioner or the commissioner’s designee.

I’m sure they can keep a secret, so don’t worry, be happy. Get to bed early on election night. It was a long campaign. Just be glad it’s over.

But if it’s really close, we still won’t know about recounts or audit results. We’ll still have to wonder. So what’s the point for democracy? Early bedtimes? Insider trading?

Most Americans think the electoral college is a mistake. Apparently the whole world agrees, because no other country has ever copied this 200 year old method of choosing a leader. It’s really a relic of the free-state, slave-state compromises that were made in writing the Constitution. Until now it’s been impossible to get rid of it, because it’s so hard to amend the Constitution.

The new idea is to sign up states in a contract to cast their electoral votes as a group with all the votes going to the winner of the national popular vote (NPV). If Iowa joins the group, we’ll vote for the national winner even if another candidate did better in Iowa. This plan will go into effect when the group controls the majority of the electoral college votes. Ingenious!

Skeptics always assert that the electoral college protects us and other small states. This not true. Research into where candidates spend their time and money in the 90 days before a Presidential election proves they don’t go to small states unless they are also swing states, such as Nevada in 2008. Who campaigned in Rhode Island or Wyoming? No one did, because they are not swing states.

So far only four states have joined—Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii. These are states that usually get ignored by Presidential candidates, so I can see why they passed it. Iowa has been a swing state, the center of much spending and campaigning. If the electoral college is kaput, we may get less attention. That’s why I was surprised to see the bill gaining ground here. Time to get cynical . . . .

Why would we pass this bill? Isn’t this carrying good government a little too far? (snark)

Maybe it has to do with the caucuses. We barely defended our caucus timeline in 2008 from attacks by Florida and Micigan. We get double attention in Iowa as both the first caucus and as a swing state. If we are generous enough to forego the swing state advantage, maybe the voters elsewhere won’t keep beating on our caucus advantage.

Or maybe we see our swing-state status eroding. If Iowa becomes reliably Democratic(voted for the D five times of the last six elections), candidates won’t come here in election years, only in caucus years. Going to the NPV could bring the candidates back since those many Iowa independents and Republicans would not be disenfrancised in a NPV system.

Whatever the motive–good government or selfish government–I’m glad for the progress. I hope the full Senate approves it, too.

——cross-posted to bleedingheartland where you can post comments.

Audit logs came under scrutiny in Humboldt County, California when a public auditing process discovered that votes had not been counted in the official results. Those official totals had come from Diebold (now hiding behind the name Premier) vote counting software. Wired.com interviewed Jones, who said

“These audit logs could give us some assurances [about an election] if they were genuinely designed so that a casual bystander could look at them and understand them,” says Doug Jones, a University of Iowa computer scientist and former chairman of a board that examines and approves voting machines for use in Iowa. “[But] having them cryptic and obscure destroys the value in terms of election transparency.”

So it seems that Diebold logs don’t tell everything that happened in the correct order, as we all thought a log was supposed to do. Wired’s “Threat Level” reporter Kim Zetter goes on–

The audit logs appear to record only limited types of events on the system and provide no comprehensive record that tracks every event performed by an election official.

Premier didn’t respond to a query from Threat Level about the logs. But Jones said the Premier/Diebold system, as far as he knows, provides no single log file that chronologically lists all events in the life of an election.

Instead, he says, the system keeps “lots and lots of different logs” that appear to have been “independently designed by people who didn’t talk to each other” and that are incomprehensible to anyone except the vendor. He assumes Premier has documentation explaining how to interpret the logs, but says if it does, the company doesn’t share that information with election officials, making independent audits of a voting system difficult if not impossible.

So . . .lots of logs . . .don’t talk to each other . . .need documentation to interpret the logs . . .but WAIT—

“From the point of view of actually doing any forensics, it’s a mess,” Jones said. “Because you have to understand what all of the logs are saying, and all of the documentation to understand what they’re saying are not public documents. I find that truly reprehensible. The idea that you can have this inscrutable document, but that you can’t have any document to understand that document, is just totally nuts.”

I know that Iowa auditors are conferring with the Secretary of State about a weak audit bill for the current legislature to consider. “It will be better than nothing,” I was told. Given the “threat level,” I think that is a pretty low standard for a state that wants to be First in the Nation again in 2012. Having fallen for Diebold’s disasterous devices despite Jones’s best efforts to protect Iowa, we need a strong audit bill. States from Maine to California (literally) are pushing past us.

cross posted at BleedingHeartland. You can comment there, too.

This fall the registrar of Humboldt county, California allowed local citizens to post all the ballots on the internet after the election. This was an audacious and innovative project. And guess what? This audit uncovered two counting errors, one of which traces directly to the secret software Diebold used to count the paper ballots and has made national news among election officials.

Meanwhile the local newspaper has praised the publication of the ballots in today’s editorial, noting that

To make this perfectly clear, if the transparency project were not around, the vote of Humboldt County’s voters would have been inaccurately tabulated.

This was not a recount in the wake of a close election. No one suspected these errors. The “logic and accuracy tests” upon which all county officials hang their hats had not prevented these errors. As the editorialists observe:

What better way to make sure vote counts are accurate than to make it possible for anyone and everyone across the state to conduct their own recounts, whenever and however they choose? It smells like democracy.

Iowa ballots get hidden away after the election. No one is supposed to look at them while they wait to be destroyed months later. We are light years behind this California county.

UPDATE:
Here’s the site where you can see the ballots:
http://hum.dreamhosters.com/etp/

Further details (h/t Mitch)
http://www.humtp.com
http://democracycounts.blogspot.com
http://www.mitchtrachtenberg.com/Nov2008
http://www.mitchtrachtenberg.com/ourvotes.html
http://www.tevsystems.com/press.html (for more links)

Many of Michigan’s own Republican state legistlators have now voted to close the electoral college(scroll down). On the same day the US Senate scorned them, Michigan voted for the National Popular Vote.

When Iowa was a swing state (2000 and 2004), we were unlikely to want the electoral college repealed. If we are now seen as increasingly Democratic, maybe our legislature will also pass the National Popular Vote lest we be left out of the fall campaign. The bill was in our legislature last session but went nowhere.

*******************

They have begun the recount in the Senate race in Minnesota. Originally the ballots were scanned as Iowa ballots are scanned, but the close outcome led to the recount.

Minnesota is a “voter intent” state. Iowa is not. In Iowa “The mark shall be consistent with the requirements of the voting system in use in the precinct.” see Code of Iowa 49.92 and 49.99. In Minnesota the recount teams must determine what the voter really wanted no matter what way he used to mark his ballot. Ballots that the machine read one way could legitimately be read differently by the recounters.

Here’s a sample of Minnesota ballots you can judge. As you view them, consider this: would the ballot be counted differently in Iowa than in Minnesota?

The county conducted an honest-to-goodness hand recount of paper ballots. The recount occurred because precinct pollworkers had suspected a miscount on election night. County Auditor Grant Veeder organized an investigation, laying ballots in piles and counting them twice.

Veeder says “We are still doing some checking” in an effort to explain this anomaly.

Iowa took a giant step forward in this election by doing without touchscreen voting machines. We still need to take the next step. We need post election audits during which actual cast ballots are counted by hand and compared to the machine that already counted them. In the Black Hawk case the machine looks to have failed.

With all the scare stories now arising about the upcoming election, it’s time to remind ourselves that Iowa looks pretty good. We won’t have (shouldn’t have) long lines to vote on election day. We won’t have any touchscreens to go awry. We won’t have many registration problems. Let’s review our enviable situation.

No Touchscreens. This is Iowa’s signature accomplishment. We owe a big debt to Secretary of State Mauro who traded in the touchscreens as his first major step in office. Now all of us get to vote on paper. Polling places can arrange as many ballot marking booths as they need to prevent lines of voters. No votes will be lost to the dastardly touchscreen gadgets. It’s because of this victory that this blog has been so quiet lately. No sense in pointing out the state’s shortcomings when such a major change has just been engineered.

No Registration Problems. Iowans can register until the end of next week. If they miss that date, they get a second chance on election day. This means hardly any provisional ballots will be needed. Everyone with a good ID card should be able to vote without any prior preparation. You can check your registration right now at this website.

The Brennan Center (with help from Sean Flaherty of Iowans for Voting Integrity) has released a major report on the status of election readiness. Iowa is one of eight states given credit for “best practices” in ballot accounting and reconciliation. See the third map.

On the other hand, we fall into the black space on the bottom map regarding audits of the machine readout. That’s Mauro’s next challenge. Someone needs to hand count some ballots after the polls close to see that the machines got it right in their hi-speed readings. Haste makes waste! Slow down and double check the damned things!

That challenge is for the government to face next legislative session. If we get good audits we can join the list of only six states that get shaded green on the top map (Alaska, Oregon, California, North Carolina, and our neighbors Missouri and Minnesota).

For now the voters should see a welcoming environment at the polls. Any snafus will be local–not the fault of state law. Take advantage of our enviable situation by voting.

Update: Secretary of State Mauro has also been recognized for having the best official state election website in the nation! Talk about a welcoming environment! So look him up if you need to know anything about Iowa voting. Congratulations, Michael.

Debate watchdog group Open Debates calls on the Commission on Presidential Debates to make public the secret debate contract negotiated by the Obama and McCain campaigns.

Senator Lindsay Graham of the McCain campaign and Representative Rahm Emanuel of the Obama campaign have negotiated a detailed contract that dictates the terms of the 2008 presidential debates, including who can participate and the structure of the formats. The Commission on Presidential Debates has agreed to implement the debate contract.

Yet, in order to shield the major party candidates from criticism, the Commission on Presidential Debates has refused to release the debate contract to the public.

”It is vital that the public has full access to information in a sound democracy,” said George Farah, executive director of Open Debates. “Unfortunately, the Commission on Presidential Debates is more concerned with the partisan interests of the two candidates than the democratic interests of the public, and it has denied voters access to critical information about our most sacred political forums.”

The Commission on Presidential Debates was created by and for the Republican and Democratic Parties. In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement “to take over the presidential debates” from the League of Women Voters. Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the Commission on Presidential Debates. Fahrenkopf and Kirk still co-chair the Commission on Presidential Debates, and every four years, it implements and conceals contracts jointly drafted by the Republican and Democratic nominees.

A copy of the 2004 debate contract negotiated by the Bush and Kerry campaigns is available at:
http://www.opendebates.org/news/documents/debateagreement.pdf

###

One secret is out: They are keeping Libertarian Bob Barr off the stage despite public support for including him. He’s on the ballot in most states.