Surely You’re Joking, Professor Altschuler!

Recently I attended a meeting of the Cornell Club of Hartford as a guest of a member. She had invited me and several other voting advocates because the speaker was Cornell Professor of American Studies, Glenn C. Altschuler. He is an expert on election history.

Professor Altschuler was an entertaining speaker, spiking the talk with jokes, and bantering with some members of the audience. He is obviously a popular faculty member. I found the whole talk quite interesting.

His basic thesis is that elections in the U.S. are primarily decided by three factors Timing, Tactics and Turnout. He analysed the 2008 presidential election based on that frame, pointing out similar aspects of past elections. Not being a history expert, I cannot comment on his theory’s relation to other alternative theories.

There is an old joke about the sandwich store with a sign that read “We have an agreement with the Bank, they don’t make sandwiches and we don’t cash checks.” I propose an agreement between computer experts and political historians: “We won’t attempt to clarify political history and you won’t certify voting machines.”

I asked a very simple question, very quickly, simply, honestly and innocently. (You were not there. You will have to trust me on this.) I asked approximately: “I would add another T, Tinkering. Could you tell me why politicians like John Kerry and the loser in our 2nd District Congressional race with a margin of 91 votes throw in the towel so quickly”

He then proceeded to characterize me as a conspiracy theorist, said that I only believed the machines were unsafe because of Mr. Diebold’s unfortunate statement (He indicated could not recall his name, which is Walden O’Dell.). Said there was no evidence of computer fraud. And that it was hard to do. It would take too many people. I would have loved an opportunity to debate him, I saw that as inapproprite, and did not continue. I did not want to offend anyone, especially since I was a guest in front of an admired, legendary professor.

He went on to state that Bush had stolen the election fair and square in Ohio as it has always been done. (My contention would be then that his theory of the three T’s is, at best, incomplete as an explanation of who won in the past and why.)

Continue reading “Surely You’re Joking, Professor Altschuler!”

CT News Roundup

TalkNationRadio.org Part 3 of 4 <read>

It’s not in LHS’s interest to have their machines viewed as failure prone and I don’t think that they should be in the pipeline between the moderator and the registrar on the one hand and the SOS on the other. So I think the whole flow of information that has been set up is wrong. — Prof. Michael Fisher, TrueVoteCT

Another “Good News” Press Release (press release)
(see other “Good News”)

“The initial recount results confirm that the optical scan machines performed well and that every vote was recorded accurately,” said Bysiewicz. “…Together, these post election procedures should send a strong and simple message to voters – your vote will be counted, we’ll make sure of it.” – Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, Press Release

When one truck from one trucking company goes down Avon Mountain and does not crash once, it is proof that Avon Mountain and can work as a truck route, but not close to proof that Avon Mountain is generally safe for every truck and driver, almost every time. At CTVotersCount we agree that the Diebold AccuVote-OS can count elections accurately. The fact is that no electronic voting machine can be proven reliable, the Diebold AccuVote-OS is far from secure, the Diebold AccuVote has been proven to be easily compromised, and Connecticut adds to that vulnerability by outsourcing the coding of each election to our vendor, LHS. What we do claim is that elections can be incorrectly decided electronically by error or fraud. The only solution we support is sufficient random audits of each race and question.

What’s the difference: Alderman or Selectman?

Shelton Weekly: Candidates question registrar’s position

A letter drafted by two candidates for city aldermen was sent to the secretary of state’s office questioning incumbent Alderman John “Jack” Finn’s dual roles as registrar of voters and his candidacy for alderman…

Continue reading “CT News Roundup”

Conference Call With Debra Bowen

Debra Bowen is California Secretary of the State responsible for the Top To Bottom Review, and the decertification of electronic voting machines from Diebold and two other vendors: <transcript and conference call>

Some people have criticized the Review as being biased and not conducted in the real world, and it certainly was not, it was conducted in a laboratory setting. The major criticism has been that it did not take into account the physical security that is used in many counties–most counties–but I think it is a mistake to assume that an attacker who wants to interfere with the outcome of an election will not find a way to get their hands on either a voting machine that is used in the polling place, one of the memory cards that is used, or on some other piece of equipment. Or the source code itself…

I’m often asked by people what they can do to support my efforts and to ensure that their votes are accurately counted. My answer would be to get even more involved. Clearly members of the Courage Campaign are already involved, but I’m asking people to go beyond that. If you have concerns about their being an adequate number of well-trained poll workers and you can afford a day, please become a poll worker.

Thorns In The Side or Unappreciated Donors?

“Hackers Welcome” is a refreshing read, at least for the technically inclined.  A great comparison of how different companies treat the discovery of software problems by outsiders – as things to be covered up or as gifts to be appreciated.  Insiders who do the same are either appreciated, suppressed, or out themselves for our benefit – we call them Whistle-blowers.

That kind of stonewalling, enmity and miscommunication has long characterised relations between hackers and software developers, says Jennifer Granick, a cyber-law attorney who represented Lynn in his legal battles…But that attitude is now changing. Software developers are learning that cooperating with hackers is better than ignoring or attacking reports of exploitable holes in software…
Companies, including 3Com’s TippingPoint division and iDefense, offer to buy vulnerabilities from hackers for several thousand dollars apiece, promising to inform the vendor of exploitable flaws.
“Had (Diebold) engaged with us, they’d have a reasonably secure system,” says Felten[Professor, Princeton University]. “Instead, they stonewalled, and look where it got them.”

My only caveat is that the reasoning applies to many people who do not fit the definition of “Hackers”.

FAQ: Have they have fixed all the problems with the voting machines?

Lately I have heard several versions of this statement. In July a registrar said something close to the following to me: The company let go of all the bad (convicted felon) programmers and they have fixed all the problems with the machines. Last week a local monthly paper had this to say in an editorial: … Continue reading “FAQ: Have they have fixed all the problems with the voting machines?”

Lately I have heard several versions of this statement. In July a registrar said something close to the following to me:

The company let go of all the bad (convicted felon) programmers and they have fixed all the problems with the machines.

Last week a local monthly paper had this to say in an editorial:

Potential glitches uncovered by the University of Connecticut Voting Technology Research Center in 2006 have been remedied. – Glastonbury Life

The security holes discovered by UConn have not been fixed. We are using the same version,1.96.6, of the software that UConn tested. The state requires that all software versions be certified by the Secretary of the State before they are used in our elections. Thus far 1.96.6 is the only version that has ever been certified in Connecticut. Time is running out for a coordinated update of machines before the November 6th election.

Continue reading “FAQ: Have they have fixed all the problems with the voting machines?”

CT Voting and Audit Stories – NJ Certification Problems

Doubts Cast On Voting Machines. Westport News – An excellent summary of the concerns with the AccuVote-OS in Connecticut.

Cromwell Vote To Be Audited. Middletown Press – “Town officials learned of the audit in a telephone call from a reporter Thursday night.” I wonder what the official plans are to notify registrars that their towns have been chosen and the municipal clerks who will need to randomly select offices for audits?

N.J. To Miss Voting Deadline, Cherry Hill Courier Post – Optical Scan will not be certified to meet Jan 1 deadline: “The New Jersey Institute of Technology conducted its first round of testing this past summer on three of the machines. Although the machines received a ‘good bill of health,’ Milgram said the results did not meet the criteria the office set in the spring.” More details in the NY Times and the blog from Larry Norden of the Brennan Center.

Random Drawing

Updated: 9/14 and 9/16

Yesterday I attended and participated in the public random drawing of districts for audit. Hopefully, in the next day or two CT-N will put up the video. I did manage to catch some of the rerun late last night. (Note: I will keep updating this entry as more information and the video becomes available.)

Read the Good News, The Not So Good News, and What We We Can Learn, below:

Continue reading “Random Drawing”

Primary Audits Insuffient – The Numbers and The Loopholes

CORRECTION: Watching the CT-N rerun Secretary Bysiewicz said 98%-99%

UPDATE: I participated in the random district drawing today at the Secretary of the State’s press conference.

Actual count: 110 districts, 11 to be audited.
Loophole leaves West Haven, part of Bridgport, and other elections exempt from audit.
Secretary claims audits detect errors and fraud 96?-98% of the time, I say at most 2%-4%.
More details and comment tomorrow.

Original post 09/12/07:

We say that the audits mandated by Public Act 07-194 are insufficient. Yesterday twenty-three Connecticut municipalities held primary elections. Here are the numbers, if I have them correctly:

Primary elections: 23

Election districts (approximately): 125

Districts, statewide, to be selected for audit: 13

Minimum number of primaries that will not be audited: 10

Continue reading “Primary Audits Insuffient – The Numbers and The Loopholes”

ConnPost Covers Election Glitches

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said there were only a “very, very small number of issues” with the new machines…
Bysiewicz said that of the 125 Connecticut precincts using the machines Tuesday, only six reported significant problems with their machines.

As a retired software engineer I would say this is not surprising, given the challenges of rolling out a new system with little opportunity to phase the system in one location at a time. Yet, it means we can expect perhaps 30 – 40 “significant” problems in November. Of course it is all context. We would be quite disturbed to learn that trucks going over Avon mountain had a 95% certainty of working brakes or that the state effectively guarded the Social Security numbers for 95% of the taxpayers. But a machine problem is not the same as uncovering a problem with an election – we hope that procedures were followed and that they will prevent these problems from compromising an election.

We can also choose to have blind faith that without adequate audits, without software transparency, and with secret programming, through miracles and trust in human nature our votes were counted accurately, that these six visible problems were not joined by invisible errors and intentional fraud.

One item in the article gives one pause in considering the integrity of such mitigating procedures:

While at Thomas Hooker School, about 75 ballots could not be immediately counted due to problems with the paper, because of the humidity. The paper ballots were too damp and the voting machine could not process them. The ballots were taken to the Town Clerk’s Office to be counted. It wasn’t immediately known when the count would take place.

Read the full story.

Sign “The Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections”

 Note:  Petition now closed to additional signers, Thank You.

ANNOUNCEMENT: CTVotersCount is initiating a “Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections By November 2008”. Addressed to Connecticut Secretary of the State (SOTS), Susan Bysiewicz, and the Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE).

It is now the time to begin creating support for changing the law in the short legislative session next year, if we are to have elections of integrity and confidence in Connecticut for the November 2008 elections. Elections which include President, 5 U. S. House races, along with the complete Connecticut House and Senate. The time to start, for citizens is NOW!

Continue reading “Sign “The Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections””