[E-voting] info on 2004 election irregularities

David GLAUDE dglaude at ael.be
Mon Nov 8 22:05:55 GMT 2004


I have a conspiracy theory about what the optical reading give strange=20
result when you compare poll exit result and official result...

Evoting vendor do not like optical reading (because it cost less than=20
DRE and "computer mistake" can be detected and proven.

So there is a high interest for vendor to make optical reading to fail.

If the "failure" is not detected, then there is going to be an happy=20
election candidate.

If the failure is detected, then citizen will want to get rid of that=20
horrible system (like they did get rid of punch card).

All in all american citizen do not like recount and prefer clear result.=20
This feeling is so strong that Kerry choose to conceed in the interest=20
of america (and to avoid beeing seen as someone that can not loose).

The same way, in Belgium the official expert are not in favor of=20
DRE-with-VVAT. It was a mess (more likely a mess by design if you=20
consider the procedure, the fact that in the two locations choosed for=20
DRE-with-VVAT there was no manual counting since before 1991 (more than=20
10 years) and they don't want it anymore and they say it to decision make=
r.

The only problem for Belgium is that DRE-without-VVAT is capable of=20
production mathematicaly (not statisticaly) impossible result... and=20
that is hard to cover. ;-)

Justin Mason wrote:
>   'Always include that it takes two steps - (A) HAVING a paper ballot (=
which
>   was verified by the voter) and then (B) USING the PAPER ballots for a
>   mandatory auditing recount (of at least a random sample of the smalle=
st
>   reported sets of votes - usually called a precinct.)'
>=20
> that's a good point; if I recall correctly David Glaude noted that in
> Belgium, a recount of DRE-with-VVAT votes used the electronic "record" =
as
> the more trustworthy source!

It must be noted that the law was clear about what to do in case of=20
discrepancy between human and computer count.
Also that DRE-with-VVAT was designed as a show case test to demonstrate=20
to the general public that the same DRE-without-VVAT was trustworthy.
The law was designed to be a one shoot and the vendor said on radio that=20
it was never the goal to generalise that DRE-with-VVAT (despite the=20
minister saying that he needed one more year of test to decide wich=20
system is best [all minister said that repeatedly since a long time]).

The expert report is on:=20
http://www.poureva.be/article.php3?id_article=3D32 and say:
[[Le coll=E8ge est d=92avis que les r=E9sultats des op=E9rations de=20
d=E9pouillement manuel des tickets ne peuvent =EAtre consid=E9r=E9s comme=
=20
fiables et que les r=E9sultats de la totalisation automatis=E9e peuvent =EA=
tre=20
consid=E9r=E9s comme les plus fiables.]]

This mean: "The colledge believe that the result of the manual count can=20
not be considered as reliable and that the electronic result can be=20
considered as the most reliable."

There is no way to tell if the paper count or the electronic count have=20
been used... or not. It does not matter much since the final result of=20
who is to be elected does not change with the small margin of error=20
between the two results.

> Clearly pointless, but it certainly makes the recounting officials' job=
s a
> lot easier.

In our case it is not about recounting. It is about mandatory counting=20
made to proof that the system can be trusted. ;-)

David GLAUDE

--=20
Member states shall ensure that data processing is not considered to
be a field of technology in the sense of patent law, and that
innovations in the field of data processing are not considered to be
inventions in the sense of patent law.



More information about the E-voting mailing list