Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Mark Linimon]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 03:51:14PM -0300, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
> There are a lot of people who would like to buy people's votes

It's a good thing this does not happen in any other countries .

:-)

mcl

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Toby Thain]

On 2015-10-12 2:51 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:

Paul Koning wrote on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:44:58 -0400:

On Oct 9, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
[noticed voter ID terminal had cable to voting machines!]


That's not the real problem.


Indeed, not *the* problem but just *a* problem I noticed while still in
line to get into the voting station.


The real problem is that you had no way to be sure, no way to verify,
that the machine was recording your vote and would accurately report
it later.  It might just as easily report numbers that someone had told
it to report, not connected to any reality.  How would you know?  If
anyone were to question this, how would you prove that the count is
honest?


This issue was raised, so the third time these machines were used in a
national election there was a pilot with modified machines that printed
their results so that the voter could see (but not touch) and then
dropped the paper version into an urn. Observers from all the different
parties could use the paper trail to verify the numbers presented
electronically by the machines. After that single trial, TSE declared
that the result was that a paper trail was proved to be unnecessary and
caused delays and added expense, so those machines were never seen again
and elections in Brazil have been paper free ever since.


Leaving the vulnerability.





There are several aspects of voting culture in Brazil that are quite
different ...

-- Jecel

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Paul Koning]

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 2:51 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr.  wrote:
> 
> Paul Koning wrote on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:44:58 -0400:
> ...
>> The real problem is that you had no way to be sure, no way to verify,
>> that the machine was recording your vote and would accurately report
>> it later.  It might just as easily report numbers that someone had told
>> it to report, not connected to any reality.  How would you know?  If
>> anyone were to question this, how would you prove that the count is
>> honest?
> 
> This issue was raised, so the third time these machines were used in a
> national election there was a pilot with modified machines that printed
> their results so that the voter could see (but not touch) and then
> dropped the paper version into an urn. Observers from all the different
> parties could use the paper trail to verify the numbers presented
> electronically by the machines. After that single trial, TSE declared
> that the result was that a paper trail was proved to be unnecessary and
> caused delays and added expense, so those machines were never seen again
> and elections in Brazil have been paper free ever since.

Cute.  So that demonstrates that the results of that one election are accurate, 
but it tells you nothing about the later ones.  And the claim that the paper is 
"unnecessary" shows either ignorance, or dishonest intent, on the part of the 
person making that claim.  After all, you have no way to know whether the later 
machines are still honest, just because the ones used in that one election were.

paul

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr.]

Paul Koning wrote on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:44:58 -0400:
> > On Oct 9, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. wrote:
> > [noticed voter ID terminal had cable to voting machines!]
> 
> That's not the real problem. 

Indeed, not *the* problem but just *a* problem I noticed while still in
line to get into the voting station.

> The real problem is that you had no way to be sure, no way to verify,
> that the machine was recording your vote and would accurately report
> it later.  It might just as easily report numbers that someone had told
> it to report, not connected to any reality.  How would you know?  If
> anyone were to question this, how would you prove that the count is
> honest?

This issue was raised, so the third time these machines were used in a
national election there was a pilot with modified machines that printed
their results so that the voter could see (but not touch) and then
dropped the paper version into an urn. Observers from all the different
parties could use the paper trail to verify the numbers presented
electronically by the machines. After that single trial, TSE declared
that the result was that a paper trail was proved to be unnecessary and
caused delays and added expense, so those machines were never seen again
and elections in Brazil have been paper free ever since.

There are several aspects of voting culture in Brazil that are quite
different than in many other countries and any proposals have to take
that into account. Voting is mandatory, for example. If you can't prove
that you voted in the last two elections (or were officially excused due
to travel or something like that) then you can't get a passport and
suffer a few other restrictions. There are a lot of people who would
like to buy people's votes and, historically, many powerful people would
force all their employees to vote for their own candidates. This means
that any scheme that would allow somebody to prove how they voted would
be completely rejected, here. Even doing stuff like taking a picture of
the machine's screen with your cell phone to show how you voted is one
of the few things that can land you in jail on election day.

Here is an example of a scheme that would work in some countries, but
would not be an option in Brazil: just generate a random number and
store it with the vote. You print out the random number and give it to
the voter to take him. Then you make the final contents of the machine
available online. The voter can go through that at home and check that
their random number is paired with their actual vote. They have to
suppose that will also be the case for everyone else. They can manually
add all the votes for that machine (or any other they are interested in)
and compare with the final report for that machine. This protects
against fraud, but not against being forced to prove to somebody (other
than yourself) how you voted.

-- Jecel

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Jon Elson]

On 10/10/2015 10:44 AM, Paul Koning wrote:



That's not the real problem.  The real problem is that you had no way to be 
sure, no way to verify, that the machine was recording your vote and would 
accurately report it later.  It might just as easily report numbers that 
someone had told it to report, not connected to any reality.  How would you 
know?  If anyone were to question this, how would you prove that the count is 
honest?


An election official in Ohio, I think, not an IT guy at all, 
just somebody who knew how to open files, etc, played around 
with a touch screen machine at his precinct.  I THINK it was 
the original Diebold machine, but I could be wrong on that.  
I think he plugged in a USB cable or something, and found 
the vote totals were just an open file on a memory card, and 
could be opened and edited with standard Windows tools like 
notepad!He went public with it, and it caused a pretty 
large furor over this blatant lack of security.  The 
manufacturer of the machine had told the state that all 
files were encrypted, you had to log on with a password, 
etc. etc. and it was all lies.


You should be able to search for articles in the press about 
this.


Jon

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Paul Koning]

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 5:39 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr.  wrote:
> 
> John Robertson asked:
>>> After the fiasco about the Deibold machines changing votes during the 
>>> Bush election of 2000, Brazil opted for them?
> 
> To which Alexandre Souza replied:
>>Yep. Welcome to the land of the stupid.
> 
> Ok, I think we need some facts, here. Note that from the very first time
> I used one of these machines to vote and noted that they typed in my
> voter ID number using a little keyboard which had a cable going into the
> voting "cabin" to prep the machine for my vote, my opinion of the whole
> thing has be very negative. After all, I had only their word that they
> were not saving my ID along with my vote - there was no hardware
> limitation against it doing this. 

That's not the real problem.  The real problem is that you had no way to be 
sure, no way to verify, that the machine was recording your vote and would 
accurately report it later.  It might just as easily report numbers that 
someone had told it to report, not connected to any reality.  How would you 
know?  If anyone were to question this, how would you prove that the count is 
honest?

paul

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr.]

John Robertson asked:
> >After the fiasco about the Deibold machines changing votes during the 
> >Bush election of 2000, Brazil opted for them?

To which Alexandre Souza replied:
> Yep. Welcome to the land of the stupid.

Ok, I think we need some facts, here. Note that from the very first time
I used one of these machines to vote and noted that they typed in my
voter ID number using a little keyboard which had a cable going into the
voting "cabin" to prep the machine for my vote, my opinion of the whole
thing has be very negative. After all, I had only their word that they
were not saving my ID along with my vote - there was no hardware
limitation against it doing this. And I was not impressed to see a whole
PC used where a simple Z80 could have done the job my better. That said,
not everything is as bad as the above comments imply.

Brazil's government is divided into three parts: executive, legislative
and judicial. The first two use public elections to fill their ranks
while the third uses appointments. There is a special section within the
judicial branch which runs elections for the other two branches. This is
a full time section that does nothing but elections, with a federal
judge running the national TSE (superior electoral tribunal) which
controls the state based TREs (regional electoral tribunals).

When TSE decided to switch from paper ballots to voting machines in the
mid 1990s, they created a detailed specification and allowed interested
manufacturers to bid for the contract. Unisys was the winner for the
pilot stage, and several places tried the machines in the next election.
It was considered a success and a contract for enough machines for the
whole country was awarded to Procomp, the winner of this second round.

In the 2000 election for US president, the big deal was the messy
recounts of votes in some Florida districts that used very old voting
machines with punched cards. These machines had been used for decades
with no problems, but the close results of that particular race brought
the "hanging chads" to everyone's attention.

Over the next few US elections, Diebold machines started to be used and
caused a series of problems. Shortly after this, Dielbold bought the
brazillian company Procomp and so  inherited the contract for
maintenance and new machines for TSE. The designs of the voting machines
used in the USA and Brazil are unrelated and that the same company is
now involved in both is an accident of changing corporate structures.

One problem with the TSE/TRE scheme is that any lawsuits involving
elections are judged by the very people running them. As you might
imagine, they very rarely (if ever) find themselves to be wrong. On the
other hand, it is supposed to make it harder for frauds from candidates
participating in the elections.

Just so this is not completely off topic, I should mention that the
second generation of voting machines were based on the Cyrix MediaGX
processors, before they were bought by AMD and used in the One Laptop
Per Child. So though this was the late 1990s, we are talking about the
386/486 level machine - classic!

-- Jecel

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Chuck Guzis]

On 10/09/2015 07:38 AM, Paul Koning wrote:


Very convenient for those who run the government that runs the
election process.

In the state where I live the setup (by law, as I recall) is a nice
hybrid.  Paper (mark sense) ballots, scanned by machine.  But anyone
can look at a ballot and see what it says, and you can recount them
by hand if necessary.  So the security of the counting machines is
not actually critical because they aren't the final authority.


We're mark-sense too, but with a key difference.  We have what amounts 
to a two-week voting period, with returned ballots sent by mail or 
deposited in special drop-boxes (which, when not used for voting, are 
used to collect tax payments).  No election-day scramble, no trying to 
find a polling place.


I miss the old system of voting in person, but the current one is much 
more difficult to manipulate and saves money at the same time.


--Chuck

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Jon Elson]

On 10/09/2015 09:38 AM, Paul Koning wrote:


Very convenient for those who run the government that runs the election process.

In the state where I live the setup (by law, as I recall) is a nice hybrid.  
Paper (mark sense) ballots, scanned by machine.  But anyone can look at a 
ballot and see what it says, and you can recount them by hand if necessary.  So 
the security of the counting machines is not actually critical because they 
aren't the final authority.


Here in Missouri, we have touch screen machines that print a 
paper roll with human-readable vote info PLUS 2D bar codes 
for fast scanning, and the voter can watch the paper scroll 
by to verify the human-readable data agrees with their 
votes.  I think it puts time and date on the paper as well, 
so somebody can't run off a bunch of phony votes before or 
after the election hours.  The paper is like cash register 
tapes.  the first vote info is all electronic, but if there 
is a recount, the paper tapes can be examined.


Any voter can also opt for mark sense ballots.

Jon

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Stefan Skoglund (lokal användare)]

tor 2015-10-08 klockan 16:48 -0700 skrev Chuck Guzis:
> On 10/08/2015 01:44 PM, Mattis Lind wrote:
> > Unfortunately SVT Öppet Arkiv is not available to anyone outside
> > Sweden, which is a pity. A great source.
> > 
> > This interest for computers and election vigils come from the fact
> > that I had a email conversation with a person that was involved
> > when
> > DEC won the contract to for the election in 1976 in Sweden for SVT.
> > He was involved in adapting the VT30 system for TV use. Genlock and
> > stuff.
> > 
> > I found three clips in Öppet Arkiv which I trimmed down heavily.
> > These shows tend to be quite long anyhow. I hope SVT is not getting
> > mad now.
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDoFM3hfbic
> 
> Interesting.  Anent that, here's a nice article about the use of 
> computers in a US Presidential election in 1952:
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/10/31/163951263/th
> e-night-a-computer-predicted-the-next-president
> 
> I wonder if there aren't still some congressional districts where
> votes 
> are counted by hand in the US.
> 
> --Chuck
> 

All the votes is still counted by hand.
Both att election evening (by election workers) and afterwards
(multiple times) in the months after election.

The "Valvaka" is the election day TV-program, the computers is included
because people wants an early impression of who will be statsminister
in one week, it's an statistical exercise.

AT election day we have 3 different elections:
local municipality (really its "house" which then elects the cabinett
including "city major")
the same for "län" (country council)
and state (election elects the country's riksdag - "house")

Riksdagen elects statsminister (normally, the situation now is a bit
peculiar.)

The state administration thru its "länsstyrelser" (who is geographical
areas corresponding to "län/region" (country council) it responsible
for counting and tabulating votes (country council election and
riksdagen.)

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Alexandre Souza]

lucky you. In Brazil we use vote machines made by diebold, which are as
weak in security as a carton box. And no independent entity can ressearch
its failures.

2015-10-09 8:24 GMT-03:00 Stefan Skoglund (lokal användare) <
a13st...@student.his.se>:

> tor 2015-10-08 klockan 16:48 -0700 skrev Chuck Guzis:
> > On 10/08/2015 01:44 PM, Mattis Lind wrote:
> > > Unfortunately SVT Öppet Arkiv is not available to anyone outside
> > > Sweden, which is a pity. A great source.
> > >
> > > This interest for computers and election vigils come from the fact
> > > that I had a email conversation with a person that was involved
> > > when
> > > DEC won the contract to for the election in 1976 in Sweden for SVT.
> > > He was involved in adapting the VT30 system for TV use. Genlock and
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > I found three clips in Öppet Arkiv which I trimmed down heavily.
> > > These shows tend to be quite long anyhow. I hope SVT is not getting
> > > mad now.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDoFM3hfbic
> >
> > Interesting.  Anent that, here's a nice article about the use of
> > computers in a US Presidential election in 1952:
> >
> > http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/10/31/163951263/th
> > e-night-a-computer-predicted-the-next-president
> >
> > I wonder if there aren't still some congressional districts where
> > votes
> > are counted by hand in the US.
> >
> > --Chuck
> >
>
> All the votes is still counted by hand.
> Both att election evening (by election workers) and afterwards
> (multiple times) in the months after election.
>
> The "Valvaka" is the election day TV-program, the computers is included
> because people wants an early impression of who will be statsminister
> in one week, it's an statistical exercise.
>
> AT election day we have 3 different elections:
> local municipality (really its "house" which then elects the cabinett
> including "city major")
> the same for "län" (country council)
> and state (election elects the country's riksdag - "house")
>
> Riksdagen elects statsminister (normally, the situation now is a bit
> peculiar.)
>
> The state administration thru its "länsstyrelser" (who is geographical
> areas corresponding to "län/region" (country council) it responsible
> for counting and tabulating votes (country council election and
> riksdagen.)
>

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Paul Koning]

> On Oct 9, 2015, at 7:50 AM, Alexandre Souza  
> wrote:
> 
> lucky you. In Brazil we use vote machines made by diebold, which are as
> weak in security as a carton box. And no independent entity can ressearch
> its failures.

Very convenient for those who run the government that runs the election process.

In the state where I live the setup (by law, as I recall) is a nice hybrid.  
Paper (mark sense) ballots, scanned by machine.  But anyone can look at a 
ballot and see what it says, and you can recount them by hand if necessary.  So 
the security of the counting machines is not actually critical because they 
aren't the final authority.

paul

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[John Robertson]

On 10/09/2015 4:50 AM, Alexandre Souza wrote:

lucky you. In Brazil we use vote machines made by diebold, which are as
weak in security as a carton box. And no independent entity can ressearch
its failures.


After the fiasco about the Deibold machines changing votes during the 
Bush election of 2000, Brazil opted for them?


That says a lot about your government I'm afraid. Not unlike US states 
that use Deibold equipment where there is no paper ballot to confirm the 
results after the voting is closed.


That is not democratic at all!

Canada still uses paper ballots for our federal elections. Our election 
voting stations have scrutineers who are volunteers from the various 
political parties running who watch over the proceedings and can call 
for assistance if something unusual happens.


Our local city election (Vancouver) uses a paper ballot that is read 
electronically, but the ballots exist in paper and can be counted by the 
various party scrutineers if they wish (and it happens in closely fought 
ridings).


Canada has had trouble with fake phone calls directing voters to 
non-existent polling stations in an effort to change the outcome where 
ridings are close (the candidates have almost equal chance of winning). 
This was traced to our current government's political party - and the 
governments' response was to change the way Elections Canada can report 
problems and help people to get out and vote - they made it harder 
sigh.


We shall see what happens on Oct 19 when our federal election happens.

John :-#(#



2015-10-09 8:24 GMT-03:00 Stefan Skoglund (lokal användare) <
a13st...@student.his.se>:


tor 2015-10-08 klockan 16:48 -0700 skrev Chuck Guzis:

On 10/08/2015 01:44 PM, Mattis Lind wrote:

Unfortunately SVT Öppet Arkiv is not available to anyone outside
Sweden, which is a pity. A great source.


If the original poster can provide the link(s) folks may want to use 
other methods to watch streaming video...



This interest for computers and election vigils come from the fact
that I had a email conversation with a person that was involved
when
DEC won the contract to for the election in 1976 in Sweden for SVT.
He was involved in adapting the VT30 system for TV use. Genlock and
stuff.

I found three clips in Öppet Arkiv which I trimmed down heavily.
These shows tend to be quite long anyhow. I hope SVT is not getting
mad now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDoFM3hfbic

Interesting.  Anent that, here's a nice article about the use of
computers in a US Presidential election in 1952:

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/10/31/163951263/th
e-night-a-computer-predicted-the-next-president

I wonder if there aren't still some congressional districts where
votes
are counted by hand in the US.

--Chuck


All the votes is still counted by hand.
Both att election evening (by election workers) and afterwards
(multiple times) in the months after election.

The "Valvaka" is the election day TV-program, the computers is included
because people wants an early impression of who will be statsminister
in one week, it's an statistical exercise.

AT election day we have 3 different elections:
local municipality (really its "house" which then elects the cabinett
including "city major")
the same for "län" (country council)
and state (election elects the country's riksdag - "house")

Riksdagen elects statsminister (normally, the situation now is a bit
peculiar.)

The state administration thru its "länsstyrelser" (who is geographical
areas corresponding to "län/region" (country council) it responsible
for counting and tabulating votes (country council election and
riksdagen.)

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Alexandre Souza]

After the fiasco about the Deibold machines changing votes during the 
Bush election of 2000, Brazil opted for them?


   Yep. Welcome to the land of the stupid. 

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Warner Losh]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Alexandre Souza <
alexandre.tabaj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> After the fiasco about the Deibold machines changing votes during the Bush
>> election of 2000, Brazil opted for them?
>>
>
>Yep. Welcome to the land of the stupid.
>

The county I live in has paper ballots. You go, you color in the circles,
you have it sucked up into a machine that tallies it and places it in a
nice, neat stack locked in the machine. Electronic re-counts involve taking
the ballots out of the machine, putting them on top and then hitting a
button. 120 per second can be rescanned, so in a few minutes, the whole
recount is done. And, if there's ever a need, it can be done by hand...
Best of both worlds.

Warner

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Eric Christopherson]

Forgive the question, but what is an "election vigil"? Just people
paying attention to the tallying at night after voting has closed?

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Toby Thain]

On 2015-10-09 2:06 PM, Eric Christopherson wrote:

Forgive the question, but what is an "election vigil"? Just people
paying attention to the tallying at night after voting has closed?



Usually all day. It's a big deal for TV.

--Toby

Re: Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Chuck Guzis]

On 10/08/2015 01:44 PM, Mattis Lind wrote:

Unfortunately SVT Öppet Arkiv is not available to anyone outside
Sweden, which is a pity. A great source.

This interest for computers and election vigils come from the fact
that I had a email conversation with a person that was involved when
DEC won the contract to for the election in 1976 in Sweden for SVT.
He was involved in adapting the VT30 system for TV use. Genlock and
stuff.

I found three clips in Öppet Arkiv which I trimmed down heavily.
These shows tend to be quite long anyhow. I hope SVT is not getting
mad now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDoFM3hfbic


Interesting.  Anent that, here's a nice article about the use of 
computers in a US Presidential election in 1952:


http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2012/10/31/163951263/the-night-a-computer-predicted-the-next-president

I wonder if there aren't still some congressional districts where votes 
are counted by hand in the US.


--Chuck

Computers in Election Vigils - take two

[Mattis Lind]

Unfortunately SVT Öppet Arkiv is not available to anyone outside Sweden,
which is a pity. A great source.

This interest for computers and election vigils come from the fact that I
had a email conversation with a person that was involved when DEC won the
contract to for the election in 1976 in Sweden for SVT. He was involved in
adapting the VT30 system for TV use. Genlock and stuff.

I found three clips in Öppet Arkiv which I trimmed down heavily. These
shows tend to be quite long anyhow. I hope SVT is not getting mad now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDoFM3hfbic

/Mattis