JB: So I guess the $64,000 question is how does one educate the average person and elected officials to see the importance of legitimate, verifiable elections and, equally important, to understand how to achieve it?
SR: Well, I don't think the big picture is too complicated. When covering voting rights, I learned very quickly there are some narratives that have deep emotional resonance. Nobody wants their vote or voice taken away from them. Nobody wants to be told that they don't matter or are less equal than someone else. Many people don't want to roll back the Civil Rights Movement's gains. In the same way, where we stand with vote counts is most people want to know that the election results were accurate. And perhaps be shown a small amount of proof to believe it.
This leads to some basic ideas and decision points. When it comes to verifying the vote, what's acceptable? Should it be a 100 percent accounting of every vote cast on every ballot? Or should it be a statistical process that looks at something less--such as a random sampling of ballots to ascertain there's a high probability the results were correct? That choice takes you to what technologies are you using?
I think there's a role for the best use of paper and computing to produce the full accounting in close races; in a way that each of these mediums' strengths and weaknesses serve as a check and balance against each other. In less competitive elections, a random sampling of ballots may suffice--if the goal is only to check the results. But I think many other things are gained when election officials know they must account for all of the ballots.
I do think that there are many reasons in 2018 why election officials would want to take extra steps to have more trustable results. They're insulted every time the president says millions of people are voting illegally--a big lie. They need to find ways to punch through that rhetoric and the noise of partisans repeating it. If seeing is understanding, and understanding can become believing, then the tools and technologies and protocols are there to have trustable results. If anyone opposes that, as some will, the questions are simple, 'Why don't you want accurate elections?' 'Why don't you want a transparent process?' This is all you need to keep repeating when it comes to public education. People know what this is about.
JB: That sounds so simple! Anything you'd like to add before we wrap this up?
SR: I think we are good. Thanks for having me here.
JB: Thanks so much for talking with me again, Steven. It's always a pleasure.
***
Rosenfeld's recent piece, which spurred this interview: Florida 2018 Showcased Both the Future of Secure and Accurate Voting Systems and How Counties Can Bungle an Election
My interview with Ralph Lopez which discusses digital image auditing: What Recent NY Primary Upset Means for Voters Everywhere 8.25.2018
***
Some prior interviews with Rosenfeld:
Ferguson Lays Bare Police Brutality and Racism in America 12.4.2014
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
