Assuming that wrong computer tallies have caused all inconsistencies will encourage tampering with the paper ballots or paper trail--and vice versa.
When inconsistencies between electronic and paper tallies occur, the law should assume that both the computers and the paper may have been tampered with, and the law should require investigation of both. The law should also require immediate access to the systems used as well as all election materials and documentation for the purposes of investigation by voters, candidates, and law-enforcement.
Inconsistencies are evidence of possible crime, and vendors' trade secrets and proprietary interests should not prevent investigation and collection of evidence.
The bill says that if enough paper has been compromised to change election outcomes, the state has to figure out how to take electronic tallies into consideration. Yet, it would be unusual in a 2% recount to find a sufficient number of paper records had been compromised to change an election result. Would the numbers found in the 2% audit be required or allowed to be extrapolated to the other 98% of unaudited precincts or machines? Is this a requirement designed to prevent the electronic equipment from being investigated, and the electronic tallies from being taken into consideration?
Solution
The law should require the electronic tally from each machine to be available to observers in each precinct at the close of voting on election night, and all electronic tallies must be announced to the public prior to beginning the audit. The VVPAT from each machine should be retained in a separate container for auditing of the machine that produced them.
The law should require citizens to be able to observe election materials and procedures from the time the polls open till the election is certified. The law should also require citizen to have access to records and systems. In case of inconsistencies, the law should require law enforcement investigation. Without this, only insiders and vendors will be able to "determine" anything and no one else will be able to corroborate or disprove such determinations.
2c. Audits, Part c, "repeated state guidelines, EAC voluntary model audit guidelines, 2% non-surprise public audits"
90 or more days before each general election, each State shall set up guidelines and standards for audits by local jurisdictions, for which states shall consider the EAC's voluntary model audit guidelines.[54,55]
At least 2% randomly-selected precincts per state shall be audited "at the same time as the official canvass" and in a public and transparent manner.[56,57,58,59,60]
Wrong!
It is unclear why states must repeatedly publish auditing guidelines and standards. Does this mean that audit guidelines and standards will always be a political football? Or that such guidelines and standards can be continuously improved?
2% audit is better than none, but does not ensure any degree of statistical confidence.
The word "transparent" means different things to different people, and inappropriate for use in legislation.
"Surprise" is not required, which means that the precincts to be audited can be known in advance. The purpose of surprise is to prevent time to adjust the records and/or computer tallies so that they match, as happened in Ohio.
One historical method of method of tampering involves holding back the tallies from certain precincts until the tamperer knows the returns from all other precincts and can calculate how many votes will be needed for the tamperer's candidate(s) to win. HR811 provides that all precincts must return their tallies before selection of precincts to be audited, while S1487 does not. Neither bill's approach prevents holding back certain precincts to be tampered with, and S1487 does not require the audit to begin upon selection of the precincts to be audited, thus allowing time for the electronic and paper records to be altered.
When inconsistencies between electronic and paper tallies occur, the law should assume that both the computers and the paper may have been tampered with, and the law should require investigation of both. The law should also require immediate access to the systems used as well as all election materials and documentation for the purposes of investigation by voters, candidates, and law-enforcement.
Inconsistencies are evidence of possible crime, and vendors' trade secrets and proprietary interests should not prevent investigation and collection of evidence.
The bill says that if enough paper has been compromised to change election outcomes, the state has to figure out how to take electronic tallies into consideration. Yet, it would be unusual in a 2% recount to find a sufficient number of paper records had been compromised to change an election result. Would the numbers found in the 2% audit be required or allowed to be extrapolated to the other 98% of unaudited precincts or machines? Is this a requirement designed to prevent the electronic equipment from being investigated, and the electronic tallies from being taken into consideration?
The law should require the electronic tally from each machine to be available to observers in each precinct at the close of voting on election night, and all electronic tallies must be announced to the public prior to beginning the audit. The VVPAT from each machine should be retained in a separate container for auditing of the machine that produced them.
The law should require citizens to be able to observe election materials and procedures from the time the polls open till the election is certified. The law should also require citizen to have access to records and systems. In case of inconsistencies, the law should require law enforcement investigation. Without this, only insiders and vendors will be able to "determine" anything and no one else will be able to corroborate or disprove such determinations.
2c. Audits, Part c, "repeated state guidelines, EAC voluntary model audit guidelines, 2% non-surprise public audits"
90 or more days before each general election, each State shall set up guidelines and standards for audits by local jurisdictions, for which states shall consider the EAC's voluntary model audit guidelines.[54,55]
At least 2% randomly-selected precincts per state shall be audited "at the same time as the official canvass" and in a public and transparent manner.[56,57,58,59,60]
Wrong!
It is unclear why states must repeatedly publish auditing guidelines and standards. Does this mean that audit guidelines and standards will always be a political football? Or that such guidelines and standards can be continuously improved?
2% audit is better than none, but does not ensure any degree of statistical confidence.
The word "transparent" means different things to different people, and inappropriate for use in legislation.
"Surprise" is not required, which means that the precincts to be audited can be known in advance. The purpose of surprise is to prevent time to adjust the records and/or computer tallies so that they match, as happened in Ohio.
One historical method of method of tampering involves holding back the tallies from certain precincts until the tamperer knows the returns from all other precincts and can calculate how many votes will be needed for the tamperer's candidate(s) to win. HR811 provides that all precincts must return their tallies before selection of precincts to be audited, while S1487 does not. Neither bill's approach prevents holding back certain precincts to be tampered with, and S1487 does not require the audit to begin upon selection of the precincts to be audited, thus allowing time for the electronic and paper records to be altered.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
