[sudoroom] A call to hackers everywhere

Sat Nov 17 00:58:23 CET 2012

I need to look up the sources again, but there was research I've come across that compared the margins of error of different types of voting technology, and there has always been at least 2-3%, more often 4-6% among the EVMs. This includes paper ballots, which has to be tabulated by something, if not someone. 

The voters' intent in the marginal cases are hard to decide, no matter what methodology you use. To give you an example, I brought my daughter in with me to the voting booth this year. I did all the propositions and local candidates myself, but I let my daughter fill in the line for president. She was about to fill in a bubble somewhere else and made a mark, though it was above the gap where the arrow needed to be filled in. I crossed it out and put my initials next to it to avoid any inadvertent confusion, but that's beside the point. This happens all the time, in every technology that has been used.

I would need some help with properly applying the math to get the result, but by my calculation - a 4-5% margin of error results, on average, with each voter's vote counting about 0.93 of a vote. There has never been one vote per person in large elections, but it is a myth worth preserving to motivate people to vote.

My question then is, and I'm serious - where does that 0.07 of my vote go? I'd be very interested to find out and would appreciate any pointers on even how to go about answering that question, frankly.

sent from eddan.com

On Nov 16, 2012, at 2:27 PM, "Andrew" <andrew at roshambomedia.com> wrote:

> I think they are saying that they are taking credit for this:
> 
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/romneys-fail-whale-orca-the-votetracker-149098.html
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Anthony Di Franco <di.franco at gmail.com> wrote:
>> T Relatedly, anyone know what this is about?
>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/113370393/Anon-Rove-Letter
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM, bandit <bandit at cruzio.com> wrote:
>>> A college classmate of mine is professionally involved with this issue.
>>> 
>>> A main stumbling block is each state has its own set of laws on these
>>> machines. There would either need to be 50 types (well, mainly 50 code
>>> bases), or a commonality of the law.
>>> 
>>> I am waiting for Ohio to vote for Mickey Mouse for president - 100%,
>>> except one vote for Goofy. *that* would get the media's attention.
>>> 
>>> Success on your hackerspace with the new digs!
>>> 
>>> .. bandit (of Quelab.net)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Dmt2_QioI
>>> >
>>> > Venezuela uses an electronic device, prints a receipt and counts twice
>>> >
>>> > It can be done, at least Jimmy Carter thinks so.
>>> >
>>> > But hey, we ain't no Nuclear Scientists, right?
>>> >
>>> > ;)
>>> >
>>> > On 11/15/12, Eddan Katz <eddan at eddan.com> wrote:
>>> >> Foul play has a long history in elections, and with paper too. But
>>> >> that's a
>>> >> different point.
>>> >>
>>> >> Do you think the voter should receive the paper receipt or that a paper
>>> >> receipt is printed out but kept at the voting location. If kept at the
>>> >> location, should the voter be able to review the printed copy before it
>>> >> is
>>> >> dropped into whatever box or container holds the paper trail votes?
>>> >>
>>> >> I learned that this turns out to be a crucial question for the blind
>>> >> advocates for voting rights, for whom electronic voting machines make it
>>> >> possible for them to vote for the first time in private and without any
>>> >> assistance. This issue in fact caused a major rift between traditional
>>> >> voting rights advocates and the digital rights community that I think is
>>> >> still yet to be repaired. Only after intensive coalition building
>>> >> efforts
>>> >> did groups like the NAACP, traditionally concerned about voting rights,
>>> >> finally came around to the digital rights criticism of EVMs.
>>> >>
>>> >> I would be interested in trying to work out a more nuanced position that
>>> >> can
>>> >> satisfy both the computer scientists and the blind community concerns.
>>> >> That
>>> >> seems like a very worthwhile Sudo Room project to me.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Eddan
>>> >>
>>> >> On Nov 15, 2012, at 7:26 PM, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> IMO, voting should not be done with out a paper trail. Preferably by
>>> >>> hand.
>>> >>> It's not that hard to color in little bubbles that a computer can read.
>>> >>> If
>>> >>> the ballots are unclear, then they should be redesigned. If some
>>> >>> portion
>>> >>> are unreadable by computer, they can be analyzed by humans.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It's way too important of a process to be handled by the easily
>>> >>> hackable,
>>> >>> untested machines, made by members of one party or another. If there is
>>> >>> foul play in a paper election, at least there is clear evidence (or
>>> >>> evidence of destruction of evidence) to fall back on. With an
>>> >>> electronic
>>> >>> ballot, there is nothing.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -Jehan
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> sudoroom mailing list
>>> >> sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> >> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom
>>> >>
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > sudoroom mailing list
>>> > sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom
>>> >
>>> >
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> bandit at cruzio.com
>>> 505-228-8197
>>> bandit.name
>>> 
>>> I am a systems engineer, specializing in:
>>> - Mission-Critical embedded systems
>>> - device drivers
>>> - control and data acquisition systems
>>> My stuff *works* - *all the time*.
>>> 
>>> Member: INCOSE.org, PACA.org, IEEE.org, CaliforniaConsultants.org, quelab.net
>>> 
>>> And to support my son: Proud members of the New Mexico .NET User Group.
>>> Please go to the community website at www.nmug.net.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudoroom mailing list
>>> sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org
>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudoroom mailing list
>> sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -------
> Andrew Lowe
> Cell: 831-332-2507
> http://roshambomedia.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sudoroom mailing list
> sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/sudoroom/attachments/20121116/0c45cf5c/attachment.html>