PROOF that we CAN make a difference!!

[garybeck]

GOOD NEWS from Vermont!!!!!

One short year ago, our Secretary of State's office was saying "we don't need audits in Vermont."

We formed a small group, made a website, started a newsletter, and asked folks to write to her office, citing independent expert studies (like the Brennan Report) that stronly recommend audits.

Two months ago the Secretary of State announced there would be an audit!

However, they said it would not be random, and instead they would hand pick the precincts to audit.

We used our newsletter and website to encourage people to write to her again, expressing concern that the audit should be random or it will not be effective or restore public confidence.

One week ago, they announced they changed their mind and it would be random!

However, they also said the random selection would not be transparent (in public view) and instead they would select the precincts to audit behind closed doors on an unknown computer program they had yet to obtain.

I spoke with the Secretary's office and expressed my concern that it needs to be transparent, but they insisted they're doing it in the privacy of their office.

So again I used our newsletter and website to encourage people to write to her again, expressing concern that the audit should be transparent, and it would be much better if the random selection could be made in public, as is the lottery and the draft. We suggested simply putting a bunch of numbers in a hat. We started getting confusing replies, admitting that it was going to be on a computer in their office but at the same time claiming that is transparent. Last night I was up late drafting another newsletter in which I was going to call them to task, explaining that it is not transparent if it's behind closed doors, regardless of whether it's on a computer or not, and they should not call it transparent when it's not transparent. My newsletter was firm and borderline accusatory. I had a few finishing touches to put on the newsletter I was going to send it out this morning.

But before I had a chance, I received an email indicating they have changed their minds once again and they are going to select the audited precincts FROM A HAT, IN PUBLIC VIEW, and anyone who wants to come and watch CAN COME AND WATCH!!!!

All I can say is WOW!!!!

This is a lesson we should all keep in mind. We CAN make a difference, if we are respectful, fair, objective, and tenacous!

So let's keep at it! We WILL have fair, transparent, and secure elections in EVERY state! We all need to keep pressuring our elected officials, using the tools and information we have on our side - the independent expert studies for one, are so valuable! Keep shoving the Brennan Report in their face. They can't ignore what the experts say!

There is no doubt in my mind that our personal letters to the Secretary of State, the newsletters (which were copied to the media statewide), and website had a significant affect on the progress we've made here in Vermont. Along the way I had doubts we would have an affect, but we absolutely did. So if you're feeling frustrated with your election officials, don't give up. The truth, and the facts are on your side!

There's still work to be done here in VT. Our audit next week is voluntary and we need to have mandatory audits on every election. We will work on that when the dust settles after 11/7. Stay tuned.

Now let's get out there and DO IT!

[robinlynne]

1. congratulations gary!

[terip64]

2. Now THAT'S what I'm talking about!! Kick and Recommended!!

[Pooka Fey]

3. Great news - thanks for posting! K&R

[Kip Humphrey]

4. Congrats Gary!

[truckin]

5. Excellent work Gary! In CT. we are using opscan for 25 towns

out of 169, on a trial basis, and the SOTS has not told us what the audit procedures will be. We will be lucky to get standards as good as Vermonts in this election.

[garybeck]

6. KEEP pressing them. Here are some suggestions (for you and others).

Encourage people to write to your SOS, and give them talking points. Don't be afraid to make it obvious there is a concerted effort.

Use the expert studies and shove them in their face whenever possible. Make it apparant that you are showing these studies to many other people and your state representatives. Tell the letter writers to mention them. Mention the Brennan Report and how it strongly recommends random audits. Also, you are probably aware of the new report on opscans that just came out of CT a couple days ago. it also calls for random audits and cites several new ways the machines can be hacked, even without touching the memory card. use the expert studies and recommendations to your advantage. we're not tin foil hatters anymore. we are intelligent citizens doing research of academic studies. Also mention other SoS's in other states who are taking appropriate action, and ask the question why is yours not?

Whenever you write a newsletter or correspondence to your group, make sure you include people in the media on your list. Make sure the media is getting the picture that an election rights group is finding real problems with the SoS's handling. I'm convinced that some people from the media contacted our SoS after receiving our newsletters and this helped convince her it was in her best interest to listen to us.

Try to gain momentum. Every newsletter you send out should have something in it about "please encourage others to sign up for our newsletter." Anytime you correspond with someone that remotely is related to the issue, make sure you add them to your list. Every time you ask people to send letters, there should be more letters written. when the SoS realizes that more and more people are writing every time, and not less and less, they'll realize this problem is not going to go away.

Walk the fine line between being respectful but also blunt. I never used the word "lie" when I described what our SoS was doing and saying, but I used words like "misleading the public." I'm not sure what your SoS is saying and doing, but tell it like it is. Try not to burn the bridge down completely, but come as close as you need to. Don't be afraid to tell the truth and let people decide. One way around it is to ask the question, rather than give the answer. For example say "does this make any sense that they're calling it transparent when they are doing it behind closed doors?" rather than "they continue to lie, calling it transparent when it clearly is not."

Everything you write, whether in a newsletter, on your website, or even in an email to someone who just has a question,,, always assume that the SoS is going to read it. Don't write anything you don't want them to see. Many people asked me if it was OK to forward things I told them to her, and I always said yes we have nothing to hide. I also think some people forwarded things I said without asking me. I assumed this was going to happen so I kept it in mind all along. If you tell the truth just like it is, they'll just realize that "you're on to them" and you're not going to go away.

Get in touch with your local state representative. Offer to come to his/her office for a short meeting to discuss the situation. Or ask if you can have 15 minutes at a public meeting already scheduled, like a city council meeting. Make sure he/she is on your newsletter list. When I got blackballed (the SoS stopped answering my calls) I called up my rep who was somewhat familiar with the situation because she had been receiving the newsletters. I told her I couldn't believe that they stopped replying to my emails and calls and I think as a citizen I deserve better treatment, especially since I had been respectful in everything I wrote. She called the SoS and I think this helped our efforts. I don't think the SoS likes to get a call from a Rep asking why they're ignoring a constituent.

Lastly, I think what finally put us over the hump is when I wrote a letter to them at the final step, when we were asking that the random selection not be made in private, and that instead it be in public view. In this letter I used the carrot and stick. I said we are going to continue to firmly press for random AND transparent audits, and this means the selection has to be made in public view. Then I said I was eagerly awaiting the day when I could tell all the members of our growing group that they should write a letter THANKING her for helping make our election system more secure. I think after all the critical letters she was getting, she read that and thought to herself, maybe the benefit of doing it in public view (getting all these people off my back) outweighs the benefit of doing it in private (if there is any benefit at all to that). At that point I think it became a no-brainer for her. And I intend to stand by my words and encourage people to write and thank her.

OK, now you've got some of my kniving tactics on paper. All I can say is, it worked.

But there's more work to do. We have a mysterious and unnecessary 6 day gap between the designation of the audited precincts and the actual audit. that's 6 days that people know where the audit will be and the ballots will be sitting somewhere, just begging to be tampered with.

I'd be happy to work with you on your efforts!

[rumpel]

7. Hurray, Gary!

:woohoo:

[kster]

8. kick...nt

[Amaryllis]

9. GO, GARY!!!!

[greeneyedboy]

10. excellent. ACTION makes a difference. congratulations!

[Ellipsis]

11. Hard work and commonsense.

Mr. Beck for ALL you have done in the last two years...

Thank you.

[ourvoicescount]

12. Way to go! K&R

[Bill Bored]

13. Well done! Also see the U. Conn. Diebold Op Scan Report

http://voter.engr.uconn.edu/voter/Reports.html

It might give you a few more ideas!

And how will the sample size of this audit be determined?

[garybeck]

15. issues remaining...

sample size is unknown
6 days between picking the audited precincts and counting them
voluntary audit, not automatic
audit will be 9 days after the election, well after the winner is announced
no written procedures for what to do if/when they find a discrepancy


so it's far from over but I feel we've made significant progress when only a year ago they were saying we don't need audits at all.

[Bill Bored]

23. Well, you could send them the VoteTrust paper on auditing:

or Kathy Dopp's, which are both similar to Roy Saltman's work from 1975.

Links:

http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/VTTF/EVEPAuditing.pdf

http://electionarchive.org/auditcalculator/eic.cgi

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/NBS_SP_500-30.pdf
(See Appendix B)

Anything less may not have a high probability of detecting a problem and THAT'S the bottom line of an audit -- not some arbitrary percentage!

For discrepancies to trigger a recount, consider > 1-in-10,000-vote error, especially if the errors are mostly in the same direction! Doug Jones said this is typical for op scan, at least a few years ago:

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/congress.html

That's it. This isn't rocket science anymore so there should be NO excuses!

I'm sure you will continue to be diplomatic about this, but it should really be our line in the sand, or something very close to it.

[New Earth]

14. that is great

thank you for your hard work. i need to start doing these kinds of things. :(

[emlev]

16. See? There's nothing in my hat...

This is great news. Now watch and make sure that there's one and only one slip of paper in that hat representing each precinct.

And that the hat's not made by any electronic voting machine company. ;-)

[garybeck]

19. i'll have my video camera, if I go....

it turns out the selection is going to be made on my birthday, and I was planning on taking a breather day and going into the mountains for a hike.

If I'm not there I will make sure someone I trust is there and they pay close attention.

[emlev]

21. Well, happy birthday then!

Find a substitute and, as they say, Go For A Hike!

[garybeck]

26. thanks for the wishes and the advice :)

and you know what I want for my birthday

[Febble]

17. Gary, that's absolutely fantastic!

On absolutely every level, not least the inspiration it should give to others.

Congratulations! I am stunned. And just incredibly impressed.


:applause: :woohoo: :applause: :bounce: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[In Truth We Trust]

18. Please forget "audits" and demand Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW!

[garybeck]

20. Wake up to reality

many of us would prefer all the ballots would be hand counted.

the reality is, we have the scanners at this election. we can't make them go away. we have to work with what we have and push for the best audit we can get.

if they start finding problems when they conduct audits, then we have a good rational reason to push for all hand counts.

for now, there is great opposition from election officials and town clerks. they don't want to go back to all hand counts, and they don't want to hear about it. I have gone to meetings and seen people roll their eyes when it's suggested that we go back to all hand counts.

we can't just make the machines go away.

audits are the only way to increase the security and reliability on the system that we have.

[In Truth We Trust]

22. I wholeheartedly disagree. Sourcecode is manipulable period. to say that we are stuck with it and

can not do anything about is defeatist. I understand your argument but I disagree. I also commend you for attending meetings and being active as am I. People given ALL the facts will always agree that hcpb is the only true transparent means to restore election integrity. It is done in many progressive democracies throughout the world. We did it for CENTURIES.

To say this is what we have and therefore we "can't make the machines go away" is similar in thought process as someone in ancient Rome saying that since we already have lead dinnerware then just shut up and eat.

We need a constitutional amendment requiring HCPB. That or a Boaston Tea Party of epic proportions. I favor peaceful but immediate change, but change we must have one way or another.
Peace

[garybeck]

24. i agree on the goal

i just disagree that all-or-nothing is the best way to get there.

[In Truth We Trust]

25. Understood. Keep fighting but ultimately demand HCPB!!!

[Fly by night]

27. Gary, congrats!!! Just a few questions ...

1) Does Vermont use one type of voting technology statewide, or a mix of voting systems? What is used?

2) Who will perform the audits?

3) Will the audits be open to the public to view the process?

4) What proportion of the ballots will be counted in precincts chosen for the audit?

5) What threshold will be used to call the "official" results into question?

6) What will be done if that threshold is breached?

Looking forward to your answers. But, in the meantime, thanks for demonstrating the truth of Margaret Mead's words -- a few determined patriots in each and every state can change history.

Now, go take a hike (but maybe on the day after your real birthday). I'd hate to leave the recording of history to anyone else but you in Vermont these days. You need to be there, man -- you're the reason democracy is being protected (and perhaps reintroduced) in your state.