Eureka Times-Standard OpEd: Hand-counting ballots can work (X)

[GuvWurld]

Additional comments blogged at We Do Not Consent:
http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2008/01/eureka-times-standard-oped-hand.html

Eureka Times-Standard OpEd: Hand-counting ballots can work
By Dave Berman
1/3/08

As promised last night, below is the My Word opinion column I wrote, published in today's Eureka Times-Standard, though oddly not yet on the paper's website (I picked up a hard copy and found the piece on page A4, including a picture of me from at least three years ago).

UPDATE: 1/3/08 12:20pm -- The T-S website now has my column. It occurred to me over the past few hours that the headline it was given, while certainly a positive statement, doesn't really reflect what this essay is about. I've been saying hand-counting can work for years now. This piece says the T-S is abdicating its responsibility to foster community dialog about whether hand-counting is superior to Diebold opscans, even as the Voter Confidence Committee creates the very means by which the community can make objective comparisons. A more apt headline would have been: "Election Watchdogs Dog Newspaper For More Detailed Dialog on Election Conditions."

* * *http://www.times-standard.com/ci_7869635
(archive)

Hand-counting ballots can work
My Word, by Dave Berman
1/3/07

Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said hand-counting paper ballots is "not a practical solution" ("As primary fast approaches, election offices are in turmoil," 12/24/07) and she's not convinced it would be more reliable than continuing to use secret vote counting machines repeatedly discredited in actual elections and academic studies, including CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Top To Bottom Review.

It is certainly reasonable for the Times-Standard to publish the Registrar's opinion. But did the T-S ever ask her for data comparing counting methods for accuracy, cost or any other measure? The Voter Confidence Committee (VCC) has requested such information, repeatedly, and the Registrar has not only confessed to having no such information, she has failed to deliver on her promise to obtain it and make it available.

Setting the Registrar's unsubstantiated opinion aside, the bigger issue is false balance, which the T-S created by pairing the Registrar's view with superficial mention of the VCC report recommending hand-counting, noting also that we're documenting community support for the idea.

Not mentioned is the VCC hand-count forecast tool (a spreadsheet), used to create projections and plan for the requirements of hand-counting in precincts on election night. This allows the public to objectively judge whether hand-counting is indeed preferable.

In fact, this was our contribution to the federal lawsuit mentioned in the "turmoil" article, and it was previously described in the T-S on August 16.

When this becomes part of the story, an unsubstantiated opinion no longer stands in true balance, instead reflecting false balance. "He-said/she-said" can not truly balance all news articles. The community can and should discuss the relative merits of hand-counting in tangible terms, made possible by the VCC but shunned by the T-S.

Yes, shunned.

Readers should know the T-S editorial board met with VCC members on August 14. Not only was the forecast tool presented at that time, the VCC also reiterated concerns stated in our report about the Registrar's so-called "Transparency Project."

Our critique has appeared elsewhere in local media, but its absence from the "turmoil" article falsely suggested universal support for the project.

Worse still, the article cited Bev Harris as a Project supporter. In response, Harris posted a statement online saying she was misquoted and does not support the Project: "The concept of providing ballot images to the public after running them through an intermediary program developed by David Dill (or anyone else!) is absurd and misses the point entirely. What is it about these guys that they just cannot RESIST inserting "An Expert" in between "The People" and "Our Ballots"?"

To be clear, VCC objections to the Transparency Project are as follows:

• It keeps secret counting machines in place.


• One computer checking another does not constitute transparency.


• Reviewing ballot images would occur only after results are certified, effectively eliminating any chance any discrepancy would change the outcome.
  
  Additionally, certification is the Registrar's oath to the accuracy of the results, which should come after, not before, all checks for accuracy are completed.


• The Registrar likes to say anybody can count the ballot images any way they want. But visually inspecting all votes on all ballots means potentially eyeballing hundreds of thousands of choices, a doable feat with one or two teams of four people at each precinct. But for an individual staring at a computer, that is hardly a practical or reliable way to tally votes (and what about observers?).

Going from ridiculous to sublime, another expert was cited as a Project supporter, Harri Hursti, "who famously hacked into Diebold voting machines." Not just Diebold machines, but the exact equipment used here in Humboldt (as well as other models).

The T-S might have mentioned that while bending over backwards to once again congratulate the Registrar for a decision made nearly four years ago. Forgoing touch screen machines in favor of optical scanners was a false alternative. Both types of machines have been repeatedly discredited, and both types count in secret, requiring the public's blind trust without providing any rational basis for confidence in reported results. The Registrar's devotion to casting paper ballots is hollow if counting accuracy is not verifiable.

Please visit www.VoterConfidenceCommittee.org for links to recent media coverage of election integrity issues as well as our report on local election conditions, the forecast tool, and the sign-up form that will allow us to demonstrate there are enough local voters willing to hand-count to get the job done on election night.

#
Dave Berman is a founding member of the Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt County. His blog is http://WeDoNotConsent.blogspot.com. He resides in Eureka.

#
Opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard
# # #

[aquart]

1. Not only "can," but should be a duty of citizenship, like voting.

All have to take their turn at the counting, with other people watching from the bleachers. A completely open process.

[GuvWurld]

2. I'll second that

Amen

[GuvWurld]

3. Kick (eom)

[GuvWurld]

4. kick (eom)

[EFerrari]

5. Kick

[Lisa]

6. Canadian federal and provincial elections use hand-counts

I've participated in the "scrutineering" process several times now. Each party stations observers at the polling station. We sit and watch the voters come in, so we can document any irregularities (people being denied ballots even though they have proper ID and are on the list, etc.). Afterwards we watch the ballot boxes being opened, and counted. The elections staff (who work for the provincial or federal elections agency) show us each ballot, and we may object if we feel that the intent of the voter is being ignored. As party representatives, we sign off on the totals.

Besides being interesting, one other advantage is that it brings many people into the process. The basic unit of each "riding" (district) is the "poll", an area encompassing a couple of hundred voters. It has its own voters list and a table assigned to it in the polling station, along with an elections official and assistant. If each party has one observer per poll, there can be hundreds of polls in a riding, and anywhere from several dozen ridings (provincial) to hundreds (federal) overall.

So there are tens, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of people who've officiated at elections, and have been educated on fair voting practices.

If someone wanted to rig the vote enough to swing a riding, they'd have to get an awful lot of folks, from different parties, in on it.

The other thing is that I find the whole process incredibly inspiring. I've sat in polling stations and watched excited teenagers and elderly voters who can barely walk, coming in to cast their ballots. Over the course of a very long day, you see the human faces of the other political parties. They are not abstract theories, but citizens just like you. I remember that at one election, the food for one party's scrutineers never arrived, and the rest of us shared our drinks and snacks with them. There were a lot of goodnatured quips back and forth, about the ruling party's sandwiches being "ham, turkey, or baloney -- typical!"

I'm not ashamed to say that after my first count, I went outside, leaned against the wall, and wept -- thinking of my parents, who were denied the vote until 1947, even though they were born in this country, because of their ethnic origin. And here I was, helping monitor an election.

I'm glad we still do hand-counts. (Partly this is possible because we don't have as many ballot measures as you do in the States ... if we have a simulataneous referendum along with the regular vote, we have to have separate ballots for that.) If this is primitive, and not as high-tech as voting machines ... I can live with it. There have been several examples where people have kept voting, during storms and blackouts, by the light of candles and camping lanterns -- as long as they can see to use pencil and paper.

[GuvWurld]

7. what a great perspective

thanks for sharing!

[GuvWurld]

8. OP now cross-posted at OpEdNews.com

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_ber_080103_eureka_times_standar.htm

[kster]

9. K&R..NT

[GuvWurld]

10. Thank you kster

Thanks for always kicking my threads!

[GuvWurld]

11. kick (eom)

[CatWoman]

12. K&R