[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[Terry Bouricius]

Jonathan,

Burlington uses open-source free tallying software (Choice Plus Pro), not 
SF.

The Burlington ballot records and software are here
http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/20060307/

As for San Francisco ballots and other election data for one of their 
ranked choice voting (RCV) elections...

1.      Raw first choice totals reported in all the election reports ( 
http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=68841 )

2.      The complete set of RCV rankings, sortable by precinct ( 
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2007/november/BallotImage.txt )

3.      The round-by-round RCV tally (in the years, unlike 2007, when an 
RCV tally actually occurs) (for example, 
http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=61583 ), and

4.      Statement of vote showing precinct and absentee totals for all 
candidates in all precincts ( 
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2007/november/SOV071106.txt )



All of this data is released starting on election night and updated 
through the counting of absentee and provisional ballots.



[Source:  http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp ]



-Terry Bouricius

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Lundell" <jlundell at pobox.com>
To: "Terry Bouricius" <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
Cc: "Dave Ketchum" <davek at clarityconnect.com>; <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>; 
<election-methods at lists.electorama.com>; <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines


On Oct 6, 2008, at 5:42 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:

> Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>
> "BTW, it seems to me that there's a relatively straightforward
> solution
> in principle to the problem of computerized vote counting, based on
> the use of separate data-entry and counting processes. Let voters vote
> on paper, either by hand or with an electronic marking machine, enter
> the ballot data, perhaps by scanning, in such a way that the resulting
> ballot data can be verified by hand against the paper ballots, and
> permit counting by multiple independent counting programs."
>
> That is exactly what Burlington (VT) and San Francisco (CA) do.
> Optical
> scan ballots are used, and the voter rankings are tallied by an
> official
> open-source program, but can also be tallied (and has been tallied) by
> other programs, because all of the ballot images are posted on the
> Internet.  A key element, however is a hand-audit of a random sample
> of
> machines to assure (to a reasonable degree of confidence) that the
> computer record for the ballots matches the paper record. This
> redundant
> record is what makes these ranked-ballot elections significantly MORE
> secure than traditional hand-count elections (were some ballots
> stolen,
> added, re-marked to spoil, etc.?) and more secure than all electronic
> elections (was there a bribed programmer who inserted a virus?)

California has a pretty good statewide requirement for a random (by
precinct IIRC) recount.

However, I'm mildly skeptical on the above, both that SF uses open-
source counting software and that the ballots are available online.
Can you provide URLs for both? I'd love to do some counting myself.

Putting hand-marked ballot images online raises vote-buying issues.