PFIR: "Sanity in the Election Process"

Nov 12 23:20 UTC 2000

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:22:39 -0800 (PST)
From: PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility <pfir@pfir.org>
To: PFIR-List@pfir.org
Subject: Sanity in the Election Process


       PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org

       [ To subscribe or unsubscribe to/from this list, please send the
         command "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" respectively (without the 
         quotes) in the body of an e-mail to "pfir-request@pfir.org". ]


                        Lauren Weinstein
                        Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility 
                        Moderator, PRIVACY Forum 
                        Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy

                        Peter G. Neumann
                        Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility
                        Moderator, RISKS Forum 
                        Chairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

"Sanity in the Election Process"

November 11, 2000

The continuing controversies over the results of the recent U.S.
Presidential election, particularly concerning the vote in Florida, have now
apparently begun to hinge on technical issues relating to voting systems and
ballots, especially in terms of machine vs. manual recounts, voting
irregularities, voter confusion and complaints, and other related issues.

We feel that several critical points are being misunderstood or
misrepresented by some parties to these controversies, particularly in light
of Governor George W. Bush's campaign having taken federal court actions
attempting to block manual recounts of the vote in several Florida counties.
Regardless of the outcome of those particular court actions, the following
points are crucial to consider.

1) As is well known to election officials and voting system vendors, but
   historically not advertised to the public at large, all voting systems
   are subject to some degree of error -- electronic and mechanical systems
   alike.  Punchcard-based systems are no exception, for which a variety of
   known problems can occur.  These include poor ballot layout (currently a
   major issue regarding the "butterfly" Palm Beach County ballot), machine
   reading errors (often relating to incompletely punched ballot selections,
   usually in the form of "hanging chad"), paper fatigue, and other problems.

   In general, so long as the interested parties both have observers
   participating in manual recounts to assure a consensus on the
   interpretation and tabulation of the cards, manual recounts provide the
   MOST reliable mechanism for counting these cards accurately, particularly
   due to the common hanging chad problem which often reads as "closed" (no
   vote) when processed through automatic reading machines.  Indeed, manual
   counting is still prevalent today in England and Germany.

   It is true that manual recounts tend to boost the number of votes
   counted, again due to hanging chad and other problems noted above.  This
   suggests that if concerns are present regarding the fairness of a manual
   recount only in particular counties, the obvious solution is to manually
   recount in ALL Florida counties, and to manually count ALL votes (not
   just a sampling).  Yes, this will be slow, and potentially expensive.
   But if the will of voters is not to be subjugated to technical flaws over
   which they have no control, this would be the only fair course.

2) While all voting systems have "normal" error rates, these errors typically
   are not of great significance so long as the margin of victory is
   significantly larger than the error rate, which is usually the case.
   However, this does NOT suggest that systemic errors in the voting process
   are of insignificance and can simply be discarded in close elections
   where the error rate DOES matter.  

   In particular, the Palm Beach situation from the VERY START of election
   day showed all the earmarks of systemic problems.  Voters complained of
   ballot confusion in great numbers, harried precinct workers provided
   conflicting and apparently often inaccurate information to voters about
   the ability or inability to correct spoiled ballots or other ballot
   errors, and warnings regarding the confusing ballot situation failed to
   even reach all affected precincts, among other obvious problems.  These
   problems occurred all through election day in Palm Beach County.  The
   statistically anomalous results of the voting in that area regarding
   votes received by the Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan would appear to
   further validate this analysis -- the dramatic vote skew observed clearly
   does not result from "normal" voting errors that can be reasonably
   discounted or ignored.
   
   Unlike the typical error rate expected in most elections where
   significant quantities of voter complaints are not received, the Palm
   Beach situation, with its extremely atypical and alarming set of
   complaints and problems throughout election day, would appear to put those
   votes in a category that cannot be simply swept under the rug, and that
   appear to be deserving of immediate redress, adjustment, and/or
   revoting.  These widespread voting problems in Palm Beach County were
   clearly not the fault of "inept" or "moronic" elderly voters, as some
   persons have arrogantly suggested. 

3) Attempts to short-circuit the process of correcting the injustices and
   technical problems discussed above, through calls for rapid "closure" or
   the simple accepting of inaccurate and unjust results (particularly in
   Palm Beach County) "for the sake of the country" should be rejected.

   We should not attempt to resolve this situation through quick "solutions"
   or calls for concessions.  These same issues would be present even if the
   candidates' current positions were reversed.  The critical questions
   shouldn't even be focused on the candidates at all, but rather on the
   VOTERS themselves, who appear to have been shortchanged by technical
   issues, procedural problems not under their control, and now by attempts
   by politicians to hurriedly dispose of this mess through vague references
   to the public good -- a route that would leave the affected voters
   effectively disenfranchised.

There are two efforts that need to take place.  First, the problems of this
particular election, as discussed above, need to be dealt with in a
deliberate and fair fashion.  If that involves courts, manual recounts, and
revoting, both inside and perhaps outside Florida, so be it -- they're all
part of the procedures that we have in place.  Let's get it right -- we
should not be treating voters as disposable peons.  If we do not take a
proper course, whoever ends up in the White House will be viewed by at least
half of the U.S. population, and probably much of the world, as not wholly
legitimate.

Secondly, we need to look long and hard at the election process around
this country, taking note that calls for radical departures from current
widely-used systems must be viewed with extreme care and skepticism.  In
particular, Internet voting must be considered to be extremely problematic
(please see the PFIR Statement on Internet Voting -
http://www.pfir.org/statements/voting, and "Hacking the Vote" -
http://www.vortex.com/reality/2000-11-08).  One major reason to look
skeptically upon these hi-tech systems is that their potential reduction in
voter privacy and lack of rigorous audit trails fail to allow true recounts
to occur when the integrity of the voting process is called into question,
and such questions can arise in electronic as well as mechanical voting
environments.

We stand at a crossroads where the existence of fundamental flaws in our
election system have finally been exposed to the public.  It is no longer
tenable for the powers that be, with a gentleman's agreement or a nod and a
wink, to steamroll over these flaws -- and the will of voters -- for the sake
of convenience and expediency.  We can start down the path toward ensuring
genuine fairness and integrity in the voting process by making sure that the
election of last Tuesday is resolved in a manner that not only serves the
candidates, but more importantly the will of the voters themselves.

   = = = =

Lauren Weinstein
lauren@pfir.org
(818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy

Peter G. Neumann
neumann@pfir.org
(650) 859-2375
Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Moderator, RISKS Forum - http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks
Chairman, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
http://www.csl.sri.com/neumann

response 2 of 69:

Nov 13 03:44 UTC 2000

Agreed.  I think if we are going to recount one Florida county, we ought
to recount them all.

The Gore camp should not like that to happen as there is apparently one
heavily Republican county where 20000 or so ballots were thrown out. 
Presumably Gore wouldn't pick up too many votes in that county during a
recount.

response 4 of 69:

Nov 13 04:43 UTC 2000

According to CNN, a statewide recount is no longer possible. 54 of the 67
counties have been state-certified, meaning that they're set in stone now.

Meanwhile, the Dems have requested four countywide recounts, and the Reps have
either requested or are considering a recount of Seminole.

response 6 of 69:

Nov 13 05:21 UTC 2000

One can hope. :)

response 8 of 69:

Nov 13 23:03 UTC 2000

If manual recounting does tend to add votes to the total, it would seem only
fair to do manual recounts in all counties if you're going to do them in
any.

But I have to grimace a bit when we bring up "the will of the people".  I
think it's quite clear that the people are split right down the middle, and
their will is quite ambivalent.  The only thing that would really reflect
"the will of the people" is if Bush and Gore could find some way to share
power.

I mean, why not?  Why does the election have to be "winner-take-all"?  If
the political parties *really* cared about the "will of the people" they'd
find a way to compromise.

response 10 of 69:

Nov 14 03:42 UTC 2000

Somehow they manage to get by in European coalition governments.

response 12 of 69:

Nov 14 04:27 UTC 2000

Both sides are convinced that the public fundamentally doesn't care who
is Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, etc., and so the idea
of Bush with a partially Democratic cabinet, or Gore with a partially
Republican cabinet, has no PR value and hence not worth doing.

When the Michigan House was split 55-55, they rotated who was Speaker,
and who was chair of each committee, on a week-by-week or month-by-month
basis.  But that was because they HAD to.  And that's a lot more like a
European coalition government.

Here, the executive is an independent power center, not directly dependent
on the balance of votes in the legislature.

response 14 of 69:

Nov 14 04:51 UTC 2000

  re #12:  Janet Reno is one of the most reviled American figures of the
  last several years and Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, is still
  remembered by enviromentalists for his frighteningly nutty and decidedly
  anti-environmental attitudes.  I submit that despite whatever "both sides"
  may be convinced, a pretty substantialy portion of the American public 
  *do* care deeply about cabinet appointees.

response 16 of 69:

Nov 14 04:53 UTC 2000

But only after the fact, Mike.

response 18 of 69:

Nov 14 05:03 UTC 2000

Re 13-14.  But the people who revile Watt or Reno are exactly the
partisans, the people who make up the Bush and Gore "teams" and their
fervent supporters.

The Bush people would never allow a Democrat as Secretary of the Interior
because THEY personify and represent those Westerners for whom that
position is crucial.  The Gore people personify and represent the
environmentalists who also feel that same position is crucial but want the
incumbent to hold the exact opposite values. 

That's kind of what we were voting on November 7, in case you didn't
notice.

Most of the vast unaligned, not-partisan public either couldn't name the
incumbents in either position, or don't have a strong feeling either way
about whether it matters if the person has a D or R after their name.

response 20 of 69:

Nov 14 15:12 UTC 2000

Re #15: What about the election of 1800, Joe?

response 22 of 69:

Nov 17 04:31 UTC 2000

Gore stated yesterday that he's perfectly willing to accept a manual handcount
in ALL of florida's counties statewide.  Including the strong bush counties.
He said they can drop all the lawsuits and settle the whole thing with 
a statewide manual recount, which would be fair to both candidates.  

Bush told him to take a hike.

Bush is now against hand recounts, in spite of the fact the law in Texas
which states that hand recounts are permissible and a logical wayto
resolve ballot disputes.

response 24 of 69:

Nov 17 05:02 UTC 2000

The Bush camp is trying to put a spin on that law, stating that it does
not prefer a hand recount - it only says that if one candidate asks for
a mechanical recount and another asks for a hand recount, the recount
will be done by hand. You have to spin a whole lot of times to get dizzy
enough to buy that distinction.

They also state that in Texas you only get one recount, then it's over. 
That seems to overlook the apparent fact that a County may conduct its own
recount, apparently without affecting the candidates' rights to request
that "single"  recount. It sounds a lot like Florida, but with a guarantee
of a hand count if a candidate requests it, rather than having a request
simply reviewed by a board which determines independently if a recount
will occur and how it will be conducted.