Election integrity – just an oxymoron 3


Published on

Electronic voting and vote-by-mail are the two most INsecure methods of voting

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Election integrity – just an oxymoron 3

  1. 1. Lake Elsinore Democratic Club April 1, 2010 Election Integrity – Just an Oxymoron? Why we can’t validate any election results in Riverside County, or any County in CA, for that matter Presented by Tom Courbat, Founder, SAVE R VOTE Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
  2. 2. Four Keys to Election Integrity <ul><li>Transparency </li></ul><ul><li>Auditability </li></ul><ul><li>Security </li></ul><ul><li>Proper certification </li></ul>
  3. 3. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM <ul><li>Lack of enforcement of existing laws and procedures </li></ul><ul><li>ROVs are free to violate nearly any law or certification requirement with impunity </li></ul><ul><li>No Federal or State intervention </li></ul>
  4. 4. Transparency is lacking <ul><li>Observers have been blocked on many occasions from observing legally observable activities </li></ul><ul><li>Processing of ballots in back offices has been observed and recorded </li></ul><ul><li>Central tabulator monitors not visible until November 2008. </li></ul><ul><li>Don’t trust what you can’t see </li></ul>
  5. 5. Auditability <ul><li>The ROV refuses to release the audit logs that would enable verification of the actions taking place inside the central count computer </li></ul><ul><li>The ROV has refused to release the Ballot Reconciliation worksheet in a useable format, again foiling efforts to verify the reported results </li></ul>
  7. 7. Verifying Vote Requires Audit Logs <ul><li>Audit logs are required under federal voting-system guidelines, which are used to test and qualify voting systems for use in elections. </li></ul><ul><li>The logs are supposed to record changes and other events that occur on voting systems to ensure the integrity of elections and help determine what occurred in a system when something goes wrong. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Signature Count & Ballot Count Don’t match – no problem! <ul><li>When criticized by SRV that the numbers didn’t match, the Asst. ROV responded: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Since the record of these corrections has engendered unwarranted attacks on our process, we will no longer require precinct workers to undertake this canvass procedure.” </li></ul><ul><li>Yes, stop reporting, stop the attacks! </li></ul>
  9. 9. Self-deleting programs OK <ul><li>Premier/Diebold admitted at a California hearing in March 2009 that none of the logs in the software that tabulates votes — records significant events, such as when votes are intentionally or unintentionally deleted . </li></ul><ul><li>“ We never … intended for any malicious intent and not to log certain activities,” </li></ul><ul><li>Bales said. “It was just not in the initial program, but now we’re taking a serious look at that.” </li></ul><ul><li>Bowen called the audit logs “useless” and said her office would investigate the issue further and determine if audit logs in other voting systems — such as those made by Election Systems & Software, Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic — had the same problems. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Security <ul><li>“ Sleepovers” continue </li></ul><ul><li>Vendors have complete access to change anything at any time </li></ul><ul><li>Yellow button continues to be exposed </li></ul>
  11. 11. Proper Certification <ul><li>Systems are not compliant with federal requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Federal requirements are outdated & don’t provide adequate security </li></ul><ul><li>Systems that violate certification conditions are allowed to continue </li></ul><ul><li>Many certification companies have been ousted due to conflict of interest </li></ul>
  12. 12. Insiders Convicted of Election Fraud - March 26, 2010 <ul><li>20 yrs . Max.Time </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  13. 13. February 8, 2009 Secretary of State Hearing: “The Future of Voting In California” SEQUOIA OWES RIVERSIDE COUNTY $408,000 FOR COST OF CONDUCTING A 100% MANUAL TALLY* OF 70,000 E-VOTES CAST IN THE NOVEMBER 2008 ELECTION – AND REFUSES TO PAY COSTS LIKELY IN THE MILLIONS STATEWIDE The Registrar of Voters is now asking the Board of Supervisors for an additional $688,182 in general funds to finish out the fiscal year. *Condition 19 of the Required Conditions to retain certification of the entire system
  14. 14. Final Solution <ul><li>Paper ballots, hand counted in every precinct </li></ul><ul><li>Eternal vigilance by trained and informed citizens </li></ul><ul><li>Legal actions when necessary to enforce rights of the people </li></ul>