Slashdot Mirror

• Shorter filing deadlines
• Longer inspection deadlines
• Robust records retention
• Time-locked revolving doors
• Economic autonomy of auditors

[edited repost from yesterday]

An MIT/Caltech study of voting technology found that paper ballots are the most accurate.

The 2004 Democratic primary had a turnout pattern of primary-specific apathy (lower than expected votes) and caucus-specific inspiration (high and record high votes). Why did the New York primary record a 20-year low turnout on the same day that the Minnesota caucus recorded a 33-year high turnout?

We could start with the 16-year old exchange student from Thailand (who cares about 18-year minimum age U.S. citizens) or a Feb 22 blueprint for process tampering ("... DFL is essentially conducting a primary at the caucuses. and through ineptness or design they've opened the door to more voting fraud than the Florida Republicans could ever imagine ..."). DFL will not provide official results until Mar 29th, nearly 4 weeks after the MN caucus.

South Carolina's state Dem party fought pressure from the national Dems to institute a loyalty oath for voters, which would have torpedoed Edwards. State officials chose to hand count paper ballots for security, even though machines were available. South Carolina was one of the few 2004 primaries to report record turnout and the only state where Edwards won.

Hand counted paper ballots are the gold standard of voting. Cheaper and faster are neither necessary nor desirable properties of biennial elections. The elimination of counting as a fraud source allows more resources to be deployed for voter authentication and registration (age, citizenship and proof of precinct residency).

Vulnerable processes are easily attacked by malicious precinct captains who plausibly deny competence. Don't let humans hide behind distracting machines. Securely log poll officials and reduce the cost of distributed auditing.

[edited repost from yesterday]

An MIT/Caltech study of voting technology found that paper ballots are the most accurate.

The 2004 Democratic primary had a turnout pattern of primary-specific apathy (lower than expected votes) and caucus-specific inspiration (high and record high votes). Why did the New York primary record a 20-year low turnout on the same day that the Minnesota caucus recorded a 33-year high turnout?

We could start with the 16-year old exchange student from Thailand (who cares about 18-year minimum age U.S. citizens) or a Feb 22 blueprint for process tampering ("... DFL is essentially conducting a primary at the caucuses. and through ineptness or design they've opened the door to more voting fraud than the Florida Republicans could ever imagine ..."). DFL will not provide official results until Mar 29th, nearly 4 weeks after the MN caucus.

South Carolina's state Dem party fought pressure from the national Dems to institute a loyalty oath for voters, which would have torpedoed Edwards. State officials chose to hand count paper ballots for security, even though machines were available. South Carolina was one of the few 2004 primaries to report record turnout and the only state where Edwards won.

Hand counted paper ballots are the gold standard of voting. Cheaper and faster are neither necessary nor desirable properties of biennial elections. The elimination of counting as a fraud source allows more resources to be deployed for voter authentication and registration (age, citizenship and proof of precinct residency).

Vulnerable processes are easily attacked by malicious precinct captains who plausibly deny competence. Don't let humans hide behind distracting machines. Securely log poll officials and reduce the cost of distributed auditing.

An MIT/Caltech study of voting technology found that paper ballots are the most accurate.

The 2004 Democratic primary had a turnout pattern of primary-specific apathy (lower than expected votes) and caucus-specific inspiration (high and record high votes). Why did the New York primary record a 20-year low turnout on the same day that the Minnesota caucus recorded a 33-year high turnout?

South Carolina's state Dem party fought pressure from the national Dems to institute a loyalty oath for voters, which would have torpedoed Edwards. State officials chose to hand count paper ballots for security, even though machines were available. South Carolina was one of the few 2004 primaries to report record turnout and the only state where Edwards won.

Hand counted paper ballots are the gold standard of voting. Cheaper and faster are neither necessary nor desirable properties of biennial elections.

An MIT/Caltech study of voting technology found that paper ballots are the most accurate.

The 2004 Democratic primary had a turnout pattern of primary-specific apathy (lower than expected votes) and caucus-specific inspiration (high and record high votes). Why did the New York primary record a 20-year low turnout on the same day that the Minnesota caucus recorded a 33-year high turnout?

South Carolina's state Dem party fought pressure from the national Dems to institute a loyalty oath for voters, which would have torpedoed Edwards. State officials chose to hand count paper ballots for security, even though machines were available. South Carolina was one of the few 2004 primaries to report record turnout and the only state where Edwards won.

Hand counted paper ballots are the gold standard of voting. Cheaper and faster are neither necessary nor desirable properties of biennial elections.

Three more data points - one worrying, one inspiring, one hopeful (in a recursive way).

This one will make you feel worse, it reviews how the DNC compromised on a deal with Michigan, resulting in a 2004 commision that will try to remove the grassroots firewall of IA and NH. If that happens, just give the media the power to nominate the presidential candidates and be done with it.

The inspiring data point -- the existence proof that is John Edwards. The link goes to his 5 minute withdrawal speech in RealVideo format. See also the clip on lobbyists. A discussion of Caucusgate has raised the possibility that voters were neither apathetic or deluded, that they may in fact have voted for Edwards and that he should be the nominee right now.

Which leads to the hopeful data point -- in the 19th century. We have been here before, link:

" The Political Intention of the Primary System

When the direct primary was introduced late in the 19th century, the vast majority of elective offices for Congress, state legislatures, city councils, county supervisors, sheriffs, and so forth were not competitive. Electoral manipulation (gerrymandering, for example) and group traditions (the urban Irish were Democrats while Midwestern Germans were Republicans) had created party bastions almost everywhere, and voters, then as now, loyally supported the candidates of their party.

Nomination assured election, and, in most cases, party leaders and political notables used personal loyalties and patronage to control the caucus and convention delegates who did the nominating. The result of such control was office-holders who were more responsive to the party leaders - who could deny them renomination - than they were to an electorate which would rarely defeat them in the general election.

The reinforcing elements of this system of party government were pierced by the direct nominating primary because it eliminated the support party leaders received from the electorate's partisanship. The nominating primary never asked voters to cross party lines. It allowed them to select preferred candidates within their party; and then support them again in the general election. It promised to weaken party leaders by increasing the chance of selecting candidates who were not beholden to party leaders for the nomination.

The hoped-for effects of the primary were not immediate. Slating, endorsements, control over money and other electoral resources, and the commitment and cohesiveness of party cadres gave party leaders continued influence over nominations. In time, however, the influence of traditional party leaders and notables was significantly reduced.

A Problem with Primaries

The grandest vision of the reformers went unrealized because primaries developed their own nominating elite: the few who bothered to vote in them. In the typical contemporary primary, turnout rarely exceeds 30 percent of the eligible electorate. In very low salience, off-year primaries such as 1998 participation may not exceed 20 percent of the potential electorate. The problem with such low participation is the unrepresentativeness of those who take part ..."

Depressing? Not quite. We have almost 100 years of data for this next round of reform. We have live data that defies conventional explanation (caucus-specific inspiration and primary-specific apathy?!). These are necessary conditions for reform. We are still eight months from the General Election and five months from the conventions.

Three more data points - one worrying, one inspiring, one hopeful (in a recursive way).

This one will make you feel worse, it reviews how the DNC compromised on a deal with Michigan, resulting in a 2004 commision that will try to remove the grassroots firewall of IA and NH. If that happens, just give the media the power to nominate the presidential candidates and be done with it.

The inspiring data point -- the existence proof that is John Edwards. The link goes to his 5 minute withdrawal speech in RealVideo format. See also the clip on lobbyists. A discussion of Caucusgate has raised the possibility that voters were neither apathetic or deluded, that they may in fact have voted for Edwards and that he should be the nominee right now.

Which leads to the hopeful data point -- in the 19th century. We have been here before, link:

" The Political Intention of the Primary System

When the direct primary was introduced late in the 19th century, the vast majority of elective offices for Congress, state legislatures, city councils, county supervisors, sheriffs, and so forth were not competitive. Electoral manipulation (gerrymandering, for example) and group traditions (the urban Irish were Democrats while Midwestern Germans were Republicans) had created party bastions almost everywhere, and voters, then as now, loyally supported the candidates of their party.

Nomination assured election, and, in most cases, party leaders and political notables used personal loyalties and patronage to control the caucus and convention delegates who did the nominating. The result of such control was office-holders who were more responsive to the party leaders - who could deny them renomination - than they were to an electorate which would rarely defeat them in the general election.

The reinforcing elements of this system of party government were pierced by the direct nominating primary because it eliminated the support party leaders received from the electorate's partisanship. The nominating primary never asked voters to cross party lines. It allowed them to select preferred candidates within their party; and then support them again in the general election. It promised to weaken party leaders by increasing the chance of selecting candidates who were not beholden to party leaders for the nomination.

The hoped-for effects of the primary were not immediate. Slating, endorsements, control over money and other electoral resources, and the commitment and cohesiveness of party cadres gave party leaders continued influence over nominations. In time, however, the influence of traditional party leaders and notables was significantly reduced.

A Problem with Primaries

The grandest vision of the reformers went unrealized because primaries developed their own nominating elite: the few who bothered to vote in them. In the typical contemporary primary, turnout rarely exceeds 30 percent of the eligible electorate. In very low salience, off-year primaries such as 1998 participation may not exceed 20 percent of the potential electorate. The problem with such low participation is the unrepresentativeness of those who take part ..."

Depressing? Not quite. We have almost 100 years of data for this next round of reform. We have live data that defies conventional explanation (caucus-specific inspiration and primary-specific apathy?!). These are necessary conditions for reform. We are still eight months from the General Election and five months from the conventions.

Three more data points - one worrying, one inspiring, one hopeful (in a recursive way).

This one will make you feel worse, it reviews how the DNC compromised on a deal with Michigan, resulting in a 2004 commision that will try to remove the grassroots firewall of IA and NH. If that happens, just give the media the power to nominate the presidential candidates and be done with it.

The inspiring data point -- the existence proof that is John Edwards. The link goes to his 5 minute withdrawal speech in RealVideo format. See also the clip on lobbyists. A discussion of Caucusgate has raised the possibility that voters were neither apathetic or deluded, that they may in fact have voted for Edwards and that he should be the nominee right now.

Which leads to the hopeful data point -- in the 19th century. We have been here before, link:

" The Political Intention of the Primary System

When the direct primary was introduced late in the 19th century, the vast majority of elective offices for Congress, state legislatures, city councils, county supervisors, sheriffs, and so forth were not competitive. Electoral manipulation (gerrymandering, for example) and group traditions (the urban Irish were Democrats while Midwestern Germans were Republicans) had created party bastions almost everywhere, and voters, then as now, loyally supported the candidates of their party.

Nomination assured election, and, in most cases, party leaders and political notables used personal loyalties and patronage to control the caucus and convention delegates who did the nominating. The result of such control was office-holders who were more responsive to the party leaders - who could deny them renomination - than they were to an electorate which would rarely defeat them in the general election.

The reinforcing elements of this system of party government were pierced by the direct nominating primary because it eliminated the support party leaders received from the electorate's partisanship. The nominating primary never asked voters to cross party lines. It allowed them to select preferred candidates within their party; and then support them again in the general election. It promised to weaken party leaders by increasing the chance of selecting candidates who were not beholden to party leaders for the nomination.

The hoped-for effects of the primary were not immediate. Slating, endorsements, control over money and other electoral resources, and the commitment and cohesiveness of party cadres gave party leaders continued influence over nominations. In time, however, the influence of traditional party leaders and notables was significantly reduced.

A Problem with Primaries

The grandest vision of the reformers went unrealized because primaries developed their own nominating elite: the few who bothered to vote in them. In the typical contemporary primary, turnout rarely exceeds 30 percent of the eligible electorate. In very low salience, off-year primaries such as 1998 participation may not exceed 20 percent of the potential electorate. The problem with such low participation is the unrepresentativeness of those who take part ..."

Depressing? Not quite. We have almost 100 years of data for this next round of reform. We have live data that defies conventional explanation (caucus-specific inspiration and primary-specific apathy?!). These are necessary conditions for reform. We are still eight months from the General Election and five months from the conventions.

Three more data points - one worrying, one inspiring, one hopeful (in a recursive way).

This one will make you feel worse, it reviews how the DNC compromised on a deal with Michigan, resulting in a 2004 commision that will try to remove the grassroots firewall of IA and NH. If that happens, just give the media the power to nominate the presidential candidates and be done with it.

The inspiring data point -- the existence proof that is John Edwards. The link goes to his 5 minute withdrawal speech in RealVideo format. See also the clip on lobbyists. A discussion of Caucusgate has raised the possibility that voters were neither apathetic or deluded, that they may in fact have voted for Edwards and that he should be the nominee right now.

Which leads to the hopeful data point -- in the 19th century. We have been here before, link:

" The Political Intention of the Primary System

When the direct primary was introduced late in the 19th century, the vast majority of elective offices for Congress, state legislatures, city councils, county supervisors, sheriffs, and so forth were not competitive. Electoral manipulation (gerrymandering, for example) and group traditions (the urban Irish were Democrats while Midwestern Germans were Republicans) had created party bastions almost everywhere, and voters, then as now, loyally supported the candidates of their party.

Nomination assured election, and, in most cases, party leaders and political notables used personal loyalties and patronage to control the caucus and convention delegates who did the nominating. The result of such control was office-holders who were more responsive to the party leaders - who could deny them renomination - than they were to an electorate which would rarely defeat them in the general election.

The reinforcing elements of this system of party government were pierced by the direct nominating primary because it eliminated the support party leaders received from the electorate's partisanship. The nominating primary never asked voters to cross party lines. It allowed them to select preferred candidates within their party; and then support them again in the general election. It promised to weaken party leaders by increasing the chance of selecting candidates who were not beholden to party leaders for the nomination.

The hoped-for effects of the primary were not immediate. Slating, endorsements, control over money and other electoral resources, and the commitment and cohesiveness of party cadres gave party leaders continued influence over nominations. In time, however, the influence of traditional party leaders and notables was significantly reduced.

A Problem with Primaries

The grandest vision of the reformers went unrealized because primaries developed their own nominating elite: the few who bothered to vote in them. In the typical contemporary primary, turnout rarely exceeds 30 percent of the eligible electorate. In very low salience, off-year primaries such as 1998 participation may not exceed 20 percent of the potential electorate. The problem with such low participation is the unrepresentativeness of those who take part ..."

Depressing? Not quite. We have almost 100 years of data for this next round of reform. We have live data that defies conventional explanation (caucus-specific inspiration and primary-specific apathy?!). These are necessary conditions for reform. We are still eight months from the General Election and five months from the conventions.