Reply #91: last reply

[Neil B Forzod]

The ES&S central and precinct optiscan ballot counters do not run on Windows.

I never said they did. Their optical scanners have custom firmware, which is what I did say, if you feel like going back and reading it.

Like I also said, Diebold's optical scan units don't run on Windows either. And Sequoia's optical scan machine is the same as ES&S' machine. So your contention that ES&S' units are somehow better because they don't run on Windows is just absurd: none of them run on Windows, and Sequoia's actually run on the same thing as ES&S'.

If the ES&S uses a Windows computer central counter to add up precinct counts, then I would not buy it - might as well just use your own computer at the county office to add up the precinct counts which could be input manually anyway since there is only one count per race per precinct of election day voting - plus provisional votes as well.

Thank you for providing this excellent example of why mathematicians often aren't consulted about voting system design and implementation. The almost total ignorance of the sheer, overwhelming complexity of real-world election result breakdown and reporting exhibited in this statement illustrates the point perfectly.

(And what exactly would you manually input these results into, anyway? I trust you've developed some super-secure custom application for this purpose and aren't planning to just plug the numbers into, say, Microsoft Excel or something.)

However, it is true that ES&S is a lot more knowledgable and concerned with security than Diebold, and that ES&S puts its money into R&D and improving its systems, whereas Diebold seems to hire more lobbyists, the more its security problems are revealed.

Repeating something over and over again doesn't magically transform it into fact. I'll make you a deal: post some documented R&D expenditures by both Diebold and ES&S over, say, the last 3 years, and if they support your claim I will humbly acknowledge it.

Claiming that ES&S is "a lot more knowledgeable and concerned with security than Diebold" (or anyone else) is silly. It's just an unfounded statement with nothing to back it up. How about this: I'll give you that one, if you'll agree that Diebold is a lot more knowledgeable and concerned with, say, adding up the votes correctly. I say that on the basis that there's no actual documentation of miscounts by any Diebold machines in recent memory (point of fact: recent recounts in NH, WA, and CA have all been more or less spot-on) but you can call up Bruce MacDannold at the California Secretary of State's office and ask him for the video of ES&S machines miscounting real votes in the last election there. Of course I'm being facetious here. The point is you can't just make some blanket statement that "ES&S is more knowledgeable than X" or "ES&S is a lot better than X" or "ES&S is a lot more concerned with X" without anything to back it up.

As for ES&S' lack of lobbyists, maybe you should have spent some more time in OH this year. Or maybe you'd like to visit NY right now.

My understanding is that all the Diebolds, even the individual voting machines run on Windows. Is that not true, or are we only talking about the central counters here?

Diebold's election management software runs on Windows. Diebold's touchscreens run on Windows CE. Diebold's optical-scan hardware runs on custom firmware, so does various smaller products like its voter card encoder unit, etc.

All of which is almost entirely uninteresting, I'm not really sure where the obsession with the operating system comes from.

Listen, I totally get that your contacts at ES&S have told you everything you've said, and if you want to you can go and clarify certain points with them as you've suggested. But all I'm saying is consider the source. Geesh.

The point remains that ES&S is not inherently better than any of the other big two vendors just because someone at ES&S told you they are, and promoting them here on that basis is doing a grave disservice to serious-minded election reformers.


Neil