GUV! What is going in in San Francisco tomorrow?

[EFerrari]

I got your email and have been able to get my head up enough to know I have to get on the phone.

They have 10M$ to purchase Sequoia? What is the meeting about tomorrow night? To consider the purchase?

Oh, geeze.

/typo

[LeftCoast]

1. I haven't heard anything about SF getting new polling machines

Last I heard, our optical scan system was fine and dandy.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

3. Forwarded from Guv's list. Please read!

Please - SPEAK UP FOR YOUR DEMOCRACY- SF CITY HALL ROOM 408 7PM WEDNESDAY OCT 4TH



All -- If you haven't heard, San Francisco Department of Elections plans to go ahead and procure $10M+ of Sequoia voting system equipment. According to Director Arntz, he must execute the contract with Sequoia or loose the $10M. Tomorrow night we should be able to learn a lot more about the details the SF EC meeting because the agend has a long list of questions to be addressed by the Director. Note that this procurement must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, so we can fight this procurement there.



URL for the tomorrow night's agenda (see item 9 for Election System briefing):


EC: http://www.sfgov.org/site/electionscommission_page.asp?id=46944

Forward to others who care. Thanks for your support and interest!! Roger

[TomInTib]

2. I will set the telescope on the veranda and keep an eye on it.

To what the hell are you referring?

What's up, 'b?

[EFerrari]

4. It looks like SF elections are being induced to buy Sequoia

machines.

I'm trying to get details so I can get on the phone. We need so many things in this town but Sequoia isn't one of 'em.

If my take is right, I need to be on the phone ALL DAY tomorrow.

[GuvWurld]

5. You know what I know

I was one of many who received that message from Brent Turner of the San Mateo Election Integrity League.

[EFerrari]

6. Is there some way you can hook me up with him?

Because I'm working the Daly campaign and have a healthy address book. Can't hurt. :shrug:

[GuvWurld]

7. Check your inbox, I PM'ed you. (EOM)

[EFerrari]

8. Thanks. My searches weren't turning up much. nt

[EFerrari]

50. He never got back to me but that's all right. I have a good take

on what's going on.

Sequoia will most likely give their presentation and be sent packing.

Thanks for the head's up, though. I don't trust these bastards as far as I can throw their POS products. And we've all seen how Election Boards are seduced by what looks like a good deal.

[EFerrari]

9. Talking points. Geeze, I'm such a mess but if anyone has

talking points that I can take to that meeting, let's see them.

I may not go myself but hand them off to a trusted person. It really doesn't matter.

What needs to get across? Why are we investing in a voting system whose results can't be verified.

[nicknameless]

14. Check out the last part of the article in post #11

[EFerrari]

17. Will do!

[Wilms]

10. I wonder which Sequoia model(s) are being considered.

Voting Systems Batch Test Results� Reliability

By John Gideon and Howard Stanislevic

March 15, 2006

snip

Sequoia Edge -
(6 errors related to the machines)
MTBF = 100 hours
0.5 failures per 1,000 ballots cast
150 machines per thousand expected to fail in an election

Sequoia Edge II -
(2 errors related to the machines)
MTBF = 300 hours
0.2 failures per 1,000 ballots cast
50 machines per thousand expected to fail in an election

Sequoia Insight (OS) -
(29 errors related to the machines)
MTBF = 10.3 hours
1.5 failures per 1,000 ballots cast
All machines expected to fail in an election

Sequoia Insight Plus (OS) -
(28 errors related to the machines)
MTBF = 10.7 hours
1.4 failures per 1,000 ballots cast
All machines expected to fail in an election

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1512&Itemid=845


We Do Not Consent

[EFerrari]

13. Thank you, Wilms. n/t

[GuvWurld]

15. Awesome find, Wilms.

I bet this board can do a lot of good in 18 hours of trying to help our SF brothers and sisters.

sfexpat, be sure to use the Zogby poll. Here's a piece I wrote about it which includes the official press release and a link to it.

http://wedonotconsent.blogspot.com/2006/08/zogby-results-published-eureka-times.html

That also contains a really potent argument I want you to consider about the media. I've gone far in a short amount of time with this one.

[EFerrari]

18. Okay! I'll go read now. n/t

[nicknameless]

11. A bit of background (from February) :

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1093&Itemid=847

[nicknameless]

23. The above article ^^^^^^^ Here's an excerpt:

In attempting to reassure the Supervisors that the perilously short timeframes could be met, the Sequoia representative cited the quick turnaround from certification to implementation in Snohomish County WA. Of course no mention was made of the 21,000 votes lost on the Sequoia Optech 4C-400 scanners in Snohomish county in elections the following year. Or the sixty-five Sequoia Edges that crashed in that county in the 2004 primaries . Or the reports of Sequoia Edge’s reversing votes in the November 2004 election in that county that lead to an ongoing lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of electronic voting machines.

But this wasn’t a hearing about the merits of the Department of Elections decision. Otherwise note would have been made of the fact that the Sequoia Edge is currently the subject of a temporary restraining order prohibiting its purchase by the state of New Mexico. Why would the city of San Francisco make such a risky decision?

There was mention of the fact that Sequoia engaged the services of high profile lobbyists Darius Anderson (pictured at right) and Jay Wallace of Platinum Advisors. Just why would Sequoia need lobbyists for a competitive bidding process? Shouldn’t their product sell on its inherent merits? But then Sequoia was selling the promise that they will have a certified voting system in time for this years primaries and promises need lobbyists.

The Board of Supervisors has the opportunity to review the contract with Sequoia, and can choose to approve or disapprove it. Their contact information can be found here.

Where the f*** did this come from all of a sudden?
Less than a day to respond???

:grr:

Maybe provide a list of places that experienced known failures? ... Wonder if they can all be listed in under 30 seconds.

[nicknameless]

12. I had read this and thought that Sequoia wouldn't be used in SF.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/03/08/BAGD6HKEOU1.DTL

[EFerrari]

16. What I need for my back pocket is Sequoia systems vulnerabilities.

The kind of info you can say in a sentence or two.

Because that's how long I'll have to talk to people. A kind of 30 second commercial for clean elections.

autorank gave me that ham sandwich metaphor and, as simple as that might seem to most of you, it communicated. It got published in my local paper.

That's what is needed here.

Pretend I'm an idiot or a freeper. What are the three reasons why I shouldn't buy Sequoia -- that's what's needed.

Thanks, guys. This is the best I've felt for seven weeks. :)

[kster]

19. Sequoia Voting Systems failed across Chicago and suburban Cook County

CHICAGO BALLOT CHAOS

NEW COMPUTER VOTE MACHINES MALFUNCTION, UNVERIFIABLE

By Christopher Bollyn

The “high-tech” computerized voting system was “cumbersome” and “slow,” one mainstream Chicago newspaper reported. The machines failed across the county causing “plenty of frustration and confusion for voters,” the paper reported. The ballots and votes from more than 400 precincts were still uncounted two days after the election due to machine malfunctions and lost memory cartridges which contain the results.

Reports from other dailies noted that as of noon Wednesday, Chicago was missing memory cartridges from 252 polling stations while Cook County officials “couldn’t find” the results from 162 suburban precincts.

Election officials tried to assure the public that although nobody knew where all the ballots and computerized memory cartridges were, they were “most assuredly not lost.”



http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/chicago_ballot_chaos.html

[EFerrari]

21. Help me remember. Didn't IL sell these losers to CO?

God, how much more transparent a failure can these POS be.

[kster]

22. Sequoia, failed across Chicagoland, Why buy them?

I pretty sure Chicago got rid of them to Las Vegas.

[EFerrari]

24. Thanks, kster.

[EFerrari]

20. Okay, I woke up the Green network at least and that means

Matt here in town.

Matt isn't an ideologue, he's a progressive first. I think I'll screw up my courage and call him in the morning.

[rumpel]

25. I am looking at the SOS site

This is what it says about systems for Nov 7 by county as of Sept 27
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/systemsinuse_asof92706.pdf

It seems there is also another public hearing on October 17th

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/systemsinuse_asof92706.pdf

PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CERTIFICATION
OF VOTING SYSTEMS
AGENDA
LOCATION
Office of the Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
1st Floor – Auditorium
Sacramento, California 95814
MEETING DATE AND TIME

October 17, 2006 10:00 a.m. Pursuant to Elections Code section 19204, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held to give interested persons an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed certification of the voting systems identified below.

1. Election Systems & Software – RCV system
a. Election Data Management (EDM)
b. Hardware Program Manager (HPM)
c. Elections Reporting Manager (ERM)
d. File PA173ALL.COB
e. Audit Manager
f. Optech Image Manager
g. Data Acquisition Manager (DAM)
h. Optech IV-C, Model 400
i. Optech Eagle
j. AutoMARK Information Management System (AIMS)
k. AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal (VAT)

[Wilms]

26. More at VTUSA

Sequoia Misleads New York
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1819&Itemid=51

Sequoia: Voting Machine Glitches Tally Up
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1326&Itemid=51

Sequoia E-Vote Systems Found 'Hackable' in PA, Testing Shut Down After Machine Failure
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1145&Itemid=51

Florida Candidate Votes for Self, Sequoia Touch-Screen Voting Machine Flips Vote to Opponent
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1026&Itemid=51

AP: 100,000 Errors Reported on Sequoia Voting Machines in Palm Beach, FL 2004 Election
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=974&Itemid=51

[EFerrari]

31. Thank you, Wilms. n/t

[EFerrari]

27. And the awesome San Francisco Greens have now sent the word out.

Do any of you have a contact for San Francisco Dems? I'd be happy to contact them.

And, I'll go fish, myself.

[EFerrari]

29. I found a contact # for our local DFA and emailed him. n/t

[nicknameless]

28. SF. Board of Supervisors:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=4385

It's up to these people, yes?

[EFerrari]

30. I know Chris, Tom, Ross, Jake are on our side.

The rest, I dunno.

[nicknameless]

32. Looks like Steven Hill is also.

[nicknameless]

33. Delete

(Posted in wrong place)

[EFerrari]

36. I don't know him -- who is he?

[nicknameless]

38. Sorry. He's not a supervisor.

I wish he were, but he's from FairVote. Rats. We need more aware and responsible supervisors. :(

[EFerrari]

39. I've been handing literature to the Supes I know, espcially

Mark's book and Guv's pamphlet. Also, to Matt, who I hope will run for congress soon. We have some good guys on the Board.

[nicknameless]

41. There are eleven of them.

We'll need a majority. Surely hope we get it.

More Supe info:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp

[EFerrari]

42. I gotta hit the phones right at 1pm. n/t

[nicknameless]

34. ES&S can already do what Sequoia hasn't been proven to do: ranked choice.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1093&Itemid=847

Another excerpt:

After a controversial selection process last year, Arntz announced that Sequoia Voting Systems would replace ES&S as the provider of voting equipment for San Francisco last fall. While Mirkahimi stated early on that the purpose of the hearing was not to consider the merits of one vendor's product over another it was difficult to avoid questioning the wisdom of the decision to award the contract to Sequoia. The Sequoia system that Arntz wants to spend over $10 million in taxpayer money on has only last week received federal qualification and have begun the state certification process this week. As for certified software to handle a ranked-choice election? Well, that will be part of a different certification process that will begin with submission to federal testing on May 31st.

Meanwhile, ES&S is not only currently certified, they have actually successfully run San Francisco’s ranked choice district elections last November. The ES&S representative explained that since the city already owns the basic equipment, all of which is certified and has already managed a ranked-choice election, it would be relatively simple, and inexpensive to run San Francisco’s elections on ES&S equipment. For HAVA compliance the city would have to purchase AutoMark ballot-marking devices. While the Optech Eagle precinct scanners that the city owns are not state certified as a configuratiion, they could be used as a stand-alone device, with ballots counted centrally rather than at the precinct for the June primaries, as is being done in Santa Barbara County. By November the city could migrate to M-100 precinct based optical scanners.

This system would also have the benefit of a thoroughly auditable voting system in which all voters marked paper ballots that could at least potentially be read without the mitigation of proprietary software.

* ES&S has a proven track record.
... Sequoia doesn't.

* ES&S uses paper ballots.
... Sequoia doesn't.

* ES*S is already in place. Less expensive to purchase update, AutoMark.
... Sequoia would cost $10 million (minimum). Maintenance of DREs is FAR more expensive than OpScans.

* ES&S can handle ranked choice.
... Sequoia was to just begin seeking certification for this at the end of May.

[diva77]

35. I'm shocked...shocked to my foundation!!

"proven track record" ?? how are you interpreting that quote?

are you singing the praises of the company that left Ion Sancho high and dry in FLA

http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=730&Itemid=113

and has a partial list of documented failures 51 pages long

http://www.votersunite.org/info/messupsbyvendor.asp


am I missing something?:shrug:

[nicknameless]

37. Yes, you're missing something.

I was quoting the VoteTrustUSA article.

Edited to add:
NONE of these effing machines should be anywhere near our elections.
But frankly, I *do* hate Sequoia DREs more than I hate ES&S OpScans.

[diva77]

40. phew, glad you answered in time! the smelling salts weren't working...

I think those who argue for IRV get caught in the trap of advocating in favor of machines!!:mad:

I'd like to see them advocate for hand-counted instant runoff voting.

[nicknameless]

43. I wondered if I was going to need to fax you some smelling salts.

;)

I know. I want paper ballots and hand counting ONLY -- and in ALL precincts.
That's the way it's done in sane countries. There's no excuse for using failure-prone, election-flipping garbage.

[diva77]

44. Here, here!

:toast:

[nicknameless]

57. Clink!

:toast:

[Stevepol]

58. I agree the optiscans are much better than the DREs, but ES&S

IMO has rigged or thrown more elections that Diebold. I think ES&S is a greater danger than Diebold because they're so seemingly diplomatic, they have a well-honed sales pitch, etc.

Keep up the good work nicknameless.

[EFerrari]

63. Yes -- ES&S is slick and I believe you are right about

them.

[nicknameless]

45. Thought I should bring up the issue of DRE maintenance.

It's MUCH more expensive than OpScan maintenance.
Outrageously and unjustifiably expensive, actually.

These election people who are drooling over HAVA money should keep that in mind.

[EFerrari]

46. Isn't DRE maintenance an oxymoron?

[nicknameless]

47. Sure is.

Why can't we just use these to "maintain" them?

[EFerrari]

49. Those people in Fiona Ma's office are the rudest staff

at City Hall. This woman told me I was being premature. I told her these machines already have a track record. Fiona is MY Supervisor and I can't wait until she goes away. She's all hat and no cattle. She's come to our community meetings and every single time, she was there for the press.

[nicknameless]

51. So the supe's office is just her stepping stone, huh?

Jerk. I hope she doesn't go any further politically.
Reminds me of Michael Huffington being described by his constituents as "our alleged congressman".

I didn't ask for much feedback. I just gave my spiel and waited to see what was said.
Actually, Alioto's phone rep was really great. It may not mean much about her, but it's a start.

[EFerrari]

52. I think we're okay. Trevor at Jake's office was very nice and funny.

He said he was taking a tally and then, he laughed out loud.

TG for San Francisco. Pretty soon, I'm gonna find a way to get Guv down here at one of Chris's events and we'll rope in Matt, too. Matt is VERY interested in this issue. He also believes 2004 was stolen. Heck, his election was probably stolen, too. What with ballots found floating in the bay and Willie using City workers to GOTV, lol.

Only in San Francisco. :)

[nicknameless]

55. SF can really be a mess sometimes,

but it's mess with character.

:)

[EFerrari]

56. Truth. I love the way we're left leaning and the way we're

really a small town where a call the to Mayor's office can make a difference.

:toast:

[EFerrari]

48. Okay. After callling our Supes and Gavin's office, this is the deal.

I think we can count on Tom, Jake, Chris, Aaron, Sophie and Ross. That's a majority. Fiona's people were rude as usual and I won't call Angela because everyone in that office is insane.

Also, guess what! The assistant I talked to in Gavin's office is FROM CHICAGO! So, he's very familiar with the problems of these Sequoia systems. Yes!

I think Sequoia is going to be allowed to do their little demonstration and then will be politely asked to TAKE A HIKE.

:nopity:

[nicknameless]

53. Great news

Glad we've got someone from Chicago to give a reality check.
Responses to my calls were mostly good too.

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

54. Chris's office asked me to email them -- the links that Wilms

and kster wonderfully put together. :loveya:

And I told everyone I talked to that I would be happy to email them links so they could look at the info themselves.

Thank you, guys, for all your help.

:party: :toast: :party: :toast:

[nicknameless]

59. Any news on how the commission meeting went? (n/t)

[EFerrari]

60. I have to ask my spy who got our talking points. Maybe

they'll check in after work today. :)

[nicknameless]

61. Thanks :o)

I've got to say I was really impressed with the reps I spoke with at the Supes' offices.
I had horrible experiences in the past trying to communicate concerns about election-rigging machines with the CA legislature reps.
Almost none seemed to be aware of the issue -- or care about it -- with two exceptions: Bowen's office and Leno's office.

Most of the Supes' people were both aware and concerned.
I was impressed!

:)

[EFerrari]

62. I was, too! Especially in the Daly office. Rachel knows

every bit as much as I did -- and probably more.

:)