1/Dear legislators debating new ways to enhance confidence in elections: get rid of #BallotMarkingDevices and other expensive vulnerable voting tech. Voters don’t understand it. Losing side will always cry foul. Use more #HandMarkedPaperBallots and mandatory audits. Invest in
2/Better more accurate scanning technology and error tolerant manual counting methods (and training/assessment methods so they can be uniformly applied)
3/More transparent, less tech heavy ways of registering/authenticating voters
4/Better risk models based in reality of multi-channel elections carried out over several weeks in-person and remote. Include public health in your thinking.
5/Better voter education and voter facing tools to counter effects of mid/disinformation. Better ways to counter social media ability to amplify both signal and noise.
6/And on a parallel branch: national response to securing the software and hardware supply chains for all election tech. #SolarWinds breach was not a one-off event and vulnerable infrastructure deserves this level of investment.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Richard DeMillo

Richard DeMillo Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rad_atl

13 Apr 20
1/ Apropos of nothing except the randomness of scientific attribution. Ironic when applied to randomness itself. Amusing that in their book "Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions," (academia.edu/42264255/Brian…) the following passages appears:
2/"One of the key results on the role of randomness in polynomial identity testing is what’s called the Schwartz–Zippel lemma."
3/and the accompanying citation "See Schwartz, “Fast Probabilistic Algorithms for Verification of
Polynomial Identities”; Zippel, “Probabilistic Algorithms for Sparse Polynomials”;
and DeMillo and Lipton, “A Probabilistic Remark on Algebraic Program Testing.” "
Read 5 tweets
10 Feb 20
1/Fulton County (GA) will put multiple BMDs in cabinets like this one. Voters will use simultaneously. Unclear how many BMDs per cabinet but this pic shows at least 2. Perpendicular orientation means there is no configuration where all machines are visible to election officials.
2/Nothing prevents one voter from grabbing printout from another BMD undetected. A lo tech vulnerability for creating chaos & denial of function.
3/Apparently also possible for one voter to access back of adjacent touchscreen panel. Depending on the orientation of the cabinet this might not be detectable by EOs or adjacent voters.
Read 6 tweets
29 Dec 19
1/Like this: Ballot marking devices have essential security flaws. Like all computers they can be hacked, misprogrammed, misconfigured & misused. Because printed ballots from a compromised machine cannot be trusted as an expression of voter intent, audits cannot detect cheating.
2/Why can't BMD printed ballots be trusted as an expression of voter intent? Because voters won't notice fraudulent outputs of compromised BMDs. It's the most widely replicated experiment in election security dating back a decade or more.
3/...as summarized in the NAS "Securing the Vote" report: without complete record of votes expressed, voters would be unable to recall all of their prior choices. nap.edu/25120
Read 8 tweets
28 Dec 19
1/Why can't BMD printed ballots be trusted as an expression of voter intent? Because voters won't notice fraudulent outputs of compromised BMDs. It's the most widely replicated experiment in election security dating back a decade or more when ppl were concerned about VVPAT...
2/...as summarized in the NAS "Securing the Vote" report (nap.edu/25120): without complete record of votes expressed, voters would be unable to recall all of their prior choices.
3/Furthermore, hundreds of studies over 100 yrs point to fundamental limitations of human memory that would inhibit ballot verification by voters: (read.amazon.com/kp/embed?asin=…): "An important characteristic of the factual data base of memory is its remarkable reliability."
Read 5 tweets
12 Nov 19
1/While I appreciate @benadida constant references to the shortcomings of hand marked ballot, it’s blindingly obvious that there’s no equivalence to machine marked ballots.
2/By whatever mechanism mistabulation occurs, RLAs are designed to confirm correctly reported outcomes.
3/I still do not really understand the argument about mistabulating bubble marks. I’m sure it happens, but evidently it happens so rarely that no one in the business of establishing benchmarks for high volume op scan devices has bothered to document it.
Read 15 tweets
29 Sep 19
1/ For those watching from the stands, let me correct this. Publication in open access journals is meant for rapid dissemination of preprints; it’s not a substitute for publication in peer reviewed archival journals. Neither guarantees validity, but readership numbers do matter.
2/As of this writing ssrn.com/abstract=33757… has been viewed nearly 12,000 times and downloaded over 700 times. As Arthur Jago points out in his CHE essay (chronicle.com/article/Can-It…) it’s impossible to know how that compares to archival journal articles, but in this era of
3/electronic journals, we have a pretty good idea. The average PLOS or SSRN article is viewed approx 800 times. SSRN places the BMD paper in the top 5% downloads of its 888,0000 articles. It is a paper that has received a lot of critical scrutiny even in prepublication.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!