Ellen J. Stone
Overview of Testimony before the NYC Board of Elections
November 21, 2006
My name is
Ellen Stone and I have been writing programs for computers for almost .50
years.
I started
working for IBM in 1960, and for the last 30+ years have specialized in Store
Systems. Currently I have my own
company and I do specialized computer programs for supermarkets. Store systems are similar to those used
for elections: a PC-type system tailored for a specific set of markets,
distributed to all the store’s markets in an area, with a central system to
accumulate the data. Preventing errors
is hard; I know that, because that’s what I do.
Several new computer systems have been submitted for New York State
certification. We cannot depend on these computer systems to work correctly
because they are too new to be bug-free.
Every large program has lots of bugs. For example, Microsoft still
updates Windows every two weeks to correct bugs in it.
Frequently used systems are easier to debug. Yet Windows is used
by millions of people each day and with all the error reports that are
submitted by users around the world and all the corrections that have been
made, it is still not bug-free. An election system is used infrequently, and
consequently will never be bug-free.
Moreover, election systems cannot be made accurate since the
external conditions of elections are too variable and even candidates can
change up to the day before an election.
Election systems will never go through the professional process of
correcting the system because of certification requirements (every change
requires re-certification), and the Board of Elections does not have the staff
or mandate or legal permission to correct or perfect your own system.
This is the wrong technology for elections, because you cannot
control your own systems in a professional and safe manner.
To point
out telling example, in Sarasota County, Florida, Supervisor of Elections Kathy
Dent has now totally changed her mind, and will comply with the newly passed
referendum demanding a return to paper ballots in light of the embarrassingly
large number of ‘undervotes’ in Sarasota County.
As the contemporary playwright Tom
Stoppard, who was born in Czechoslovakia during the rise of the Nazis, said in a recent Broadway play, “It’s not the voting that’s
democracy, it’s the counting.”
Here’s how
computers are used in a professional environment.
IBM Store
Systems are used in modern supermarkets and retail stores. This computer system
operates the cash registers and what goes on behind that. This system was
excellent to begin with. But when you are dealing with people’s money, you
can’t make any mistakes, and everyone checks your numbers. In fact, since machines, especially in the
early years, had many unanticipated bugs; most supermarket chains gave away for
free the products that were incorrectly priced in the computer system. (We gave
away a lot of free chickens when the system thru a bug rang up each of them for
$40.95!)
This is what
we do to install IBM store systems and get them running for each client
after every improvement.
This
process takes about 6 months if no modifications to the code are needed. If any
errors require a code change, the process is restarted from the beginning.
One
reason that this system works, is that the environment of the places using the
equipment is under control of the chain, and the users of the system are
trained. Where the users are not
trained (with ATM’s for example) the systems undergo an even stricter testing.
Professional
systems like IBM Store Systems do not go through a process of certification
like voting systems because in real life, no one does that.
In real life
here’s what happens.
1. Every customer checks their cash register receipt
2. Every customer who uses a credit card is going to get a statement from their
credit card company, and the data that store systems sends out to the credit
card company has to be correct.
3. Every
store that uses IBM Store Systems audits the numbers on a continuous basis.
They have whole departments and computerized and hand-used tools set up to do
this. The registers had to be balanced
at the end of the day. If any mistakes were made, if the customer didn’t find
them, the store found them. The corporate auditing department also audited the
data on a continuous basis. Other problems were found at that time.
4. The most
important point is that these systems were DESIGNED TO BE AUDITED.
Here’s what is wrong with electronic voting systems.
I’m not even
going to talk about paperless electronic voting systems, which cannot be
independently audited at all, except to say that the fact that such voting
systems have been designed and sold and purchased and used is a red flag to
alert us that something is wrong with our election administration in this
country.
Electronic
voting systems with a voter-verified paper printout are sold with the idea that
Board of Elections can recount the votes from a small percentage of machines,
and if that comes out ok, then you can believe that the rest of the machines
worked fine. NY state law requires the votes on paper from 3% of the machines
to be counted, but does not require the paper count and machine count to be the
same.
This whole
concept is wrong because each voting machine can have different errors and be
subject to different tampering. If I have 100 cash registers, and I balance 3
of them, that doesn’t mean that the other 97 are also balanced.
The fact
that these voting systems have been sold with this false promise is a red flag
that should warn us that something is wrong. We should not use electronic
voting systems unless we intend to perform 100% independent recounts. These systems were designed NOT TO BE
AUDITED.
Recounting
can be made easy, but these machines with their little paper strips make it
difficult. That is another red flag that should warn us not to use them.
If we switch
to PBOS, and vote on voter-marked paper ballots, we start out with votes that
are easy to handle, easy to recount, easy to guard. Election observers don’t
need to be computer experts to understand what they are observing.
We urge our
Board of Elections not to purchase such computerized voting equipment, and if
computerized voting is used, the computers should be 100% audited like all
other computer systems in professional use.