How do we Increase Confidence in Ohio’s Elections?

Ohioans can use the petition process covered under 3506.02(C) to replace proprietary programmed voting machines with open source voting machines. Learn how and why we should do this!

A testimony of utilizing non-proprietary (open source) voting machines by the non-profit Voting Works

Considerable efforts have been dedicated to scrutinizing Ohio's election systems in search of vulnerabilities and irregularities. Many invested hours aimed at demonstrating perceived unfairness, inaccuracy, or insecurity in the state's elections. Yet, there's been a distinct lack of transparency and accountability among certain investigators who fail to subject their work to rigorous scrutiny. Some self-proclaimed analytic experts have made significant errors in their methodologies, attributing their improbable findings to flawed data normalization techniques.

While substantiated evidence of election fraud would undoubtedly be significant, the progression of Ohio's electoral processes need not hinge solely on such proof. According to Section 3506.02 of the Ohio Revised Code, Ohioans possess the authority, through petition, to select voting equipment and propose its inclusion on the ballot for public voting, mandating county officials to cover the costs.The pivotal question regarding Ohio's elections isn't merely centered on their fairness and accuracy. Rather, it's focused on Ohioans' confidence in the transparency and openness of their electoral procedures.

Addressing Technophobia:

Proposals advocating a return to manual ballot counting, often stemming from influential public figures or affluent individuals, are based on unfounded presumptions that machines are incapable of counting votes more swiftly and accurately than humans. Not every system can be hacked. However, a principle—akin to the law of elections—suggests that increased human involvement in handling ballots heightens the potential for errors and malpractice.It's imperative to recognize that, akin to guns being tools and neither inherently good nor evil, computers serve as tools and are susceptible to manipulation based on human intent. The responsibility for any wrongdoing doesn't lie with the tools themselves but with those who employ them.My aim isn't to provide irrefutable evidence of malpractice, corruption, or accuracy in Ohio's elections. Rather, I urge Ohioans to engage in critical thinking, employing logic and reason. There exists a concerning degree of misplaced trust in Ohio's electoral procedures and auditing methods—issues that would not be tolerated in the private sector. Where feasible and without excessive expenses, enhancing Ohio's electoral system should be a priority, relying not on proof but on self-evident logic and reason.States with lax policies or perceived irregularities have led numerous Americans to question their state's election protocols. Given the stark contrast in rally attendances between presidential candidates, skepticism about the election process is natural. The last presidential election's optics prompt a desire for reliable, dependable procedures and systems that instill utmost confidence in voters.Thus, advocating for policies to bolster confidence in Ohio's elections doesn't necessitate proving fraudulent activities in any particular election.

The Responsibility of Auditing:

The Secretary of State should not oversee the auditing of their own elections; rather, this responsibility should lie with the State Auditor. It's a clear and indisputable premise that the individual managing the election process should not be entrusted with auditing it—a situation that undeniably presents a significant conflict of interest, akin to the fox guarding the hen house.

Proposed Solutions for Transparency:

1. Introducing anonymous serialized ballots that enable voters to verify the counting of their votes could significantly enhance trust in the process. Employing a carbonless copy ballot with a unique serial number permits voters to check their vote's status after casting it, ensuring accuracy and preventing manipulation.

2. Installing video cameras at polling station entrances can deter potential fraudulent activities involving groups of individuals, contributing to fairer elections.Recording a driver's license scan and a brief video of the voter affirming their identity and intent to vote—optionally supplemented by a fingerprint for those with religious objections to video recording—safeguards against intentional misidentification by poll workers.

3. After check-in at polling stations, mapping voters' addresses on a public online map ensures transparency and prevents ballot box manipulation. This self-auditing measure guarantees that the number of ballots cast corresponds to the sign-ins in the pollbook.

4. Utilizing open-source software and firmware for all voting machines enhances transparency and accessibility. No proprietary software or firmware should ever be used. Solutions from companies like Voting Works provide affordable options, enabling code inspection before and after polls open, ensuring integrity in the electoral process.

5. Voting machines may be wired together but in no case may they be connected by wireless means during voting.

• Absentee mail in balloting must be prohibited in favor of positive identification block-chain voting with a paper trail. While not full proof, positive identification block chain voting is far superior to absentee mail in ballots in limiting voter fraud and cheating. Rather than depending on a signature - blockchain voting would rely on an individual taking a picture of themselves, taking a short video of themselves announcing their intention to vote, taking a picture of the front and back of their driver’s license or state issued ID, and answering three pre-determined questions. All of this information would be available for review by election officials. Once approved by official a paper ballot is printed with an anonymous serial number that only the voter knows maintaining the secrecy of the ballot.

Auditing

An ARLO (Advanced Risk-Limiting Audit) is a type of post-election audit designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of election results while minimizing the risk of errors. This method employs statistical principles and modern technology to verify election outcomes with a high level of confidence.Here are the key elements and steps involved in an ARLO:

1. Risk-Limiting Principle:

ARLO adheres to the risk-limiting principle, ensuring that the level of risk for certifying an incorrect election outcome remains below a specified threshold. This means that the probability of certifying an incorrect outcome should be extremely low, typically less than 3% or as determined by election officials.

2. Statistical Sampling:

Instead of recounting every ballot, ARLO uses statistical sampling techniques to select a random and representative subset of ballots for auditing. The sample size is determined based on the margin of victory and the level of confidence required.

3. Cast Vote Records (CVRs) or Paper Ballots:

The audit involves examining either digital Cast Vote Records or physical paper ballots, depending on the voting system used. In some cases, paper ballots are preferred for their transparency and verifiability.

4. Comparison and Verification:

Audit teams compare the audited subset of ballots or CVRs against the corresponding electronic vote tallies or reported results. The objective is to verify that the recorded votes accurately reflect the voters' intentions.

5. Data Analysis and Reconciliation:

Advanced statistical methods are employed to analyze the sampled data, ensuring that the election outcomes align with the audited subset. Any discrepancies found trigger further investigation and potential expansion of the audit.

6. Adjustment or Confirmation:

If discrepancies are identified, the audit may require a broader sample size or a full recount to confirm the accuracy of the reported results. Conversely, if the audited subset confirms the reported outcomes within the acceptable margin of error, election officials certify the results.

7. Transparency and Documentation:

ARLO emphasizes transparency in the audit process. Detailed documentation of audit procedures, methodologies, and findings is crucial to maintaining public trust and providing transparency in the election auditing process.

Sample Petition Language

Petition for Transparent and Secure Voting Equipment in [name of County] County

We, the undersigned residents, registered voters, and concerned citizens of [Name of the County] County, Ohio, hereby petition for the implementation of transparent, secure, and auditable voting systems in accordance with Ohio Revised Code 3506.02.

Purpose:

• To ensure the integrity and transparency of the electoral process within Lorain County.

• To adopt a blockchain-based voting system that provides a secure and identifiable voting process superior to absentee balloting.

• To establish measures that guarantee accountability, auditability, and public accessibility in the voting procedures.

Proposed Actions:

• Prohibition on Proprietary Software and Firmware

  • We demand that all voting equipment utilized by the Lorain County Board of Election for voting in person shall not use proprietary software or firmware.

• Use of Blockchain Voting Systems to replace Absentee Ballots:

  • A blockchain system shall positively identify voters through a Photograph “selfie”, a brief statement recorded on video, and pictures of the front and back of state-issued identification cards. Also to be secured with three pre-answered questions with the answer only known by the voter.

  • The chosen blockchain voting system must provide a transparent paper trail for auditability, ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the voting process.

• Enhanced Security Measures:

  • Installation of video equipment at all polling locations to record all voters entering polling sites, promoting transparency and discouraging fraudulent activities.

  • All poll books must contain a picture of the individual voter or their thumbprint, alongside a scan of their driver's license or state-issued identification, ensuring identity verification and accuracy in voter registration.

• Implementation of ARLO Audit System:

  • Purchase of computers, software, and necessary services to conduct an ARLO (Risk-Limiting) audit of election results, ensuring accuracy and fairness in the tabulation process.

• Public Accessibility and Accountability Measures:

  • Acquisition of computers, software, and services to map all voters on an accessible map, available to the public, to maintain transparency and accountability in the electoral process.

Conclusion:

Petition for Transparent and Secure Voting Equipment in [name of county] County

We, the undersigned residents and concerned citizens of Lorain County, Ohio, hereby petition for the implementation of transparent, secure, and auditable voting systems in accordance with Ohio Revised Code 3506.02.

Failed to render LaTeX expression — no expression found