Ice rocket blog trends

(As I mentioned, I am reviewing a couple of online tools to track the popularity of ideas over time. Please forgive this segway away from voting reform issues.)

Icerocket’s blog trends tool is a service to track the popularity of search terms over time based on how many blogs mentioned them recently. Their instructions are simple:

Enter item(s) to see mentions trended over time. Enter up to three queries under Trend Term(s). Type in the label you would like associated with each query under Display Label(s).

Continue reading

Thank You, Debra Bowen!

Bowen and HAL

Remember, you heard it here last!

You can get much better coverage of this issue at the Brad Blog.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has commissioned a ‘Top-to-bottom’ review of voting machines used in California. The reports are in and as a result of them are abysmal. As a consequence Bowen has decertified the machines and recertified some of them for very limited use.

In a dramatic late-night press conference, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified, and then recertified with conditions, all but one voting system used in the state.
Her decisions, following her unprecedented, independent “Top-to-Bottom Review” of all certified electronic voting systems, came just under the wire to meet state requirements for changes in voting system certification.

Bowen announced that she will be disallowing the use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems made by the Diebold and Sequoia companies on Election Day, but for one DRE machine per polling place which may be used for disabled voters. The paper trails from votes cast on DREs manufactured by those two companies must be 100% manually counted after Election Day.

Many are expecting lawsuits to follow soon so this story is not over.

The top to bottom review consisted of at least 3 parts. All of the machines reviewed had significant flaws with respect to each report:

  • A ‘red team’ report of hack attempts
  • An accessibility report
  • A source code review

In short, each machine is hackable and not very accessible.

Some more resources:

Google Trends: tracking popularity of search terms

(As I mentioned, I am reviewing a couple of online tools to track the popularity of ideas over time. Please forgive this segway away from voting reform issues.)

Google Trends is a service by google that allows you to compare the popularity of keywords over time.

In their words:

With Google Trends, you can compare the world’s interest in your favorite topics. Enter up to five topics and see how often they’ve been searched on Google over time. Google Trends also shows how frequently your topics have appeared in Google News stories, and in which geographic regions people have searched for them most.

Continue reading

Meme Wars: tracking popularity of memes over time

In addition to following voting reform blogs I follow a number of real estate investing blogs. Many of the real estate bloggers periodically post a market statistics update with some pretty graphs and charts. These posts are both informative and very easy to write.

For a while I’ve been thinking of doing similar posts that discuss the popularity of different memes within the voting reform community. My thought was that ideally I could identify which reforms have momentum behind them and track how interest changes over time. This can be useful in several ways: Continue reading

42% of the popular vote, but 0 of 17 seats awarded

An excellent example of the disenfranchisement that can be caused by using single winner districts to elect members to a legislature can be seen in the 1926 Canadian federal election for the province of Manitoba.

The province of Manitoba was entitled to 17 seats. The Conservative party had 42.2% of the popular vote within Manitoba but was unable to win any of the single winner districts.

Here is the data care of RangeVoting.org :

Political party % votes Number of seats % seats
Conservative 42.2% 0 0%
Liberal-Progressive 19.5% 7 41%
Liberal Party 18.4% 4 24%
Progressive 11.2% 4 24%
Labour 8.7% 2 12%

More information about the 1926 Manitoba election can also be found on wikipedia

pics of CA gerrymandering and how the splitline algorithm would do it

Nick requested to see CA districting under the shortest splitline algorithm.

From http://www.rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html:

In 2004, not one of CA’s 173 state legislative and federal congressional seats changed party-hands. In 2002, every incumbent won re-election, on average with 69% of the vote. California may be the new gerrymandering champion, perhaps even worse than Illinois and Texas, but unlike them its gerrymandering is “bipartisan” that is, arranged by agreement among the Democrats and Republicans to “design their own districts” to make every office holder “safe.”

CA districts under the shortest splitline algorithm:
Continue reading

More on the shortest split-line algorithm with pretty pictures

I’m a sucker for pictures. They communicate ideas quite succinctly.
Here I show some examples of congressional districts as they are drawn currently and as the shortest split-line algorithm would draw them. Continue reading

The punchscan voting system

Punchscan was the winning system in the 2006 2007 VoComp competition.

In their own words:

Punchscan is a voting system invented by David Chaum that allows voters to take a piece of the ballot home with them as a receipt. This receipt does not allow voters to prove how they voted to others, but it does permit them to:

  • Verify that they have properly indicated their votes to election officials (cast-as-intended).
  • Verify with extremely high assurance that all votes were counted properly (counted-as-cast).

It uses simple cryptographic techniques to ensure election integrity. The demos on their ‘learn more’ page shows how a voter casts and verifies their vote as well as showing how election integrity can be audited.

After you go through the demos you should also review the excellent FAQ.

The system that is demonstrated can only handle ballots for which there are two candidates for each race. I believe that they have extensions to the system to handle multiple candidates and well as handling

  • alternate voting systems
  • improved support for disabled voters
  • write-in candidates

So it ready for prime-time use?
I don’t know. It has only been used for a few elections and is a very new system so I suspect that it is not ready for wide deployment.

If you are interested in following the development and deployment of punchscan you can join their mailing list.

PhD students determine key way to improve voter turnout

One of the key issues with any election is whether the population bothers to show up to the election and vote. In the US voter turn out numbers are anemic.

Luckily some PhD students have determined a simple way to increase voter turnout. Continue reading

VoComp conference (July 16-18)

VoComp (the university VOting systems COMPetition) is a conference and competition that fosters innovation and student involvement in the technology of democracy. It is actually both a competition and a conference. This year is was in Portland, Oregon from July 16-18.

The conference gives academics who research voting systems a chance to present their research and conclusions. From the VoComp overview page:

Presentations include descriptions of the competing systems, attacks on the competing systems, metrics for evaluating voting systems, and demonstrations of other voting technology. Prizes include best presentation, best attack, and best paper on voting system metrics.

The competion itself allows student teams to design, implement, and demonstrate election systems.

Here is more from their press release:

Four finalist teams of researchers, from the U.S., Canada, Poland, and UK, face off 16–18 July at the Portland Hilton in front of a panel of top experts. … Each of the four finalist submissions is a complete open-source voting system, something that has been called for by many but not realized until now. The competition framework also serves to demonstrate what may be a better way to vet and choose voting systems.

In advance, each team publicly posted rigorous documentation and all source code for its system. At the competition finals, each team will carry out a mock election and critique the other systems in front of the judges. All sessions are free and open to the public.

Three of the competition systems are based on revolutionary “end-to-end (e2e) secure’’ technology, which enables each voter to verify that her vote was correctly recorded and tabulated. This new technology promises to surpasses the lower level of results assurance afforded by popular “paper record’’ technologies such as precinct-count optical scan and VVPAT advocated by Senator Holt and others.

I have never attended a VoComp conference. One of the conference presenters this year wrote about his experience there. Here is some of what Warren Smith had to say about his experience at VoComp 2007:


VoComp was actually a lot better than I expected in terms of the talks.

David Chaum spoke on “scantegrity”, an impressive new framework for secure secret-ballot voting which is in at least some ways superior to Rivest+Smith’s approaches. www.scantegrity.org

Ron Rivest (MIT) spoke on the Rivest-Smith low-tech secure voting protocols.

The whole VoComp thing made it more publicly known that secure voting protocols do exist, and are just light years ahead of what the USA uses now in terms of guaranteed security properties.