[EL] The Root Cause of Election Unrest is Non-transparency(AllowingPeople to Imagine Whatever They Will

Fri Jan 8 09:23:18 PST 2021

Ruth, you call my argument extreme but the Court of Appeals in my case
acknowledged that my case based on these arguments raised important
questions at the very bedrock of democracy, not "extreme" interpretations.
The Court only dismissed my case attacking contracts to purchase voting
machines as void against public policy because it said I had won - the
county canceled the contract for the touch screens and thereby mooted my
attack upon the contract is violating public policy.

On the contrary, your argument or fear that people may misunderstand or
misinterpret election information if it is given to them is an extreme
attack upon transparency of all kinds.

The same argument or fear applies to every government record and violates
the declared public policy of my state of Washington found at RCW 42.30.010:

The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies
which serve them.
*The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the
right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good
for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may
retain control over the instruments they have created.*
The conservative state of Texas takes it further:

Sec. 552.001. POLICY; CONSTRUCTION. (a) Under the fundamental philosophy of
the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres
to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the
people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless
otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information
about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials
and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their
public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and
what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have
created.

The same or nearly identical language is the fundamental public policy in
many other states like CA, AK, HI, GA and others.

Most state constitutions recite that a frequent recurrence to fundamental
principles is necessary for the preservation of liberty and free
government.  This is true.

The problem generally is that we have focused too much on mechanics and
administrative convenience instead of recurring to our most important laws
and principles.

Thati s why my argument to protect the bedrock of democracy can
occasionally be perceived as "extreme" - the government has strayed from
our most fundamental rights in favor of convenience and efficiency claims
that do not guarantee our most important rights. They did it accidentally
by signing vendor contracts that took transparent vote counts and made them
the private intellectual property of vendors and/or *de facto* government
secrets.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 10:56 PM RuthAlice Anderson <
ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net> wrote:

> Wow, that’s an extreme interpretation. I think trained poll watchers are
> essential for transparency. Streaming to the untrained and already
> suspicious public is dangerous. People who want to find something will
> misinterpret innocent acts as malice. Because that’s what they want to
> find.
>
> Poll watchers from both parties are absolutely proper. Training people is
> proper. Having people this believe in lizard people watching from their
> homes is not.
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/17/ballot-counting-livestreams-misinformation-us-election
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:32 PM
> *To: *RuthAlice Anderson <ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net>
> *Cc: *John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>; Election Law Listserv
> <law-election at uci.edu>; Virginia Martin <virginiamartin2010 at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] The Root Cause of Election Unrest is
> Non-transparency(AllowingPeople to Imagine Whatever They Will)
>
>
>
> I have never heard the claim that streaming led to widespread fraud
> allegations.  That said, if transparency could be defeated by a significant
> possibility of misunderstanding what is going on, then you are arguing
> against transparency generally.  Any government document or record is
> subject to the danger of being misunderstood.
>
>
>
> The misunderstanding argument is one of the arguments made for widespread
> secrecy in forms of government that aren't free or do not wish to be held
> accountable or to be checked and balanced - namely that the masses can't
> understand the fine arts of governance, so it is better that they just
> trust us and not get information. In reality,  The risk of misunderstanding
> would be an argument against having juries, or even voting without a
> literacy and civics test.
>
>
>
> I think you would find people keen to participate in a meaningful event
> like elections and eager to learn.
>
>
>
> Training is at its simplest with hand counted paper ballots, but if there
> is a problem with lack of training there is a straightforward solution -
> more training.
>
>
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 4:09 PM RuthAlice Anderson <
> ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Doesn’t it seem that many of the most widespread false allegations of
> fraud originated with transparency efforts such as streaming video of the
> ballot count. People without any idea what is happening in the room saw
> things they did not understand (cases under the table being opened with
> ballots) and found a malignant interpretation.
>
> It also seems that the poll watchers and observers were poorly trained.
> When I was a poll watcher before vote by mail, we had a fairly lengthy
> training on what to watch for and how to report it. We were advised not to
> talk about it because we could be wrong.
>
> RuthAlice
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows 10
>
>
>
> *From: *Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 7, 2021 3:55 PM
> *To: *John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>; Virginia Martin
> <virginiamartin2010 at gmail.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [EL] The Root Cause of Election Unrest is
> Non-transparency(Allowing People to Imagine Whatever They Will)
>
>
>
> So on one side we have nontransparency in the voting system which breeds
> distrust which is then amplified by every partisan hope, fear, or piece of
> evidence, all the way up to an insurrection on ONE SIDE,
>
>
>
> ...And on the other side we have some 75 year old who might be groggy.
> And more hours to count.
>
>
>
> The balancing isn't even close, and I could add much more to the first
> paragraph but recent events are enough.
>
>
>
> The nontransparency is a fatal flaw in the current system, and a
> transparent system in the form of hand counted ballots is required to
> secure and guarantee the right to vote vis-a-vis situations of corrupt
> election officials, power outages and so on, and having tens of thousands
> of summonses workers nationwide who can personally attest based on their
> own observation and experience would restore public confidence.
>
>
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021, 3:43 PM John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Did you wakes up the 75 year old participants at 4 or 5 am and have them
> work for 12 hours?   On a ballot with 30+ offices and ballot measures?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 6:38 PM, Stephanie Singer <
> sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> wrote:
>
> I took part in a demo of the clicker method. I don’t know of any academic
> research, but from my experience the clicker method is far better. It makes
> sense psychologically — each person is focused on just one physical spot on
> the ballot, not needing to look back and forth. And in the demo we had
> several people tracking each candidate, and their tallies matched at the
> end (or perhaps were occasionally off by one). It was quick and easy and,
> with enough people clicking, convincing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephanie Singer <https://www.pdx.edu/profile/stephanie-singer>
>
> Research Assistant Professor, Portland State University
>
> Former Chair, Philadelphia County Board of Elections
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 2:04 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> One would think that “mark, mark, ... tally” would avoid differences,
> since there’s a check every 5th vote.  One would be wrong.  And then you
> have to go back and reconcile to find where the count got off — usually
> several tallies back.  I suspect the clicker would be even worse
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 4:42 PM, Stephanie Singer <
> sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> wrote:
>
> It’s undeniable that the counting happens at a time when everyone is
> exhausted. And thanks for pointing out the difficulties of oversight in
> primaries.
>
>
>
> At least one better counting method has been developed and tested by Karen
> McKim of Wisconsin Election Integrity
> <https://wisconsinelectionintegrity.org/>. Each person in a group of
> observers has a hand-held clicker-counter (like the ones used to measure
> people flowing through turnstiles). The ballots can then be shown one after
> another, quite quickly. My understanding is that this is quite accurate and
> efficient.
>
>
>
> The science and engineering of post-election tabulation audits for ballot
> scanners is progressing, but I haven’t yet seen a workable proposal for
> risk-limiting audits of precinct-counted ballots.
>
>
>
> If you don’t count at the precinct at the end of the voting period, you
> have to solve the ballot custody problem, also quite knotty.
>
>
>
> —Stephanie
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 1:26 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree completely that the election process should include at all levels
> and locations poll officials and poll watchers appointed by both major
> parties — and by all diverse candidates in primaries and nonpartisan
> elections (easier said than done).   And posting the results at the polls
> and centrally is or used to be common.    But hand counted paper ballots?
> I recall monitoring primary elections with hand counted paper ballots at
> relatively tiny precincts.  It takes forever, in part because of frequent
> differences in the counts  (often resolved by splitting the difference) and
> poll workers quitting fit the night and one (1) poll official taking the
> materials home to safeguard them.  In one MS primary election, the count
> wasn’t completed until Thursday evening , at which point I could finally go
> to sleep (after helping polish off some beer the senior attorney had
> bought).  There’s are reasons we use machines now.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2021, at 1:59 PM, Stephanie Singer <
> sfsinger at campaignscientific.com> wrote:
>
> A big Plus One to what Paul has written.
>
>
>
> To move to the kind of resilient system Paul has described, we need to
> face head on the downsides of such a system. There are people in this
> country who physically cannot mark and review paper ballots without
> assistance (either from people or technology). And there are people of this
> country who cannot physically get to the polling place on the given day
> (e.g., overseas deployed military).
>
>
>
> Companies that manufacture and maintain computerized voting systems have
> exploited this downside for profit.
>
>
>
> I wonder what folks on this list think of proxy voting.
>
>
>
> —Stephanie
>
> PS: a relevant piece I wrote was published a few hours before all hell
> broke loose yesterday:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/06/stolen-election-trump-patriot/
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The short answer is voter-marked and hand counted paper ballots counted in
> precincts with results posted at the precincts as well as reported to the
> county or state. And also using a summonsing process to guarantee
> sufficient labor or add additional independent observers as needed.
>
>
>
> This way any group can verify the tabulation by looking at precinct posted
> results, and counts in precincts are monitored by all interested political
> parties plus individuals drafted by a process similar to jury summonsing.
> It is a labor intensive process but *most people would much rather spend
> a day counting ballots than spend two weeks in a jury trial. *
>
>
>
> If ballot counting is observed by multiple observers adverse to each other
> (the system used and assumed by the framers of the 12th amendment) out of a
> combination of people we might not trust to count ballots alone, we can
> nevertheless achieve a trustable result.
>
>
>
> We might also realize that the framers of the 12th amendment presupposed
> HCPB, and might come to understand that a joint session is subservient to
> the will of the people and *able to make only the objections and
> corrections that vote counting clerks are able to make, not relitigate the
> entire election*.
>
>
>
> More importantly, glitches, errors or frauds create observable evidence
> that can be accessed, and inaccuracies are isolated to the precinct level.
> Thus, if and when people tell stories about paper ballot fraud, that
> actually proves both that fraud can happen and that *the voting system
> actually worked to create evidence of the problem and thus allow us to tell
> the story today*. It is up to the administrative and legal systems - not
> the voting system - to actually prosecute or correct for the fraud or
> error. The voting system only needs to be transparent and create clear
> indelible evidence of voter intent.
>
>
>
> With a fully transparent vote counting process, I find that almost
> everyone I talk to is willing to pay the labor and time pricetag for the
> system, because of the rational confidence created in the results, and the
> fact that it is the best guarantee of our right to vote actually working if
> and when a criminal regime is in control of the vote counting process.
> Given that voting is our most important right, and given the Declaration of
> Independence recites that our government was setup for the purpose of
> securing and guaranteeing our rights, this is not too much to ask. The
> alternative is to have a voting system that is non-transparent and thus is
> vulnerable to failing completely at the very moment we need it the most -
> when criminality has invaded the governmental election processes.
>
>
>
> The human need for hand counts of valuable things is witnessed every day
> when counting our own cash at the bank teller window or at the ATM. There
> is just no substitute for hand counting when we deal with something
> valuable AND there is incentive for one or more parties to count
> inaccurately, as exists in elections.
>
>
>
> It would also have the added benefit of bringing statutes back into line
> with reality, such as the requirement of a 0.5% lead or less to trigger a
> recount. That kind of narrow window makes sense with HCPB, but with
> electronic elections if there is fraud it is the same amount of effort to
> create a lead outside the recount margin as there is to win by just a few
> votes.
>
>
>
> And it would also bring back into alignment the call for public confidence
> and acceptance of the results. That is a call for rational acceptance of
> the results if counts are transparent but is a call for a faith that losers
> find hard to develop when counts are nontransparent.
>
>
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, 2:10 PM David Mason <dmason12 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What sorts of systems, policies, and procedures would you recommend to
> achieve this level of transparency?
>
>
>
> Dave Mason
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 4:34 PM Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Obviously, things have gotten out of hand, but what is the root of the
> problem?
>
>
>
> The problem is that *we do not have a voting system that the LOSERS of
> the election can believe in* based on the transparency of the process. *If
> we want peaceful transitions of power the system needs to lead to results
> trustable by the "sore losers."*
>
>
>
> While people need to be held accountable for illegal actions, *going
> forward*, instead of designing our voting systems with gaining the
> consent of the governed among the losing side, we instead demand "public
> confidence" in nontransparent computerized counts on pain of charges of
> undermining democracy.
>
>
>
> *This lack of transparency in vote counting is the SEED to which either
> facts or fevered dreams can attach*, and typically our partisan
> affiliations and the media sources we select predetermine what information
> we will receive and what conclusions we will draw.
>
>
>
> I have predicted this would eventually happen for over a decade.  I was
> quoted in Politico a couple weeks ago about Trump activists because I was
> active in investigating the 2004 elections after serving as one of Kerry's
> "army" of lawyers (who were actually just assisting people to vote).
> https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/19/2004-kerry-election-fraud-2020-448604
> This article sought to find out what those who questioned 2004 thought of
> those who questioned 2020.  A variety of opinions emerged.
>
>
>
>  In *Politico *I was quoted as saying the election disputes are the
> equivalent of a religious war where both sides assert their strongly held
> beliefs on the basis of faith rather than on the basis of *knowledge*.
> All people must necessarily have beliefs rather than true personal
> knowledge about the vote count results because the counts themselves are
> nontransparent, being done on computers, so that literally no one has
> personal knowledge the results are correct. Even election officials lack
> the kind of personal knowledge we expect from any admissible affidavit,
> Instead, officials believe them to be correct based on logic and accuracy
> tests and such but they don't really KNOW.  Experts can add numerous
> circumstantial reasons to support that belief, but our opinions remain in
> the territory of trust and confidence rather than hard facts and
> knowledge.
>
>
>
> The election results are simply the conclusions.  I've been entitled to
> every data source any expert in court relies upon for his or her
> conclusions, except in election law, where the computers are generally
> deemed inaccessible.
>
>
>
> Our present system merely urges public confidence in those conclusory
> results, which is the same as urging trust or faith. As a result, t*he
> opinions on all sides about the election results amount to statements of
> political religious faith*, and thus we have what amounts to a religious
> war in which various sides insult the faith of the other side, eventually
> leading to violence as we see today.
>
>
>
> Transparency is strongly effective at getting rid of conspiracy theories
> because when facts are present, no theories, conspiracy or otherwise, are
> necessary or possible.  Transparency would likely not reduce Republican
> support for objections from Rasmussen's 73% released today down to zero,
> but it would critically drop it below fifty percent at the very least.  And
> that is the difference between peaceful transitions of power transitions of
> power that are not peaceful.
>
>
>
> Trump supporters may not be able to prove fraud, but the reverse is also
> true: Biden supporters can't prove Biden win, except with a full hand
> recount and good chain of custody and no ballot box stuffing.  The solution
> is to get it right on election night with a transparent counting system
> that the large majority of losers can RATIONALLY trust.  Not faith-based
> elections like we have now.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> PO Box 2796
>
> Renton, WA 98056
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4965 (cell)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20210108/18e45473/attachment.html>