BBV Can America trust electronic voting?

[alfredo]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/7837475p-8778055c.html

The special interests are large voting-machine manufacturers who, through their lobbyists, worked hard to make sure that states and their counties were required to make huge purchases of new voting equipment, funded in part by Congress but subject to virtually no congressional standards of quality.

What has resulted is a set of uncritical mandates heavily weighted in favor of the local purchase of untested and unreliable electronic voting systems, supported by large federal subsidies of your tax dollars -- or rather borrowed dollars that future taxpayers will eventually have to pay off, with interest.

Election officials nationwide failed to demand that HAVA include meaningful regulation of voting-system manufacturers and vendors. Congressional staff were apparently persuaded that the mere application of electronic technology would be sufficient to protect the security of the right to vote, and the integrity of elections.

[DUreader]

1. kick

[T Roosevelt]

2. Did you see this regarding California?

E-Votes Must Leave a Paper Trail

SAN FRANCISCO -- California will become the first state requiring all electronic voting machines produce a voter-verifiable paper receipt.

The requirement, announced Friday by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, applies to all electronic voting systems already in use as well as those currently being purchased. The machines must be retrofitted with printers to produce a receipt by 2006.

With a receipt, voters will be able to verify that their ballots have been properly cast. However, they will not be allowed to keep the receipts, which will be stored at voting precincts and used for a recount if any voting irregularities arise.

Beginning July 1, 2005, counties will not be able to purchase any machine that does not produce a paper trail. As of July 2006, all machines, no matter when they were purchased, must offer a voter-verifiable paper audit trail. This means machines currently in use by four counties in the state will have to be fitted with new printers to meet the requirement.

<more>

[alfredo]

3. Yes.

But we must keep vigilant.

We need to make sure the primary votes are not manipulated, and we need to make sure everyone plays fair in the 2004 election.

[leftchick]

4. thanks you for this alfredo

I am printing it and taking it with me to my local Democratic Party Meeting tomorrow. :)

[alfredo]

5. Great

I am working on a letter to the editor on this issue.

Here's the first draft:

The Help America Vote Act had good intentions, but those good intentions have gone terribly wrong. We are rushing to install expensive, complicated, unreliable, and insecure computerized voting machine. We are going through all this trouble and expense to do something that could be done with a pencil and paper. These new machines seem like overkill.

Over the past year we have found serious problems with the very machines being pushed on the states. Not only is the code poorly written, and full of security holes, we are not allowed to even inspect the code to see if there are mistakes or malicious code. We cannot see the code that handles the data, nor can we see the data created, because it is protected under trade secret laws.

The voting machine companies will not let us see what they do with our votes, nor will they allow for an audit of the vote. They are even fighting the installation of a printer, saying it can’t be done. If they can give us a receipt at an ATM machine, and at the grocery, they can print out a paper ballot when we vote.

Even if it means going back to pencil and paper, we must make sure our elections are as fair and open as possible. Most people do not vote because of the ugliness of our politicians. If the remaining voters cannot trust the voting machines, our elections will be decided by a very small percentage of voters, or even worse, the owners of the voting machine companies.



Before the night is over, I will edit it to death, ultimately turning to Tetris for blessed mind-numbing relief.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Alfredo- I suggest you make it about as many words

Alfredo- I suggest you make it about as many words as the other letters the newspaper publishes.

[alfredo]

9. they don't adhere to the 250 word limit.

but yeah, I will have to prune it down in the rewrite.

An army buddy passed away today. It has been a tough few hours. I will pick it back up in the morning.

[Eric J in MN]

7. For anyone who hasn't emailed Congress yet

For anyone who hasn't emailed Congress yet-

you can send an email to Congress using the link in my signature.

[lysergik]

8. emailing is one thing, but may not be as effective as calling.

Join up at http://www.verifiedvoting.org and volunteer to make phone calls to lawmakers. Congress has a toll-free number. All it takes is a little bit of time.

If you need information to take to meetings, or to pass out you can find it at http://www.blackboxvoting.org

[DUreader]

10. kick

[RedEagle]

11. Shelley already being asked to rescind his decision

Write to support Shelley. Democracy is not to be treated like a dime-store special.

The expense is upgrades to systems that can't handle a printer for voter verified paper ballots easily. Namely, Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia. What is always failed to note are that Avante, Accupoll, and now Vogue will offer solutions. Avante and Accupoll, DESINGED with voter verified paper ballots, are right in the ball park with everyone else price wise. Why are the counties not looking at those options?

Michelle Townsend is a virtual mouthpiece for the voting machine industry on no paper ballots. How about quoting Warren Slocum or Freddie Oakley, instead? There ARE California county officials who understand and support voter verified paper ballots. Why don't they make it into the papers with quotes, eh? (Sacramento Bee is an exception, they printed Oakley's article on the issue- one of the best out there)