:kick:
Long, but I had to say this. Copies to Burke, Williams, Swafford...and several activists off-list.
The Cincinnati Enquirer solicited comments .today, re: the May 2 primary, about the new voting machines.
Here's my note to the paper... long but necessary, IMVHO Regards to all...
==========================================
I voted last Thursday at the Board of Elections on the "eScan" optical-scan ballot, made by Hart InterCivic,
based in Austin TX. This is a rather simple primary ballot; one asks for a Democratic or Republican or
Independent (issues only) ballot. The card is two-sided, with some races on the "second" face of the ballot;
don't forget to turn it over! For disabled voters, there is to be at least one touch-screen "eSlate" device at each
polling place, or where there are historically high numbers of very elderly or otherwise challenged voters.
Small rectangles - about 1/4" X 1/2"- are filled in with a black or dark blue ball pen (provided)
next to your selection. This takes longer than using the punch tool in the "old" system, and is a
strong negative for me. It is important to fill in the rectangle fully! Why? Because the "sensitivity"
of the optical reader head can be adjusted to account for smudges, "open" or non-filled-in patches,
or for other reasons, which might cause a ballot to be either mis-read or disallowed. When voting early,
the ballot is folded into thirds to be placed in a sealed envelope. I do not know if this is the procedure
on May 2, at the poll. I don't know if or how this will affect the running of the ballots through the reader.
As some may know, these electronic voting devices are much the same, downstream from the voter-machine
interface. That is, whether a punch card, an op-scan page, touch-screen or other input device is used, the voter
selection is "translated" to a digital or similar electronic signal. The subsequent processing is done on "secret"
proprietary software which has NOT been independently verified as accurate. In fact, Las Vegas gambling
machines and your bank's electronics systems (ATM's, etc.) ARE tested and verified by true, independent
software testing experts. Thus, believe it or not, your vote, the fundamental building block of trust in our
government, is not treated as seriously as financial records. No matter WHAT the EAC may say. Which
leaves open the question ot WHY the systems aren't 100% trustworthy. What is the true intent?
I recommend to your attention this URL <
http://www.votersunite.org/info/Hartinthenews.pdf> which links
to a series of documented problems with Hart InterCivic equipment. In states which allow straight-party
voting (Ohio does not) the risk of programming errors, malicious or not, leaves open the fact that your vote
may not be recorded as you intend. For example in 2004 in certain counties in Texas, many Hart touch-screen machines
recorded the presidential vote for Bush when the straight Democratic ticket "button" was touched.
The programming required the voter to re-check the entire ballot (five pages at the time) three times, until the
presidential vote actually recorded for Kerry, on-screen, at least. Whether the actual record "cast" a Kerry vote
could not be verified, as no paper record exists. The so-called "paper trail" on some touch-screen machines is
merely a thermal paper tape, with very small type, nearly unreadable, and of course, will fade badly over time.
Some record...
Believe me, "new" technology does not in ANY WAY guarantee accuracy, only faster processing. Remember,
garbage in, garbage out. The programming may look correct on the way in, but there is no conclusive proof
that the systems are outputting the voter's intent. Citizen vigilance is required at every step, and we do NOT
have that at present.
===========================
I also do not like the possible implications that the Ohio SOS office has required that results be reported every hour,
per the following: <
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/electionsvoter/directives/2006/Dir2006-47.pdf>To put it bluntly, with healthy skepticism, this seems to involve the SOS office in an inappropriate, real-time way
in county BOE business. Considering the dedicated fiber-optic network connecting all (88) BOE offices to the SOS
office, I see the possibility of electronic skullduggery, although local officials may not realize that...
Partial excerpt...
"On election night, each board of elections must provide this office with reports for the statewide candidates, U.S. Congress,
State Senate, outstanding absentees and provisional ballots . . . electronically transmit. . . ." (by fax, if cannot electronically
transmit)
. . . first report must be sent to (SOS) when the FIRST TEN precincts have reported. Thereafter, please report results at least
once each hour continuing until . . . final report. All returns must be cumulative . . . .
. . . your board shall not close until your final report that includes total electors voting and number of outstanding absentees and
provisional ballots has been given to this office.
The Director and Deputy Director must take copies of final vote results home and be available by phone from the SOS.
=========================== XXX ===================================
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
