2 Responses

1. 

   1)

   BOB YOUNG said on 7/29/2006 @ 4:08am PT: [Permalink]

   We absolutely need verified voting before any of these machines should be OK’d for use in any election. The following “verification” is no where near adequate:

   “Voters will also get a chance to confirm their ballots with the new equipment. In our July 2 editorial, we pointed out that a voter-verified audit trail is required in Arizona. After a ballot is complete on the touch-screen machine in the voting booth, the voter must ask for an electronic summary or, for the visually impaired, an audio feedback.
   The voter has the opportunity to correct a miscast vote or a skipped item; only when a voter is satisfied does he or she press the ‘cast ballot’ button, Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson explained earlier this month.”

   It should be blatantly obvious that the above procedure is no verification whatsoever as to whether any vote will be counted as cast. The machine can easily be programmed to adjust the voters selections anyway it wants to after the “cast ballot” option is touched. The above procedure is a must before any touch screen or push button machine can be approved to count the vote but it is clearly not sufficient to call the result verified! In addition the machines must print out a uniquely numbered receipt of the selections of each voter for each voter’s records and another receipt for the records of each precinct. The machine can then create and publish a complete list of the selections of all voters by number. The voter can check to see that the receipts are correct before leaving the voting booth. No rational voter will be convinced that their vote was counted by these easily to manipulate machines with anything less for “verification”! The voters can later check the publication to see that there ballot really was counted as cast. If it can be shown that the published results very by as much as 0.1% from the receipts given to the voters, it is proven that the machines failed in their attempt to count the votes anywhere near up to the ability they have to do so. At this point the receipts given to the precinct automatically take over as the vote of record. The Company that contracted to count the vote but clearly failed to do so is then charged with the cost of a hand count of the vote of record which determines the outcome of the election. Couple this with measures to eliminate ballot stuffing and we have a verified election. Nothing less can rationally be considered verified voting!

   Thanks to the poorly planned but well funded Help America Vote Act (HAVA), many Boards of Election Supervisors around this country are faced with the following dilemma.

   Which of the following is good enough reason to OK the use of the machines HAVA helped them purchase?

   A. OK the machines provided by a company that is represented by people who are so logically challenged that they can’t see how easy it would be for any programmer to use these machines to steal control of the election results from the constituents of the Supervisors. This heist of democracy can very easily be accomplished by either Diebold insiders or outsiders.

   B. OK machines from a company that does grasp how easy these machines make rigging elections but prefers company profits to democratic elections and falsely represents these machines to gather in huge profits.
   C. Don’t OK the machines they paid way too much for because of the poorly planed HAVA.

   Unless these machines can be adjusted to really and truly provide verified voting, option C is clearly the best of the above options. What a huge dilemma people, like Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson, are now facing thanks to the HAVA.

   If we believe in truth in advertising we must either really and truly verify the machine “counts” or rename HAVA the Hack American Vote Act. There is no need to change the initials.

2. 

   2)

   Larry Bergan said on 7/30/2006 @ 10:43pm PT: [Permalink]

   “Hack American Vote Act”

   That fits alright Bob! I wonder if any of the legislators of HAVA ever joked about that name behind our backs.

   Your plan is too logical. Your idea about the unique number, not sequential, that can be verified is a great idea! It would make this voter feel better about things.