{"id":5246,"date":"2007-11-04T20:00:40","date_gmt":"2007-11-05T03:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bradblog.com\/?p=5246"},"modified":"2007-11-04T20:00:40","modified_gmt":"2007-11-05T03:00:40","slug":"daily-voting-news-for-november-04-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=5246","title":{"rendered":"‘Daily Voting News’ For November 04, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

<\/a>Two elections so far this year and Cuyahoga Co Ohio is 0-2 in successful recounts. Both recounts were in small municipal elections and in both cases the recounted voter verified paper trail (vvpat) votes failed to match the official machine results. Why? Mistakes in counting? Not according to the county. The problem is that the vvpats are at times difficult and sometimes impossible to read. These vvpats along with audits of those vvpat ballots are supposed to be an acceptable solution to the problems with DREs. Cuyahoga Co is now concerned that they may have a close county-wide race that will require many days of trying to decipher what is on the vvpat tapes. Remember that in Ohio the vvpat is the vote of record in an audit so any damaged or unreadable ballots may be lost ballots and they could affect the results of an election. This, again, is proof that adding a vvpat printer to a DRE is like adding a seat belt to a Pinto. Let’s “Rage Against The Machines”\u009d and recall them all….<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n