{"id":5470,"date":"2007-12-21T20:00:43","date_gmt":"2007-12-22T04:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bradblog.com\/?p=5470"},"modified":"2008-01-31T13:23:10","modified_gmt":"2008-01-31T21:23:10","slug":"daily-voting-news-for-december-21-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=5470","title":{"rendered":"‘Daily Voting News’ For December 21, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

<\/a>Just in late this afternoon, a typical-bad-news-on-a-late-Friday-after-the-news-week-is-complete, is the news that OH Secretary of State Brunner has ignored the statements of every person who spoke before the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. She has decided that the county must change voting systems and voting system vendors before the primary election, which is March 4, with early voting beginning in a little over a month. ES&S will be given the contract. <\/p>\n

Two more states have begun to look at the results of testing of voting systems and they are answering questions of the media. In both cases, Nevada and Louisiana election officials told the same story. Yes, they use the same machines and the machines have the same problems BUT they have administrative methods that make the findings from Ohio and Colorado inconsequential. Of course, both states have the same, or nearly the same, administrative methods as both Ohio and Colorado and the methods described in the media would not have any impact on the insecure, inaccurate and inaccessible voting systems in use.<\/p>\n

Speaking of inaccessibility of voting systems; why has no one yet stood-up and reminded these states that their reports say the machines do not meet HAVA requirements? Why is this being ignored?<\/p>\n

All of those stories, and many more, linked below as usual…<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n