{"id":5630,"date":"2008-01-30T20:00:43","date_gmt":"2008-01-31T04:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bradblog.com\/?p=5630"},"modified":"2008-01-31T02:32:29","modified_gmt":"2008-01-31T10:32:29","slug":"daily-voting-news-for-january-30-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=5630","title":{"rendered":"‘Daily Voting News’ For January 30, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

<\/a>Florida’s primary is essentially over. There will still be some ballots to be counted, but the last election on the state’s DREs is complete. There were some reports of problems scattered around the state. Election officials and the media were pretty successful in minimizing the reports. However, there was one small graf in one article that jumped out at me. The county clerk in Volusia County had announced that they were going to have to recount one early voting precinct because the Diebold Optical-Scan used in that precinct had not counted 4 ballots. They are doing this, according to the report, because Diebold\/Premier had sent counties in Florida an advisory<\/a> that the machines used in those counties may stop with a ballot partially fed through. Those ballots are not being counted when this happens. My first reaction was, “How many other states\/counties that use the Diebold AccuVote OS v. 1.94w have gotten this advisory?”\u009d This is the same system used in New Hampshire and many other Northeast jurisdictions as well as various counties across the nation. Why don’t vendors of these machines recall them when there is a problem like this? Who should be responsible to ensure the word is put out that there is a problem and ensure the problem is solved? …<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n