{"id":6069,"date":"2008-06-12T19:30:16","date_gmt":"2008-06-13T02:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bradblog.com\/?p=6069"},"modified":"2008-06-13T07:31:13","modified_gmt":"2008-06-13T14:31:13","slug":"daily-voting-news-for-june-12-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bradblog.com\/?p=6069","title":{"rendered":"‘Daily Voting News’ For June 12, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

<\/a>Voting systems are tested for federal certification by a “Voting Systems Test Lab”\u009d (VSTL) against the voting systems standards. So, one would expect, if a voting system fails to meet the standards it fails testing and cannot be certified. One would expect. However, the voting systems standards give the vendors and the VSTLs an out. B.5 of Appendix B of Volume II of the 2002 VSS and the 2005 VVSG says, “\u2026.any uncorrected deficiency that does not involve the loss or corruption of voting data shall not necessarily be cause for rejection.”\u009d A Premier voting system was recently recommended for certification by Systest, one of the VSTLs. In the test report Systest reported 79 discrepancies. 77 of those discrepancies were serious but fell within the B.5 “get out of jail free card.”\u009d Two of the 79 were serious discrepancies that report loss of data and are not covered by the “get out of jail free card.”\u009d Yet the system was recommended for certification and the EAC is considering following that recommendation. (See article immediately below)…<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n