Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
A Sequoia VP told Riverside Co., California, officials that the company may be willing to discuss a rebate or credit if state or federal regulators decertify their equipment. May be willing? The county, like every county that has purchased these machines, needs to demand its money (our tax money) back from the vendors. Sequoia sold its machines as being accessible. They aren’t accessible as proven by the California “Top-To-Bottom†review. The company sold its machines as meeting the voting systems standards. As proven by the source code review team, Sequoia uses banned software components. May be willing? If Sequoia misrepresented its system at any time to those who were spending our money, then Sequoia needs to give our money back or go to court and prove that it hasn’t misrepresented its product. And the other vendors need to do the same in other counties across the nation. Meanwhile, KY has discovered that machines used in their largest county were not state certified; more on the retirement of Conny McCormack; and the four major vendors are dragging their feet in providing information to Colorado that is necessary to allow the state to do court mandated inspections….
Plaintiffs Applaud California Secretary of State’s Recent Action on Voting Systems
Case Challenging The Use of Diebold Electronic Voting Machines Is Withdrawn LINK
Conny McCormack says the recent decision by the secretary of state to decertify several electronic voting machines played into her decision. LINK
Politics: Decision was influenced by touch-screen voting debate. LINK
BALLOTS: Supervisors, angry that they can’t use their not-too-old touch screens, want more for their money. LINK
When is a recount not a recount? LINK
**”Daily Voting News” is meant as a comprehensive listing of reports each day concerning issues related to election and voting news around the country regardless of quality or political slant. Therefore, items listed in “Daily Voting News” may not reflect the opinions of VotersUnite.Org or BradBlog.Com**
John, I hope you stay on top of this taxpayer rip-off aspect of this voting machine/HAVA debacle. Think of all the productive ways we could use this money to ensure that every voter’s vote is counted and is counted accurately. Thank-you.
Yes, how about paper ballots and an Election Jury? For the first time you heard it here on Bradblog.
An Election Jury is like a grand jury, except they only sit during election day, and thru any recounts or audits thereafter until the counting is finished.
Like a grand jury, they would be called up just before an election, and would sit in each county or precinct.
They would oversee the casting, storing, and counting of the paper ballots. It would be composed of a bi-partisan number of registered voters.
Any ideas?
Now, there’s a little more government I could get with Dredd! I’ve been trying to think of ways to get people to do this voluntarily, but going about it that way would ensure it would be done. I think its a great idea! Its funny to me you suggested it because I just got called for federal jury duty.
Ancient #3
I did my jury duty about a month ago.
Lets spread the word about an election jury. I think the notion could “develop legs”.
One other characteristic for the election jury. Like other jury duty, those who serve on the election jury would satisfy their jury duty requirements just as if they had served on a regular court jury.
That is, they can’t be called again, unless they consent, for a year or so. You know, rest.