‘Daily Voting News’ For September 20, 2007

7 Responses

1. Regarding:
   >NAtional: Response to ITIF Voting Report
   >http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1202

   I also have a response:
   http://allaboutvoting.com/2007/09/20/summary-of-itif%e2%80%99s-evoting-report/

2. John, your position RE: “What is more important; verified accurate elections or results reported on election night?” makes sense. Instant results are not as important as accurate results.

   The exit poll practices have been incredibly accurate, and those could be used for general purposes. And counting would, if history is to be considered, in most cases follow the exit polls.

   Only where there is discrepancy would the outcome be in real audit mode where further re-count might be necessary. Anyway, if the reporting is done carefully, people would understand the reported figures were not final (until after recounts were completed).

3. John, there is something serious shaping up that might have an effect on election economics.

4. John, your simply the best. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

5. “What is more important; verified accurate elections or results reported on election night?”

   Most folks let this question go right by. This is because of the corporate media and peer pressure. We all want results fast. But the reality that is not being reported is that to allow those results to be certified so quickly without oversight (since you can’t see electrons inside those boxes that do the counting) is what has destroyed America.

   You please note that I say destroyed America in the past tense.

   I don’t know exactly when America was destroyed, was it the patriot act? Habias Corpus? Or when down in San Diego they flew the candidate in by jet and swore him in before the votes were even counted? Was it bombing Iraq? You tell me. But you know that it IS destroyed now. Will it be personal economics for you to talk about America being destroyed in the past tense? Or maybe your Constitutional right to vote being removed was enough?

   On the other hand, the oath of office breakers would rather have results on election night, so they can assume power, and start screwing things up.

   Q: The question is who do you vote for?

   A #1: Oath Of Office Breakers (you want electronics)

   A #2: Folks who have integrity and will defend the constitution? (you want paper ballots+public oversight, and public financed elections)

   Bonus Question: Where are the worst vulnerabilities in the Optical Scan Machines?

   a. The Paper?
   b. Trusting electronics to count electronically the results?

   My answer is: if all you want to do is get results in early treat the optical scan like an exit poll. BUT officially count the paper ballots for the certified result. And do not swear in a candidate to an office until the results are certified. and in cases where the electronics have not been removed, then leave open the option of removing a sworn in candidate.

   AND…
   if a candidate swears an oath and breaks that oath, automatic life in prison. I don’t want my public officials to feel comfortable, they should know it’s a privilege to serve the people, not some cracked electronic voting machine that tabulates the results mathematically saying that they are god of the United States.

6. The problem is the same people who are casting suspicion and derision on the Electronic machines are the same people who demanded them after the 2000 Florida Ballot fiasco.
   If Gore or Kerry had won, would you then be a fan of Electronic Voting, or would you still be claiming fraud and tampering?
   Electronic Voting is a derivative of ATM technology…and you don’t see anyone claiming the banks are stealing their money via the machines (well, except for those outragous fees).
   While I saw the video of the guy hacking the machine, what is not remarked upon is that to get to the machine he would have to have broken Govt seals and opened the machine in public. Surely that would get attention. In addition the broken seals would alert the Registrar of Voters that something was up. So while ANY computer is hackable, the construction of the case prevents someone from geting to the computer in the first place to effect the hack.

7. KellyJ

   That’s a lot of water to carry. Let me help you to get rid of a bit of it.

   I’m not sure who you think demanded paperless DREs in 2000 but none of the EI Advocates I know demanded them. In fact, most of us knew that the problem in Florida was not the punch-card system but the punch-cards and the machines themselves. We never asked for DREs as a replacement for punch-cards.

   Not many in the EI community ever mention tampering because there is no proof that it has ever happened. However, we discuss accuracy and reliability all the time. Lack of both can be proved a thousand times over.

   ATM machines are accurate and reliable. They provide a “voter verified paper audit trail”. If they were as bad as voting machines the banks would all be closed. And, by the way, you never see the printer on an ATM jam or not work like we see on voting machines.

   Your last graf shows that you are carrying one bucket of water too many. Those are statements direct from vendors and their paid cronies. The security concern is NOT a voter breaking into a machine at the polls. The concern is with insiders. How many voting machines are sent home with poll workers? They have overnight to two weeks to play with the machines. The concern is with election ‘insiders’.

   It’s too bad you commented on a blog that is 15 blogs behind so your comments, and this response, are hidden.