BBV Robert Cringely on voting machines

[alfredo]

Glad to see he is still working on this.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040311.html

He comes up with a revelation:

"Then this week I heard from reader Jed Rothwell, fresh from a day working the polls as a voting clerk. Jed says in the case of Diebold machines at least, there was a printer inside already."


Now we see it is all a matter of interpretation of the law:

"The printer that Jed found is there because of that HAVA requirement for a paper trail. While the law calls for a paper receipt for every vote, Diebold interpreted this to mean a paper receipt for every VOTING MACHINE. Diebold would say they didn't interpret it this way, state and county election officials did, but there is substantial evidence to suggest the idea came originally from Diebold."


Well Go ahead and read his column and see what you think.

[RC]

1. The only way a paper record can work is if

when the voter is done, the voting machine prints out a human readable record that the voter can check and then on the way out, puts in another locked box, the way paper ballots are now.
Any other way is wide open to fraud.

[alfredo]

2. That was one of the options he

mentioned.

All in all, a good article.

[nodictators]

11. Cringley is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG with this...

"One receipt per machine is better than nothing. In theory it
would allow authorities to find vote tallies that were
changed after the receipt was printed (after the polls were
closed)."

As noted by the first poster, it is absolutely necessary that each and every voter SEE the printed receipt. Otherwise, the computer can just print fake results that agree with the final results.

Cringely's claim is worse than nothing: a false assurance that the vote counts are correct.

[Festivito]

3. The paper can be rendered useless.

People may look at their "receipt" and verify it.

But, if they pick it up do they see the previous person's votes?
If they don't pick it up, does it stay on the printer shelf?
What if they forget to pick it up, do they lose their vote in a recount?
What if some people walk out with their "receipt" what will a recount be?

It will be useless for the paper recount, and the insipid Republican mantra of "Everyone agrees..." will be followed by the fact that the paper ballots are worthless. Republicans will spin that into the paper ballots are the problem.

Republicans are the problem.

Readable ballots need to be optically scanned. Casting a vote should occur when a person turns in a ballot. (Not a two step: finish touch-screen, read and turn-in paper ballot) Bar-code technology would be easy to implement, printable at home, printable at a polling station printer, very tamper resistant, just still need random checks.

[alfredo]

4. The ballot is viewed under a glass window. The voter doesn't touch it

It goes right in to the ballot box.

[Festivito]

5. Thank you. nt.

[Eric J in MN]

7. The machines by Avante Internationl Technology, the Vote-Trakkers

The machines by Avante Internationl Technology, the Vote-Trakkers, have the printers behind glass.

Machines by other companies which produce paper ballots require the person to put the ballot in an evelope and hand it in.

There is also a machine by VoteHere in which there is a receipt, not a ballot, and people can take the receipt home and call a number to ask if their vote was counted correctly, based on a code. VoteHere machines DON'T allow for meaningful recounts. VoteHere could rig elections by telling people their vote was counted correctly but announcing any totals they feel like.

I like the Avanted machines much better than the VoteHere machines.

If I had my choice though, people would put an "X" in a box on piece of paper, and everyone who voted at a precinct could watch a hand-count.

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. Vote here is a ruse to take us to the internet

I don't trust a company with Defense ties and CIA ties. Would not be PRUDENT!

[RedEagle]

10. At Least With the Avante System....

...you can witness what is on the paper ballot, because the vote is written THERE, not in some program via the VoteHere system.

Anything that is not tangible can be manipulated.

Anything that never sees the light of day can be whatever the vote counters want it to be.

Anything that relies totally on a computer program can be corrupted, can have several "books" running in the background, and could only be audited by an elite few.

Even if the person who wrote the program was the most upstanding individual in the world, once the program leaves his hands, it's susceptible to all sorts of shenanigans.

And if VoteHere can give a "receipt" with a code on it, they can just as easily give the voter a paper ballot with the choices written so they can be read by the voter, and put in a ballot box for recounts and audits.

This is just another example of trying to placate people by giving them something- but nothing at the same time.

Why is is that they will do anything, anything but produce a voter verified paper ballot? Why will they spend so much money on PR and lobbying, when they very likely could have used the same money to outfit the country's non-voter verfied paper ballot touch screens with printers by now? How, in the face of all the evidence, past and present, can they keep maintaining that the systems are secure and accurate?

And when will people in counties and states with officials continually hawking the vendor corporate line, wake up and smell the manure? No matter how you package it, once you open it up, it still smells.

When will counties begin looking at the machines made by companies trying to do the right thing? Why is it that those machines get federally and state certified but are not considered by the states and counties for purchase? What amount of money is being spent to keep the real mcCoy OUT of circulation?

[Andy_Stephenson]

6. "the way paper ballots are now."

We should still call it a ballot.

Because it still is. Don't give the politicians and Voting Vendors wriggle room.

[alfredo]

9. True.

Picked up a copy of this month's Vanity Fair (April 2004)

As soon as I can wrestle it away from my SO, I will read the BBV article. Might even check out the Sharon Bush article.