NY is Keeping Lever Voting Machines for Another Year (and it's about time)!

[Bill Bored]

Rady Ananda: NY Loves Its Levers as New Systems Fail

Snips here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x504999

Full story here:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/NY-Loves-Its-Levers-as-New-by-Rady-Ananda-080701-173.html

[Renew Deal]

1. Most people will be happy with that.

Our machines work.

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. Not if you're poor or minority. Shame on all of you who think it's good for me

So it's good enough.

[Renew Deal]

3. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I've been at some of the public meetings about this stuff. I've seen a public demo with all the options. I've spoken at public meetings at the leg. I've been at community meetings about this. I've talked to the commissioner of the board of elections in my area. What ends up being the bottom line? "Why can't we keep our current machines?" "They work" "Why do we need to change?"

[Bill Bored]

5. Read the Op Ed piece! It's not the usual left wing propaganda!

(Not that there's anything wrong with that!)

This is a well-researched article with lots of current documentation on "HAVA-compliant" voting system failures, in New York, right now!

And there's a new one on BradBlog too:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6067

The HAVA (and pre-HAVA) voting scam is finally getting some attention thanks to the efforts of the citizens of NY! (Well, some of us anyway. Perhaps Ms. Weinberg would be more comfortable in FLORIDA voting on their unaudited optical scanners! Oh, but then there's the humidity! Never mind.)

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. There are no unauditable optical scanners, only local pols who would abuse

any system. But if you drank Bev Harris' kool-aid, you'll still be bitter.

[Wilms]

15. There are no large scale lever machine attacks available to local pols who would abuse any system.

And Bev's got nothing to do with this, so drop the brush and the bucket of smear.

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. Our current machines have no paper trail and if you try after signing

the register, your paper ballot won't be counted. So, go back to your board of elections and ask ... it's a scandal we don't care about because it's always in the same powerless neighbhorhoods.

[Renew Deal]

8. What powerless neighborhoods?

It's the entire state. The machines are very reliable. Especially compared to the elecronic machines. Is it possible to rig the machines? Sure, but it's a lot less possible than electronic machines and even paper balloting.

Look at the article posted. We just don't have the problems that other states do because of the machines we use. Also, we use the same machine in every county in the state. The uniformity has been helpful.

I suppose you want to move to a diebold machine with a paper receipt. But there's no guarantee that the machine will record and tabulate the vote correctly, even if the receipt matches the will of the voter. It's not really possible to rig one of the mechanical machines. Also, they are much easier to use than many of the computerized machines.

[Fredda Weinberg]

9. Sorry, but tens of thousands of ballots aren't counted every election

Because if you sign the ballot and the machine doesn't work, you're SOL. Look it up. And it's depressingly familiar ... the machines that are known to be defective go into poor and ethnic neighborhoods. YMMV ... the system may work for you ... but in the mayoral runoff of 2001, it was toxic.

[Renew Deal]

10. So you're right and the majority of voters in NY are wrong?

OK

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. The majority of voters aren't paying attention. What's your excuse?

Roberto Ramirez, a key Ferrer adviser and the Bronx Democratic Party chairman, released a statement late in the day accusing the Green campaign of ''a blatant effort to suppress the voting rights of many New York Democrats who participated in last Thursday's mayoral runoff election.''

Mr. Ramirez said that he had reports of Green campaign workers pressuring Board of Elections staff to invalidate paper ballots in the Bronx. Mr. Ramirez later explained that, according to those monitoring the validation process for the Ferrer campaign, election workers were invalidating paper ballots, mostly from low-income and minority neighborhoods, that had been filled out by voters who said that the machines did not work or by those who were in the wrong poll site.

In response, Joe DePlasco, a spokesman for Mr. Green, said, ''Once again, Roberto Ramirez is trying to mislead New Yorkers into thinking that something wrong happened with last Thursday's election,'' and added, ''In fact, as the chair of the Bronx Democratic Party, Mr. Ramirez controls the appointment of half of the Bronx Board of Elections employees who decide whether an affidavit is valid or not.''

The spat began over the weekend as election officials disclosed that the unofficial tally in last Thursday's runoff had been wrong by tens of thousands of votes. Mr. Green has maintained that he won the Democratic nomination, while Mr. Ferrer has withdrawn his concession.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DF173EF934A25753C1A9679C8B63

[Renew Deal]

12. Thank you for proving my point.

Mechanical machines are more secure than paper or computers.

I'm paying attention. That's why I know you're wrong.

[Fredda Weinberg]

13. Proving what point? Those votes are gone ... what security exists

when there's no paper trail?

[Wilms]

14. What security exists when there is a so called paper trail, as in your excuse, er, example?

:shrug:

[Nite Owl]

4. This is great news!

I'd hate to give up the levers and proud that we fought this in NY.