Exclusive: Kellner: Stop Electronic Voting

[clear eye]

Source: The Gouverneur Times

by Nathan Barker

NEW YORK CITY - New York State Elections Board Co-Chair Doug Kellner testifed to the NY Senate last month that the state should "Stop talking about trying to go to electronic voting."

Mr. Kellner further stated that he has "advocated keeping the lever voting machines permanently." During his testimony, Kellner cited many problems in the State's "Pilot Program" for the electronic voting machines used in upstate NY during the Nov. 3rd, 2009 elections.

Doug Kellner stated in his testimony to the Senate that "The increased costs to the small counties can be very significant, maybe as much as doubling it," and that the costs to larger jurisdictions will increase annual elections budgets by 20-30%. ~snip~

It would be cheaper to abandon the electronic voting machines and repay the federal grant of $50,000,000 than it would be to keep the electronic machines. The Help America Vote Act does not require that NY State switch to electronic voting machines, it requires that there be a handicapped-accessible ballot marking device (BMD) in every polling location. NY already has compliant BMD's in every location.

Read more: http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9086:kellner-stop-electronic-voting&catid=60&Itemid=175

---

During the last election in NYS' 23rd CD, there were widespread instances of vote flipping--votes meant for one candidate assigned to another. Most of these had to be laboriously corrected by a canvass of the voters. It's still not clear that all precincts were properly corrected. The reason judges in Germany ruled to eliminate e-voting in their country, that votes are tabulated secretly inside the box, not in plain view of the public, or even of election officials, pertains here as well, according to Mr. Kellner.

However, it's the commissioners who will vote on whether to certify the machines. They are expected to do so tomorrow after the planned public hearing (or planned deafness). They can be emailed at [e-mail] To register a comment about certifying the voting machines put "Attn. Commissioners" in the subject line.

[chandler2]

1. Why won't DEMocrats ban them? nt

[BeFree]

2. Hey

The dems won that election. They may have stolen it with the e-voting machines. Maybe we ought to just be quiet about this? That way we can steal more elections?


?sarcasm/

[sui generis]

3. we can have voting machines but we should definitely make

the election governance boards of each democratic state as partisan as possible.

Just like they did to us!

Odd that GWB had a million votes in Texas for him as governor against Ann Richards, but nothing else checked for any other office candidate on those first year election electronic ballots . . . .

That family should be rounded up and deported to an igloo at the north pole . . . with no oars or boat.

[brooklynite]

4. Let's deal with this issue realistically...

If you don't like the ballot scanners being considered by the BOE, fine, but don't simply fall back to "keep the lever machines":

-- they're old (some more than 40 years), and they have a tendancy to break

-- they're not designed to address ADA needs, which HAVA (however you feel about it) requires

-- while they can't be "hacked", their vote counts can be "supplemented" (I started out as a Ward Committee member in Philly; and believe me, a good pol could ring up a dozen extra votes on the machine inside of a minute); at which point you have to either accept or reject the entire machine's count.

So if you want a mechanical lever machine, find a company that can manufacture a new one (nobody's building one today that I'm aware of) or propose an alternative.

The bottom line for NYC is currently:

-- The machines have to be changed

-- 100% of votes would be on paper ballots.

-- Whatever the result of the scan tally, 100% of the paper ballots would be retained for recount. If you're concerned about accuracy, push for a required manual verification of sample of all machines. That's what I plan to propose at the Public Hearing.

[clear eye]

5. Read the article, or at least read the OP

WHAT is more "realistic" about spending double the money on election equipment maintenance and use during these desperate fiscal times?

WHAT is more "realistic" about installing machines that seem to inevitably give questionable results that require expensive canvassing to resolve?

The ADA requirement has been met w/ ballot marking devices.

All the above was included in the OP.

A brilliant statistician and mathematician, Howard Stanislevic until a few months ago advocated rigorous audits and op scanners. After something like 2 years of working w/ others to determine how much of an audit would both guarantee accurate results and be practical enough to carry out, he and his colleagues decided there was no such formula. They now support retaining the lever machines.

As for breaking down, the proposed electronic voting machines have failure rates dozens of times higher than the lever machines. A few more volunteer observers at the polls, or a little more security (less than would be needed to guarantee that no one substitutes a card on the op-scan machines) would prevent "supplementing votes" on the lever machines. It would be easier to catch b/c there is no legitimate reason for anyone to go around to the back of a lever machine, but switching a card on an op-scanner can be done from a normal location, or even by company maintenance personnel during a "repair" of the frequently breaking down machines.

The driving force for certifying the e-machines as far as I can tell is the desire for kickback campaign donations relating to the various contracts for purchase, storage, and maintenance of the new machines. Since SCOTUS is expected soon to rule that all corporate campaign donations are protected political "speech", the floodgates are expected to open and many are positioning themselves to be on the lucrative side. Few other contracts will be as large.

Finally,I ask especially, WHAT is more "realistic" about not knowing whether any of the people seated in office were actually elected? Unless you feel democracy is optional.

I don't think you or anyone else should advocate setting something up that would guarantee endless, widespread repetitions of the recent NY-23rd CD election outcome.

[MarjorieG]

8. Levers have not been maintained, but they are an observable, tarnbsparent means of voting. Having

paper ballots is merely a placebo if we don't count them, and we won't. Remember mechanical levers were introduced to stop paper fraud; lots of unaffordable procedure is required to try to make electronics safe and accurate, which can't and won't be done.

HAVA does not require we replace the levers, and certainly not when we have a superior technology we can afford to operate.

I work with Teresa Hommel. Have I worked with you in any of the e-voting issue? We tried to stop DREs with Op-Scan, but at this time, it's folly to go to PBOS. States have been fiscally burdened and closed poll sites, going to mail-in. We are now trying ever more and more risk, leaving the sanctity of the vote behind.

[Wilms]

9. You're misinformed.

And you ought to know better having been through this a few times. Stop abusing DUers with your disinfo.

Point by point:

--scanners don't break?

--HAVA requires that levers be accessible...or the voting system??

--how fast can a ballot box be stuffed??

--who says you need to manufactur new machine?? Now that you've finally got it that parts are available you shift to a new line of BS?

--how do you get a recount in NY??

Quit misinforming.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. the story is incorrect

Kellner didn't testify that the state should stop talking about going to electronic voting. He testified that "for many years I advocated keeping the lever voting machines permanently and to stop talking about trying to go to electronic voting." Past tense.

I prefer stories that get the lede right.

[clear eye]

7. I reread the story and some of the commentary.

They did take a few shortcuts to conveying Kellner's stance. When you read the transcript it's clear that what he says is that he prefers the levers but since NYS took $50M in HAVA money, the courts are after NY to implement the e-voting machines. He doesn't raise the option of returning the money and keeping the levers. Others have.

[VoteForCantwell]

10. E-Voting is Dangerous

We have enough voter fraud in America as it is without computers coming into play. I'm an IT professional and I am almost always in favor of computerizing things in the name of efficiency, but knowing a thing or two about computer security, and the nature politics, this is a revolting idea to me.

In 2009 in Suffolk County, the Libertarian Party ran candidates for Treasurer, District Attorney, and Sheriff. Our petitions were challenged in court, and tossed on a technicality, we still ran a write in campaign. I personally know a number of people who wrote in their votes for these three positions, myself included, but I may never know how many votes we actually got, because the votes were not counted.

http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/boe/eleres/09ge/suffoff.htm

Sure you could say we wouldn't have won anyway so why count them, my only answer is "Not if you don't count our votes!"

This was with lever voting machines.

The corruption in the political system, combined with the efficiency of electronic voting, will only lead to more efficient corruption!