CA: Many counties returning to paper ballots

[nicknameless]

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/14415363.htm

Many counties returning to paper ballots

By Chris Metinko
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

One of the first counties in the state to embrace electronic voting is headed back to paper -- and it's not the only one.

Alameda County residents going to the polls June 6 will be asked for the first time in five years to fill in ovals on paper ballots rather than casting their votes on costly touch-screen machines.

"It's a little bit of back to the future," joked Elaine Ginnold, the county's acting registrar of voters.

The decision to go back to paper stems from changes in state law that toughen requirements for touch-screen machines and render the county's equipment inadequate.

Merced and Plumas counties also will switch back to paper ballots. And earlier this week Los Angeles officials agreed to upgrade their current optical scan system that counts paper ballots instead of spending more than $100 million to buy a touch-screen system.

<snip>

The county purchased its now-outdated Diebold electronic voting system for $12 million in 2001. However, the equipment had glitches. Diebold eventually agreed in 2004 to pay the state and Alameda County $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that it made false claims when it sold its equipment to the county.

The settlement came after local and state officials found that Diebold had installed uncertified software in the county's touch-screen machines and that its system was vulnerable to computer hackers. County elections officials also found the system's vote-tabulating program gave several thousand absentee votes to the wrong candidate during the October 2003 gubernatorial recall election.

<snip>

[AX10]

1. What do we do keep this momentum going?

Also, will Bruce McPherson try to stop this and force DIEBOLD on the state?

[EFerrari]

3. Get to know your Board of Supervisors or town council.

Keep repeating the message.

Guv has great stuff that speaks to this question at his blog: www.guvwurld.org

And yes, McPherson will try to run right over us. Count on it.

[nicknameless]

5. I'm wondering about the effect of the 6th circuit court's BS decision

that opti-scan and punch card ballots are unconstitutional.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2585602

McPherson is a sleazy reich-winger, so I wouldn't put anything past him.

[hedda_foil]

7. The Sixth Circuit's ruling DOES NOT rule optiscans unconstitutional

The rhetoric on this is high but it is not justified at all. All that are banned are CENTRAL COUNT OP SCANS and ONLY WHEN the county does not have in place stringent procedures to physically check (and fix) all ballots for stray marks and votes the computer might not read. The ruling is NOT because they are opscans or because they use paper but because they have a very high residual vote rate -- meaning central count opscan systems lose a lot of votes that the voter hasn't had a chance to check for unintentional under/overvotes. Proper procedures, which are in place ALL OVER THE COUNTRY still allow for the use of central count op scans AND PRECINCT COUNT OP SCANS ARE NOT AFFECTED because they spit out overvotes so the voter can correct the problem.

There are many, many, many things to worry about when it comes to DRE's and electronic vote counting in general. This is a red herring.

[nicknameless]

8. THANK YOU!

I wasn't aware that the ruling against opti-scans was limited.
Thank you for posting that!

[FrannyD]

2. Good News

I live in Alameda County, I've been absenteeing.

[BeFree]

9. Hello, Franny! Welcome to the DU, ER.

I hate to tell you this, but as the OP states:

County elections officials also found the system's vote-tabulating program gave several thousand absentee votes to the wrong candidate during the October 2003 gubernatorial recall election.

In other words.... nobody is safe. Absentee votes were corrupted in 2003 and heaven knows about the rest of the time. At least you seem to have honest election officials?

Do you know anything about them? They look like heroes from where I sit.

[nicknameless]

11. Gee, I wonder which candidate was incorrectly awarded the thousands of

absentee votes during the October 2003 gubernatorial recall election.

:eyes:

[robinlynne]

15. And, absentee ballots are NOT included in the mandatory 2% audit.

absentee ballots are not safe either.

[FrannyD]

19. I know

I beleive the recall was fixed for sure. Too many coincidences for one.

[nofurylike]

4. outstanding! thank you for this news, nicknameless! may the trend

spread, FAST!!!

but then, using scanners to count is a huge problem, in itself.

it's sad it took till so late for the trend to start, because we also need to reform ballot-counting, for even paper ballots to be as fraud-proof as possible.

but it is MAJOR progress, this!


peace and solidarity!

[nicknameless]

13. What will happen when the e-voting vendors can't fulfill their contracts?

That so-called "train wreck" could have a silver lining, IMO.
Hopefully, we'll see even more Counties returning to paper ballots ... and then *honest* counting.

:patriot: :toast:

[nofurylike]

17. good point, nicknameless, that their own business practices -

that would be Fraud - will be, must be! their own "train wreck."

YES!!: "Hopefully, we'll see even more Counties returning to paper ballots ... and then *honest* counting."

thank you, again -

:patriot:

- for the inspirational news of this waking going on!

:toast:


peace and solidarity!

[Amaryllis]

6. "However, the equipment had glitches." there is that glitch word again.

[nicknameless]

10. They love that word. It sounds so innocuous.

"Nothing deliberate, let alone malicious, could possibly be going on."
"What are you going to do? Sue the computer? Fine it?"

They've created computers to do their dirty work, and pretend that all resulting problems are the computers' fault.
Too bad so many people believe them.

[Kurovski]

12. All in all, highly recommended. (nt)

[Stevepol]

14. K&R n/t

[Wilms]

16. Nice story, but watch for the malarkey in the final two paragraphs.

Nevertheless, even those who have been conservative in choosing the voting system their counties will use admit electronic voting is a likely part of future elections.

"We feel it has value and is accurate," said McCormack, who's own Los Angeles County has touch-screens for early voting. "Many of the people who use them love them. It's just the laws change too fast -- and it's a lot of money -- to commit to a system that may be unusable in a few years."

Conny? Conservative in choosing the voting system? Hardly. But the writing is on the wall.

Funny, too, that the article fails to mention the pending lawsuit that targets Diebold, and may well be expanded to challenge the other predators, er, vendors.


And Nick, your right about the train wreck's silver lining. Still, it ain't pretty.

[nicknameless]

18. Ugh! Conny McCormack, forever in love with the vote-stealing vendors

and their big-money bribes, uh, contributions. Here’s hoping that their demise takes Conny down with them.