How many years of service are expected from OpScanners, BMDs, and DREs?

[Wilms]

Many of these systems are already costing more than was previously spent running elections. And that's despite the one-time bribe so many fell for that paid for the initial installation.

But there's running these machines, and then there's replacing them. (gulp)

How many years?

[diva77]

1. I was once told by an elections official that the machines were only supposed to last 3 to 5 years

[Wilms]

2. Hmmm. I wonder how many jurisdiction might opt for HCPB come replacement time.

Smaller counties, ones that may have only recently switched from Hand Counts might be obvious candidates.

Three to five years? That's gonna a leave mark. x(

[Yellow Horse]

3. None. Absolutely zero.

The election officials I know would prefer swallowing splintered glass shards while gouging their own eyes out with red hot pokers to going back to hand-counted paper ballots.

Even in the tiniest counties.

If there is no money to replace the present machines (especially DRES) with voter-marked paper ballots and optical scanners, you will see the vendors move in fast with a handy-dandy, affordable solution -- Internet Voting. I am sure they are licking their chops already, even as we speak.

Mark my words. And when it's too late, remember what I said when the horrors of Internet Voting make even you wish you could go back in time and support the Holt bill for paper ballots and optical scanners.

[Wilms]

4. Then let's see an affadavit from one of them claiming that.

The histrionics are uncalled for.

And how much worse is internet voting than what you already sell the public? Folk like you continue to advocate the use of computers to count votes even though you've had plenty of time to consider the delivered warnings that nowhere in the country is anyone performing audits likely to catch an incorrect outcome.

So you, in particular, concerned about internet voting sure seems like "crocodile tears" to me.

[Yellow Horse]

5. I'm not selling anything. You are.

You are selling a method of casting and counting votes that is so fraud-prone it was gotten rid of in most areas over 100 years ago.

No I am absolutely not going to go and bother any election directors to sign an affidavit that they don't want to go back to hand-counted paper ballots. They (and I) have better things to do with our time than feed your ego.

If you really want the truth, go ask election directors yourself if they want hand-counted paper ballots. In fact, if you are such a great election reform activist you should have been doing that long ago. So how many election directors have you asked? How many said yes, they want to go to hand-counted paper?? How many jurisdictions have you gotten to actually switch to HCPB??? Bring us an affidavit that even ONE election director happily wants hand counted paper ballots. Please. Just one.

In the meantime, you can call my opinion histrionics or crocodile tears or even uncalled-for or whatever. But as I said before, I still contend that what is uncalled for is the posts that continually turn this once-productive forum into an echo chamber for crap. And the fact that if anyone posts anything other than lever machines or HCPB they get blasted. As I said the other day, no wonder so many productive people have left or if they check this board at all they just lurk.

I'm getting tired of the denial of service on this board. So I will say it -- I am supporting the one sane bill that will replace all those DRES that are getting worn out, will get us voter-marked paper ballots into every precinct in this country, and will stop Internet voting in its tracks. Yes, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, AKA the Holt bill (although Congressman Holt has proposed many decent election bills in addition to that one.) Current bill number H.R. 2894.

Oh, and BTW, H.R. 2894 actually ALLOWS for 100% hand-counting of the paper ballots with an approved audit plan. So if it passes you can still work for the hand-counted paper YOU are selling, and if you are lucky (and a good salesman) maybe you will get it. But I'd bet my life it won't be anywhere I know of.

Good Luck. (You'll need it.)

[Wilms]

8. Oh my. More misleading posting.

First, while I can appreciate your desire to mislead people about what I advocate, those who post or lurk know where I stand. So don't pester me with questions best asked another.

Besides, I believe that there was a little new-fangled computer trouble leading to some ol' time hand-counting on a-kind-of-an emergency basis during that ill-designed 2009 pilot in NY that made even Bo Lipari blush (a little).

More misleading from you: "And the fact that if anyone posts anything other than lever machines or HCPB they get blasted." No one gets blasted advocating OpScans over DREs. But many lament the replacement of levers or HCPB with the money-sucking inadequately-audited computerized vote counting (sic) you advocate. It's really that simple.

And try to not hijack the thread even more by bringing up Holt. How many iterations of his bill before he figured out internet connection of EMS's was a bad idea? Nah. The only reason you're hot on Holt is the lever ban.

But in fact I have a reasoned concern about hcpb potential for fraud. But it's not the hand-count that worries me as much as the paper ballot itself. And THAT's exactly why it was, like you wrote, "gotten rid of in most areas over 100 years ago" and replaced with lever voting machines.

Now you come along and want to bring back paper ballots en-masse AND count them with computers? A double whammy. ANY question about ballot security forces reliance on computer counts. Very bad.

Boss Tweed would envy it.

[Yellow Horse]

9. Don't blame me; you hijacked your own thread by bringing up HCPB. It started out as a question...

...about how long various voting machines would last. Which was actually a very interesting subject.

Then, predictably, you jumped into your own thread to advocate for HCPB and now Bill Bored has started again on his levers. Well guess what.... the levers are gone. And since you chose to bring up HCPB as a solution to the aging voting machines (the original subject), then I'm going to say that I happen to think H.R. 2894 is a much better and more realistic solution to the problem. As do a lot of people who no longer post here in your echo chamber.

HCPB and levers....HCPB and levers...HCPB and levers... HCPB and levers... You bash Bo Lipari (why was he even brought up in this thread?) and you bash me and you bash anybody who isn't for HCPB or levers. Basically it's you two posters (except for the Voting News by WYVBC and an occasional passer-by) in this nice big hollow hall you have emptied out for yourself.

Boss Tweed might envy me, but I think he would hire you.

[Wilms]

10. If I followed what happened:

I posted a question about longevity (and thereby cost) of e-voting, and opined that some small jurisdictions might consider HCPB as an option.

This led you to bash me for any appreciation I have for inexpensive, non-computerized methodology, and misrepresent what I advocate.

So how is that audit improvement effort going?

[Yellow Horse]

13. And then I suggested H.R. 2894 the Holt Bill as a better option for replacing worn out machines....

...and you accused me of "misleading posting" and hijacking your thread by mentioning my own opinion instead of agreeing with yours.

Which leads me to opine that only posts supporting HCPB or lever machines are allowed here anymore by the self-proclaimed keepers of this board.

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. smile

What you say: "Well guess what.... the levers are gone."

What some hear: "I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too!"

FWIW, I think it really is strange to go after Wilms for HCPB advocacy, when he has been as vigorous as anyone in criticizing the HCPB hard core.

The lever discussions here careened right past strangely intense to surreal. I used to think that I have virtually infinite patience for psychodrama, but I've learned that that isn't remotely true. I'm curious what the forum will be like at this time next year.

[Wilms]

14. In fact, there are a number of people who ARE out to replace levers with computers.

The position staked out by NYVV includes their idea that levers are inferior to OpScan. Lipari, and at least Wanda Berry as well have said as much. Yellow Horse seems aligned with their point of view.

So are the vendors.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. yes, many people think so

Some people love the levers, some people hate them. At this point, I'm starting to feel a bit desperate to get rid of the levers just so we can argue about something else -- although I suspect that is wishful.

So are the vendors.

That could have something to do with the conspicuous, umm, paucity of (1) lever machine vendors and (2) markets for such vendors.

[Bill Bored]

16. But those who hate levers offer no viable alternative; they just hate levers.

They will be happy when they have paper ballots, counted by computers, with no effective method by law or regulation to verify their election results.

They will stick their heads in the sand and get back to their lives, confident in the fact that they've marked their paper ballots, and will leave the vote-counting up to someone else.

That's irresponsible, and maybe just plain stupid.

Perhaps they think some solution will magically emerge, but history has shown that there is a distaste on the part of most election officials for both hand counts and second-guessing their machinery, on which they've spent millions of our taxpayer dollars.

Trusting machinery may be appropriate when it's simple and observable, but now the machinery is complex and opaque and no one seems to have noticed the change -- least of all the lever-haters. With all we know about computer crime, they still insist that levers are just mechanical DREs.:wtf:

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. ah, the world according to Bill

I think your post is a cheap shot, and adds nothing to the discussion. In your defense, I doubt that you can imagine anyone actually disagreeing with you on the merits.

[Bill Bored]

18. If you mean I can't think of a good argument to have mostly unaudited computers running elections...

...you're right!

But I'm more than happy to let others try to make that case.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. shrug

If that means that it is beyond your capacity to understand Bo Lipari's position, then I think that is a shame. But I don't think any of this drama has much bearing on what will happen next in New York.

[Bill Bored]

21. It's not a lack of understanding at all. A lot of people in NY just don't agree with Bo Lipari. nt

[Wilms]

20. Why is it a cheap shot? Because it's so obvious?

Well, obvious to some. But I'm missing why it's cheap.

And if I've misinterpreted Lipari, I'm open to a better understanding of the issue. (I'm not an organization with a mission statement, so if I'm wrong about something, I'm free to correct it.)

I figured he was pro-opscan because he was anti-DRE. But then he claimed to be anti-lever, too. And while he agrees that auditing is really important, I'm not clear that he has really said or done much with regard to the 3% fixed audit in NY. That ain't enough. I know it. You know it. And Bo??? Well he's pushing OpScan.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. you may need to review the thread

Who is disputing that Lipari supports op-scan?

[Wilms]

23. I admit I don't follow.

And I best study other things today.

If you can answer the question directly, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise...

[Bill Bored]

7. It's the replacement of lever machines with computers that let the camel's nose under the tent.

Internet voting is just the latest manifestation of counting votes with computers. It's been inevitable since the first time a lever machine was replaced by a computer.

Op Scan came right after punch cards, and by then it was already too late to stop it.

As you say, no one wants to do hand counts. Yet hand counts are the ONLY way to know that the scanners, DREs, or Internet(s) counted the paper ballots correctly, or even if the right persons won the elections.

Doesn't that BOTHER YOU? It sure as hell bothers me.

So if you admit that no one wants to do hand counts, and you claim they are subject to fraud anyway, the only logical solution for a state such as NY is to keep its lever voting system.

As for the other states that replaced levers with computers as long ago as the 1960s, hey man, that's their problem! It's not like Roy Saltman and others haven't been pointing out the need to do a proper audit since the 1970s. But it's clear that no one paid any attention to them, and still won't, because a proper audit means significant amounts of hand counting, which, as you say, nobody wants to do. Of course, disco still sucks too!

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. I wonder which machines those were

Optical scanners for voting have been around for a while, so we should know something about the longevity of various models -- not the latest ones, of course.

[Bill Bored]

6. Op scanners: 1000 Years! DREs: 163 Hours. BMDs: Who knows?

Oh wait, they're all allowed to fail after 163 hours. That's in the 2005 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines. So I guess it's an exaggeration to say that op scanner will last 1000 years. Who would have thought such a thing was possible -- exaggerating the "benefits" of an e-vote-counting system?