Can anyone tell me how trustworthy is the Sequoia-AVC Edge II ?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

I heard we don't have to worry about these machines but I have trouble believing that. Thanks for any info - having trouble finding what Im looking for (dirt) ;)

[Botany]

1. you might look here

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/everest/00-SecretarysEVERESTExecutiveReport.pdf


if not pmail me and might be able to help.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

2. thank you! I'll do some studying... nt

[Wilms]

3. Whoever said there's no need to worry is unfamiliar with the situation.

Even assuming the machine behaves perfectly, what about the ballot programming for each election?

A "software independent" audit (hand count) that's statistically significant is needed for any result to be trusted.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

4. I agree with you - trying to find evidence to present

Thank you!

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. California TTBR

http://midtown-west.com/papers/sequoia.pdf (you can probably find a better link), especially pp. 62-68, although I don't know if all those findings apply to the Edge II.

Of course it's axiomatically wrong that "we don't have to worry about these machines."

See also http://w2.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/infosheets2006/SequoiaAVCEdge.pdf (covers both Edge I and Edge II).

[eowyn_of_rohan]

6. Thank you, OTOH, for these links! -nt

[Ellipsis]

7. The only approved trustworthy solution for the Wisconsin for the handicapped is Vote Pad

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70036

[Ellipsis]

8. Some stuff from Brad

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2628

[Yellow Horse]

9. Can't believe we are even discussing this... all DREs are BAD!!

Then there's the infamous yellow button on the Edge.... push it and vote as many times as you want!

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/02/18325809.php

I'd like to know who told you this crap, that you don't have to worry about these machines. Because it is TOTAL CRAP.

Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines -- any of them, including the Edge -- are NO DAMN GOOD for anything but stealing elections.

[Ellipsis]

10. The state of Wisconsin has aproved them for voting for the handicapped... not her.

[Wilms]

11. Hey Ellipsis, I think the term "disabled" is the one you want to use.

Just a friendly note. :hi:

[Ellipsis]

12. Thanks... I live to learn and I certainly have here.

:toast:

[Yellow Horse]

13. The correct term is "people with disabilities" and these machines are NOT accessible for them.

These folks want to be, and should be, considered as PEOPLE first. The fact that they have a disability is secondary.

The vendors sold everyone snake oil, promising but not really providing private and independent voting for people with disabilities that the Help America Vote Act requires.

The screen of most DREs cannot be reached from a wheelchair, however many people who use wheelchairs write normally and easily COULD hand-mark a paper ballot if one was available to them.

Most DREs have ZERO provisions for people with manual dexterity issues. Even the audio voting provided for voters with low vision (or blind) is so poorly implemented that it is unusable in a lot of cases. For anyone who cannot write or read normally, there are ballot markers that were specifically designed to accommodate multiple disabilities. These are much better than DREs.

To add insult to injury, stupid vendors like ES&S have the gall to call their DREs "ADA compliant." These DREs are neither compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, nor HAVA. But we had DRE-shills like Jim Dickson of the American Association of People With Disabilities still pimping for DREs after receiving big donations from Diebold.

It's a disgrace. People who have disabilities deserve SO much better when it comes to voting.

[Ellipsis]

15. I always just called them by their name.

I had a few clients with MS or "people with disabilities"... I've never looked them differently, except they're usually more grounded.

[Wilms]

16. Thanks YH.

:hi:

[Bill Bored]

17. DREs are bad, but the same software counts paper ballots and the results are rarely confirmed. nt

[benld74]

14. Ehh, just how far can ya spit???

[GETPLANING]

18. It's not so much the machines

as it is the network the machines are on. The most common hack is called "man in the middle" where the data leaving the machine is intercepted and restacked before sending it to the tabulators. It takes milliseconds and is practically undetectable. Statistical analysis is the only way to determine if a hack has taken place and even then it's just a statistical analysis until a complete forensic analysis is done. Getting to the forensic analysis is the hard part because legal teams from the GOP will fight tooth and nail to prevent it.