From Pam Smith of Verified Voting:
VerifiedVoting posted a review about the Conditional Certification,
and one of the points we made was that it was unconscionable to
have failed to include a moratorium on new purchases among the
conditions. No jurisdiction should be allowed to spend new money
on something that only has conditional certification--it doesn't make
any sense, especially given what they know about the system. See:
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6339 The last three or four paragraphs provide one possible response to
your question.
But there are other issues that Alameda County should keep in
mind while considering their options. For example: (a) they will be
printing paper ballots for absentee voting anyway, (b) they may be
printing paper ballots for provisionals (unless they use the TSx for
that) and (c) they need to print paper ballots for emergency use in
every polling place for when the machines fail. (Note I didn't say "if.")
Since they need to print so many paper ballots anyway, why not
just start with paper ballots at the polling place? It makes no sense
to have such a disjointed system. If the scanner breaks down, the
voters can still mark paper ballots by hand and deposit them in the
locked ballot box for later scanning. No long lines form, no waiting...
no voters disenfranchised by machine malfunctions. Paper never
fails to boot up.
Finally, given the choice between touchscreens and opscan, on
the issue of "fiscal responsibility" alone, no one should be getting
DRE voting systems, particularly from the vendor whose DRE service
costs have increased over 1100% (that's eleven-hundred, not a mis-
print) in fewer than four years, in the State of Maryland... cf. Governor
Ehrlich's recent letter to State Board of Elections Chair Gilles Burger:
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/gillesburgerltr10.pdf ...nor the company that is giving Ohio counties "sticker shock"
when they find out how much their service contracts are going to
be.
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6344 Optical scan is cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate and cheaper
to maintain.
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/downloads/New%20vvpbcosts.pdf There should be no contest.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
