Lucas County and the parade of voting machines…
When you read today’s article in the Blade, Over the past few years, Lucas County spent more than $4 million to buy 1,613 Diebold touch-screen voting machines, but now Ohio’s secretary of state wants those machines to be scrapped and replaced with optical scanners with paper ballots. Understandably not everyone is thrilled with this decision and/or concerned about the cost factor:
“This county has handled elections on this machine like Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible,” said Jill Kelly, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections. “I mean, every bell and whistle, every security measure, every detail, we’ve got it all down pat.”
Ms. Kelly and many other elections officials said they’re concerned with having to retrain poll workers on new machines, as well as the amount of time it will take to get election results by having to count paper ballots at a central location.
Let’s flash back to 2004:
The Lucas County Board of Elections has been barred by Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell from buying new voting equipment for the November election.
His order forces the county to lease machines at a cost that will drain an already deflated county budget of hundreds of thousands of dollars that it would not have had to spend if the board’s four members reached an agreement on which equipment to purchase.
Mr. Thurber and fellow Republican board member Bernadette Noe voted to buy touch-screen units at its May 19 meeting, while Democrats Paula Ross and Diane Brown voted against them.
“I’m disappointed, but not surprised,” Ms. Noe said, adding she was not as skeptical as Mr. Thurber.
Ms. Ross said she was upset about the cost of leasing the optical-scan machines, but said that “this choice is the more cautious choice,” compared to buying touch-screens that might need to be upgraded to include printers that can generate paper ballots for voters to review before casting their final vote. Gov. Bob Taft signed a bill last month requiring touch screens to add the printers by May, 2006.
Maybe in the long run until our State determines exactly what type of voting machine they approve of, leasing would have been the cheaper smarter option than costing the tax payer 4 million dollars for machines that will be scrapped…
As a ps if you want to know who broke the tie and decided that Lucas County would purchase the Touch Screen Machines? Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, in April of 2004 said the touch screen “would better suit the needs of Lucas County.”
January 15th, 2008 at 9:33 amAnd we wonder why people loose faith in the system, when it comes to voting.
With so much between elections, one would think that there would be time to better plan these matters.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pmPart of the problem seems to be deciding which form of voting machine is the preferred one.
In 2004 the SOS felt touch screen was the best for our county, now today the SOS feels that optical scanning nets better results.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:16 pmWhile the touch screen machines are neat. I think the optical scan machines would be more logical, because it would be easier to verify actual votes. You can actually look at the paper ballot that a person voted with. The touch screen machine can be hacked into.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:21 pm“While the touch screen machines are neat. I think the optical scan machines would be more logical, because it would be easier to verify actual votes.”
And to rescan favorable votes to tilt an election…
“You can actually look at the paper ballot that a person voted with.”
Exactly…, No security from tampering.
“The touch screen machine can be hacked into.”
Oh REALLY?
How?
These stand alone machines have no connection to anything, therefore there is no practical way in.
A stand alone electronic machine, with no external connections, and run by competent, well trained workers (as we apparently do have) sound quite secure and tamper-proof to me.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:48 pmArticle out lines what may or may not be done to the machines.
The reports about the machines do not re-enforce the publics confidence in them.
Can You Count on Voting Machines?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
January 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pmHooda Thunkit. There have been quite a few investigations into the security of DREs. It is generally accepted in the computer security community that they are full of security holes. Remember, the machines are “tested”, before purchase, by private companies, not by governments. There are tests before the votes. These are worthless, as the machines have “test” circuits that are used, not the circuits used on election day. Also, the dates are not changed to the election dates during the test. A first year programming student will tell you one line of code, out of thousands, can be written to turn on just after the polls open, flip votes and erase itself. The tabulated results are then written over that area of memory, and no one can tell if it happened or not.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:48 pmThe fix can be put in when the software is initially loaded. It can be done when the ballots are loaded. It can be on just one removable tabulator card, as a virus, and propagate through to the central tabulator. It can be written on a card just like the one each voter uses to access their “ballot”.
There are many ways, and no way to tell if it happened or not.
In 2004, exit polls in Ohio were “wrong” for the first time in history. That was also the first time DREs had been used to count the vast majority of the votes.
Paper ballots are the only way, and after seeing the documentary “Hacking Democracy”, you’ll agree that hand counting is the only way to count those paper ballots.
Any voting system has flaws. I could start listing the optical scan machine flaws if I wanted to. The way to ensure any machine flaws don’t cost an election is through proper testing and procedures. Without this, anything is unsafe.
It is sad that there are many people profiting off of discrediting electronic voting machines, like Brad Blog. Of course they are winning by profiting off of people’s fears. I have confidence in the results and on the machines and I was a part of the process, which some of the critics can’t say. They never put their confidence in the machine, I have. DREs can be the best option if they are treated as such.
But there is no one profiting off of trying to get the most valid point out there that nothing is safe if we don’t have a safe process. Because of this, I don’t see a bright future with electronic voting machines and this is sad. I just wonder about the people who are making money off of people’s fears what they will do or shift their attention to once they win the battle.
I have a small horribly out of date site (which I don’t profit off of) where I try to discuss some of the larger issues http://www.papertrailmyth.com .
January 16th, 2008 at 1:09 amChris, you are wrong. All DREs get certified by the government and governments can/do run their own tests. How in the heck did this current situation arise? Ohio paid for a test.
Voting machines do have audit systems and the results are stored on flash memory, which is highly reliable and if there is a problem, investigators can inspect the machine.
Problem with paper is there is no audit. A paper shows up it is counted. Again, quit knocking the systems, focus on the process.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:12 amChrisM, I don’t think Brad is making a huge profit…I also think part of the problem is the questions related to the systems. We ended up with the touch screens because SOS Blackwell broke a tie where the two republicans wanted the touch screen and the two democrats wanted the optical.
Now after having spent the money for the touch screens? We have to get opticals.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:03 amFor elections to be transparent, there must be a tangible record of the vote that laypersons can verify, that can be counted, recounted and or audited.
Elections are not transparent if the voters must have a trained technologist to determine the results.
We the voters simply cannot verify 1’s and 0’s.
The ACM, the worlds largest association of computer professionals in the world – endorsed a resolution in favor of voter verified paper ballots.
Elections are held on portable equipment that gets hauled out of storage infrequently, that has new ballots for many districts per county re-designed for each election, with a “temporary” and often elderly volunteer work force, working long hours and dealing with a sensitive clientelle – people excercising the franchise of democracy.
Voting machines that require technical ability, machines that are fragile, machines that suffer from rough shipping practices, machines that are vulnerable to variances in climate/storage temperatures and moisture – aren’t appropriate for the conditions typical of election usage.
When a jurisdiction adopts computerized voting, especially direct record voting machines, the election director, often someone with a business degree or economics degree – instantly becomes the head of a large IT department. No business would do things this way.
Use the appropriate system for the process. There has to be a paper ballot for every vote, and if not hand countd, then it must be randomly and independently and robustly audited.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:46 amHas anyone else ever thought this? When you purchase something it usually comes with a receipt. Why is it that we cannot have a copy of our ballot? Just wondering. How can you prove how you voted?
January 16th, 2008 at 3:35 pmYou have no documentation.
The state governments may be doing the “tests”, which consist of running some ballots through some scanners, but in 2004 they were all subcontracting the testing out to private companies.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pmThe bottom line is this: If the public cannot witness paper ballots being removed from ballot boxes, if they cannot witness teams of three or four people counting ballots, then the elections are open to being stolen. Period. There is no way around it. Anytime a cast ballot is out of sight, it is subject to corruption. There are billions of dollars at stake, so “trusting” people is nuts. Hand counts are the only way to go, and the cost is way cheaper, nationwide, than running a Navy Task Force for one day. Sooner or later we will catch on, if we aren’t rounded up and put into one of FEMA’s many concentration camps first.
Joyce, Chris or Amanda. Do you actually live in Lucas County? If you do where were you for the last 30 years when we had the mechanical voting machines? If you don’t live here, then how did we function without what you describe? Because we voted like that without a receipt and without people watching every record being counted. No one had a problem because we trusted the process.
Governments do not have the expertise to test the machines and I probably would not want them to begin specializing in it. So Chris, according to you we should all think the companies are part of the conspiracy. You don’t make any sense because you are responding to what they actually found out. The thing is testing is important for any voting method. What should be done is that they should take the results and make them even stronger.
People keep talking about computer scientists, well computer scientists don’t run elections. Of course any computer can be hacked, if the access is provided. Optical scan machines could be hacked too. The interesting thing is that when you look at Lotteries and Casinos in Vegas, they stick with what the computer says over what paper says because they know that paper can be faked. Maybe people should learn from the places that profit off of money how to use computers to keep track of votes.
Lisa, profit is making one dollar. The fact is Brad and a few others are using their fear mongering and living off of it. It does not mean he s doing it just to rake in more money, but I think it is sad that they do such a thing. Of course anyone could do damage to a particular voting method by living off of the pot shots they are taking. There is an unfair microscope now focused on this particular voting method and this method could be one of the most secure if it is developed. I am sure if there was someone living off of criticizing mechanical voting machines things would be different.
Will people come to their senses? No because the damage has been done. I ran for office 3 times on the machines, did not win and I don’t doubt the results because I trust the process. If I ever run again, I would not be afraid of the voting machines to count my votes win or lose. So while we all focus on the voting method, the method is what is taken advantage of not the voting machine.
Also Amanda, the reason they don’t give you a receipt is because of fears of vote buying. That is why no machine currently does that and no machine is allowed to do that.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pmAlso, I have known Brad and have watched his activities for over 3 years. I spent 1.5 hrs last year talking with him when he called me after my Op-Ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on voting machines and how we should not rush to judgment. He wondered why I would ever say such a thing.
You can read that piece at:
January 16th, 2008 at 11:20 pmhttp://swampbubbles.com/voter_verified_paper_audit_trail_vvpat_is_not_the_man_of_steel
I’ve been reading Brad’s blog for several years as well. I don’t think what he’s doing is profiting from fear mongering, and some of his work like his interview with the SOS was well done. Hence my linking it because it provided value and information, that the mainstream media was not providing.
I support transparency and information, part of that process is for people to even read people they might not agree with rather than trying to imply someone has an ulterior profit motive. The reality is most people have a motivation for their blogging, some are upfront and honest about it, some prefer to hide behind fake names or other forms of pretense. Brad’s motivation is clear, to me anyway, he has concerns about our election system. It doesn’t mean I always will agree with his theories but to pretend there are not problems doesn’t seem to make them go away.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:49 pmLisa,
Who is pretending? I am not and I hope you do not mean that I am. I am the first to admit that any medium has inherent flaws. EVERY voting system has flaws. Computer voting has its own natural flaws as well as punch cards and optical scans. THE only way to secure any system is by having proper checks and balances in the testing and handling of the system. And I don’t know where I have ever said that there are not problems or act like they will go away. But to only rail against one medium, saying things will be hunky dory when it is no longer used, well that is just pretending.
If he had true concerns, he would not rail against one system. I could rail against any voting system and make a living off of it and do serious damage to the medium like he does if I wanted to. But I don’t because I know it is the process not the medium and it would be irresponsible for me to cherry pick problems while ignoring root causes.
In his conversation with me he consistently talked about a potential conspiracy to hack elections on a large scale. I told him it could theoretically be possible but it would be possible with any voting medium and that it was not likely and a secure process would guard against that. He consistently rails against computer voting machines and fails to admit the flaws with other systems. I was unimpressed about his arguments because they always came back to conspiracy and never admitted the problems with optical scans and defended them, although if you focus on them they have as many problems as anything else. Because of this and watching what he does, I don’t think he has the best interests in making elections better. That is my direct conversation with him which is one main reason why I don’t think he wants to improve the whole process. He just appears to have an ax to grind against a particular medium as well as others in the movement.
If he truly cared about elections, he would talk more about securing the process, training poll workers better, improve recruiting, paying them better because that is what is going to prevent tampering more than anything else. Focusing on one thing is very shallow in my opinion. But hey he can say and do what he wants.
He and others in the anti-computer voting movement do open themselves up by making money off of their blog or by selling books. They claim diebold makes money off of elections, but they need to look into the mirror. I refuse to sell any ads on my voting Web site because for something fundamental you need to be an advocate.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:34 amI suppose I will post this here, too. Oh, and I’m not in an “anti-computer voting movement”. I’m in the “Anti-secret ballot counting movement”.
Chris Myers,
January 17th, 2008 at 12:50 amPeople trusted the machines until they realized that one side of the political equation would do anything short of murder to turn the election their way. Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 gave ample evidence that Republicans in control of elections offices would throw valid voters off the roles, short black precincts with half the machines that white districts got, toss out valid registration forms, and kick the public out of the “counting” house.
It has been documented that at least 1.5 million absentee and provisional ballots nationwide, and several thousands in Ohio, were left uncounted. The Bush margin was less than a third the number of documented uncounted ballots. No one knows how many undocumented votes were skipped.
At four o’clock mountain time, Bush’s vote total in rural areas of the country, measured by exit polls, had dropped a full 14% from 2000. That’s when the press began predicting a Kerry victory. Later in the evening, in urban precincts east of the Rockies, Bush’s vote totals surged 60% percent, that’s right, 60%, over 2000. The cities went for Bush? Sure, you bet.
The CEO of Diebold was quoted as saying “I will do anything to get George Bush elected”. Were you aware of that? Is there something that is convincing you that millionaire Bush supporters would ever speak the truth? In other words, do you think the Diebold Exec was lying?
Do you know what percentage of 2004 Ohio votes were “counted” on Diebold machines?
Did you know that two Cuyuga County (Cleveland) Republican voting officials are in jail for corrupting the 2004 election?
In conclusion, these right wing extremists took over the party of anti-slavery, and proceeded to do anything they could to stamp down the Democratic vote. Everything we could see in the light of day, that is. Can we be ultra sure that the voting machines and tabulating computers, which could be rigged without a trace, were left to honestly count votes?
You bet. Sure as Iraq had WMDs, as sure as Iran didn’t give up their bomb program in 2003 like the CIA says, we can be sure the benevolent ultra rich in control of the elections process did not use the machines they built in foreign sweatshops to steal votes wholesale.
The answer is to hand count in the precinct immediately after the polls close. If you pay the counters $50 an hour, it would cost less than a day in Iraq.
Good Luck.
ChrisM, I was speaking in general terms as far as the motivation for bloggers, I’m not sure why you took that to mean I was directly referencing you since it is a fact that people who are dedicated to blogging do so for varying reasons.
Something that seems to be missed in this whole topic is 30 years ago people had more trust in their government, so they by virtue of that trust had more trust in our voting systems. The more complicated the voting system becomes on top of the fact that we have seen many proven instances where we later discover that we can not trust those we have elected has added to the feeling of mistrust some feel in our voting system. We are a nation of skeptics in larger numbers than existed in the past, that is in part media driven but it’s also driven by more transparency as to some of the concerns. It’s very well possible that similar behavior happened years ago in government but we were not told about it.
Add that to the natural distrust many feel in the increasing reliance on machines with no way for the average person to see or feel results in their hands and you have an additional reason many want a paper trail. Mechanical failures do happen when it comes to technology, that’s a given. People need to have faith that there is a reliable back up.
Posts like what ChrisB just shared demonstrate why the concern exists. Whether you agree or disagree with him, the mere fact that there is concern needs to be addressed so that people do have faith in our voting system.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:40 amWell I am just frustrated that so many people if they were to work to make the system better regardless of the system, everyone will win.
The fact is there will always be people like ChrisB making accusations as unrealistic as they are, but the fact is nothing will stop them from being made. Chris wants’ you to ignore the fact that not everyone used electronic voting machines in the West and that no bi-partisan election boards did not think anything was wrong to merit investigation, but that did not stop people continually making such absurd accusations (they won’t stop). And note the Cleveland people were prosecuted. What Chris did not say is even when they had machines with paper receipts in Venezuela, it did not stop people saying that there were problems, corruption and elections stolen. It will always be done, but if you have a trustworthy process then it can be verified, and DRE machines do have internal record keeping and they could be enhanced. Tossing the baby out with the bathwater, won’t guarantee things will be good.
Lisa you voted on the mechanical machines, they are very similar in internal record keeping as the DRE machines in making records but no one had problems here in Lucas County. What the rest of the state and nation should understand is that it can be done if you have a strong process to secure them, like they were done here for decades. We have machines that work, we do not need new ones, which have their own issues.
Focus on making the process strong and you will keep people from having concerns and have elections that we can all have faith in.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:32 pmChris, if the old system of voting machines was working, then the million dollar (or in this case the 4 million dollar) question would be why then was there a demand that we switch to first the optical then the touch screen and now back to the optical?
People like ChrisB are trying to point out concerns, so I’m not going to fault him, I’m going to encourage those like him to continue to express how they feel and point out areas they think could be improved as well as solutions. The only way to make sure something is not addressed is to discount how people feel. Voter fraud can exist under any system, if the system is not based on trust and accountability. Most of the violence in other parts of the world in response to election outcomes is based on mistrust of those counting the votes or the system used to count votes. So it’s not just the system selected to count the votes it’s those behind the systems. You could have paper ballots and if those counting them were bent on fraud, you’d have voter fraud. Some systems are reported to make fraud harder to catch, systems easier to manipulate…proving it can be done should be enough of a concern to prevent it from being done.
I’ve been around national politics for quite some time and I remember stories like this.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:08 pmHow did the Dems take control of congress if Republicans can control the machines? That article was written in 2003 and most of the clamorring came form Democrats who did not understand how many Republicans won in 04. Well that is the way it works, sometimes the results don’t make sense but you don’t sit around and stew on it.
Maybe the other candidates were not popular or did not do what they were supposed to do. Jack Ford got second place in many precincts in Point Place when they have never supported him before. I would never say that was a result of the machines or that he manipulated the election. Sometimes things are just strange like that. Why did I not get elected in 2004 when Republicans were supposed to have stolen the election?
The reason that many places around the nation decided to upgrade equipment was because of federal funds made available. If Florida in 2000 never happened, we would probably still be voting with the mechanical machines. Lucas County tested out the optical scan machines in 05 as well as electronic voting machines to see which ones were better. As you said they picked the DRE machines after the tie breaking vote was made by Blackwell.
I think Brunner is getting cold feet. But the optical scans have their own problems and if we are just going to spend money just to feel safer, that would be a poor choice of money spent.
Optical scans can be manipulated just as much as the electronic voting machines. We had our own horror stories in 04 of them breaking down and poll workers telling voters, just leave your ballot here and we will scan them later. There have been other issues with them. Also, you run back into the problem of figuring out voter intent, which DREs were supposed to help eliminate. People filling out the scan cards can make errors, not mark in the oval, not erase the oval enough. To me this issue is a non-issue and maybe instead of retreating, Ohio can say that we can have better DRE machines and work to make them safe.
People are afraid of change, and many people are afraid of computers, but computers can have even more checks and balances if they are programmed right than any other system. Many casinos in Vegas and even our own Lottery relies on computer records to verify information and won’t accept any paper. If they were as unreliable as what people say then of course they would be using a different system.
If you look at how this developed, it became a political issue and that is sad. When this happens, like global warming, common sense gets tossed out the window and sometimes the wrong decisions can be made.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:54 am“Most of the violence in other parts of the world in response to election outcomes is based on mistrust of those counting the votes or the system used to count votes.”
Have some friends from Ghana and in discussion I asked what about the system back home.
Most of the leaders are from an ethic or tribal group and traditionally those in higher rank would look out for or act with the interests of the group or tribe when in office or in higher position.
When the leaders would leave and assume political office, the folks back home, became forgotten and the leader would live the high life, what with monies and perks.
The members of the group or tribe would become weary of the leaders forgetting them and when the corrupt ways became evident after many years of patience, the ensuing violence would happen.
The leaders there as here have forgotten whom they serve.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:51 amChris M,
January 20th, 2008 at 1:08 pmFirst, you did not get elected in 2004 because the counters only wanted to steal the Presidential election. About the use of machines, again:
What in the world did America do before Edison and Tesla brought electricity to us? Before the lever machines? Why, we voted on paper ballots and counted those ballots by hand, in public.
Yesterday, in South Carolina, 98% of an entire county was disenfranchised because they relied on machines.
There is no excuse for the continued use of DREs, for many reasons. The most important reason is that there is no way to prove whether the votes were correctly recorded or counted. No way to prove the counts are right, and no way to prove they are wrong. Results must be taken on faith, and that is not good enough. Further, subcontracting any part of the elections process to a private contractor is an open invitation to disaster.
To see how hand counts are done in a manner which virtually blocks any attempted fraud, Google Nancy Tobi. You’ll see how votes can be counted, in public, is such a way as to determine the true voters intent.
I’d recommend a recent article by Nancy, here for those interested in a starting point.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pmThe solution might be, one standardized system for federal elections, monitored by a non-partisan group that comes together in advance of the elections and verifies the operation and set up of the system and monitors the elections and then disbands and goes back about their business.
We have something similar now, but it is not working properly, we have a hodge podge of voting systems and processes.
Some states set the vote this way or that way when the election is one of the most important we can cast.
We need a uniform and easy to understand and easy to utilize system.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm“COLUMBIA, S.C. — Up to 1,500 votes may be cast on paper ballots in the Republican primary today in Horry County, S.C., which includes Myrtle Beach, because of voting machine problems due to human error on the part of county election commission staff, who failed to properly prepare the machines, state and county election officials said. After being tested, the machines should have been reset in preparation for election day, but that did not happen prior to this morning.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/19/592019.aspx
January 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pmAnd the SC voting problems could be prevented Chris and you ignore the problems voting on paper have such as security of the ballots, lack of accessiblity for disabled voters. So you prove my point that you blindly advocate for other systems without thinking about what you really are advocating for. A wrongly calibrated optical scan machine could have produced problems too.
Chris, you also have not answered my questions.
1. If your consipracy happened in the west coast, why was it never investigated? It could easily be proven if it was investigated, but maybe it was never investigate because it never happened.
2. Where were you when many people voted on mechanical machines? How could we have not had a problem for decades using the same thing, secret counts too, just without a computer.
Yes, Chris I am sure that a bunch of people in your large conspiracy ignored the little races while tampering with the results, that makes complete sense. I think people reading this thread can determine who is making sense and who is not.
I will need to look for it, but I remember a story 1.5 years ago where a box of paper ballots were tossed accidentally by people cleaning the voting area. Problems happen with any voting methods and only good people can prevent this.
Lisa that article is interesting, but how about linking to a respecable site. That web site is riddled with conspiracy people who have not gotten over the presidential election. I watch voting issues as they pop upand I normally skip over anything on that site because it hardly makes sense.
DRE machines have audit mechanisms and I am sure they could be more robust if demanded. In Columbus people were able to audit the results of elections on DRE machines this past year, so saying you can’t does not make sense either.
Regardless whether it is rocks, paper, mechanical, and DREs there will be problems if the process is not transparent, you do not have quality staff, and appropriate checks and balances and procedures. There will always be people complaining about the results regardless of the system. A strong pocess can prevent problems from happening.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pmChris, I don’t have a problem with the Scoops site, nor do I have a problem with the Common Dreams site, like any site it’s up to the reader to determine the credibility of that particular article, it would be like judging a forum based on one post that you found to be a concern.
If you don’t find value in it, that’s of course your prerogative. As stated before, I read many sites, even ones I don’t agree with because it lets me know what others are stating and their reasoning.
It does appear that part of the problem is the lack of a strong process, I think that’s something we do agree on, a lack of a strong process equals a lack of trust and it’s apparently clear that there are dissenting voices out there making it clear they do not trust the process. ChrisB and those like him want transparency as well, the difference being disagreeing on how we get to transparency. To me that means you work on the areas you do agree are a concern to at least improve that part of the process rather than to try to dismiss someone.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:24 pmTo Myers about whether we had problems with the mechanical voting machines, I ask, who knows? Unless you have paper ballots counted via the New Hampshire methods, you can not be sure a count of the vote is honest and accurate.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:12 amIf you get to Nancy Tobi’s website, you’ll find her three videos of NH handcounts. Start with Wilton, then Lynnborough, then State Recount.
Chris, Lisa and everyone,
Please take a look at this non-partisan research on voting machines.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/537110/
I completely agree with what their research found out.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 pmI can’t say I agree with their research completely, especially given this on the Diebold AccuVote-TS by Center for Information Technology Policy and Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm