Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Indispensable Element: Paper Ballots
Paper Ballots are indeed a necessary component...
but not sufficient to produce trustworthy elections. Yes, we paper ballot advocates have been successful. This first major battle, hard fought over the past 4 years, is a win for the election integrity groups fighting against the direct recording electronic voting machines (DRE) in New York State.
The most recent, and hopefully the last, deadline for local election officials to report their choice for 2008 equipment purchases passed last week. All but one of the 62 New York State counties have selected ballot marking devices (BMD) compatible with paper ballots. And lawmakers in Hamilton County might still intercede to prevent their county from being the only DRE county in the state.
The BMDs will be deployed this year in partial compliance with the so-called Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The courts have dictated that New York must accomodate disabled voters at every polling place this year. Complete HAVA compliance is to be achieved in 2009 and the choices made this year indicate that paper ballots will be the final HAVA solution.
Paper ballots make fraud free elections POSSIBLE....... they certainly do not provide anything near a guarantee of same. Several prominent writers have argued that the current concerns about the voting machines are a distraction from the real problems. Those problems being various forms of voter misinformation, disenfranchisement and intimidation which have occurred over the years regardless of the machinery used. Suffice it to say there are many people, some of them serving as election officials, who are not committed to democracy and can not be trusted to protect the integrity of the vote.
Protecting the integrity of the vote is our job...and the job is far from done. Our efforts must now turn to the many other devices, conditions and actors which stand in the way of true democratic and honest elections. The conversation has already started concerning such things as effective audits, secure chain of custody procedures, reform of election administration, and greater transparency for the entire process. As activists we surely will continue our advocacy for better elections and press for the needed changes.
One of the most effective actions we can take requires no new laws or large expenditures of cash. What is needed is a commitment to democracy and a willingness to contribute to community. Citizens must become involved in our elections to a much greater degree than we have. As individuals we can volunteer to serve as Election Inspectors and Poll Watchers or work at get out the vote programs. As members of community service organizations we can urge the organizations to support such efforts.
It seems necessary to state the obvious: We can not complain about the lack of transparency if we're not there to see, and we can not contribute to improved administration if we are not there to discover how the job is done and what needs to change. For democracy and election integrity we have to be there.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
No Fat Lady Song Yet
So you thought we were at the finish line......Nope. Not yet.
23 January '08 and the election integrity advocates watching the goings on of the state Board of Elections in Saratoga were proud of Commissioner Doug Kellner as he tried to hold the board together to do their duty. He failed, the two Republican Commissioners refused to come to the table. They wanted their favored friend, Liberty Election Systems, to be approved and were holding the meeting up while various Albany politicians twisted arms and threatened kneecaps.
Before the Board even began their meeting it was announced that Republican Co-Executive Director Peter Kosinski had left the office and legal assistant Todd Valentine was to replace him. I have no info as to the reason for these personnel moves but the timing causes one to suspect a connection to the voting equipment struggle. We note the Republican side of the board has been championing Liberty from day one. (Another observer notes that Sequoia has also had political champions since early in the game. If so that might partially account for that vendor's success)
Many of us had to leave Saratoga that evening without knowing how the struggle would play out. The next morning we were gratified to hear that the Republicans had joined Kellner in approving three ballot marking systems, all compatible with paper ballots. The joy was short lived however.
Within hours of the vote rumors were heard that at least one of the rejected applicants was planning to litigate their exclusion. And then, on Monday, the authorization for two systems using the AutoMark BMD were recinded by vitue of a vote by the Republican Executive Director, leaving Sequoia the only system standing. Before the end of the week we knew that two vendors were in court attempting to compel the BOE to include their machines.
Should Liberty Election Systems prevail some local Election Commissioners would likely choose this DRE-jury-rigged-to-BMD, a very poor choice. The other litigant, Premier Election Solutions, will be arguing to be reinstated. They probably should be since the AutoMark BMD they feature has been in service in other states for several years and enjoys the acceptance of the disabled community.
The absurdity of this wretched drama is that the three machines initially approved have not been tested and are not certified by the state BOE. These systems are prototypes and are only available by virtue of the pressure applied by the Federal Court. The two systems using the AutoMark BMD (Premier and ES&S) at least have that unit's experience supporting their acceptance. The Sequoia ImageCast is a totally untested BMD mated with a scanner used in Canada.
Several counties have already announced their decision. Schoharie County Commissioners Cliff Hay (D) and Lew Wilson (R) are reported to have chosen the Sequoia within just a couple of days after the BOE met. That same news report quoted the contract total cost as $250,000.00 for eighteen Sequoia units. That's $13,888.00 each unit! A scary high number which seems to indicate the vendors are taking advantage of the federal court's pressure.
Part of the reason for the high price tag is that the vendors offer their equipment as a system comprised of a ballot marking device and a ballot scanner. I understand the Sequoia must be purchased this way while ES&S and Premier will sell the AutoMark BMD alone. Jurisdicitions choosing the AutoMark BMD only for this year are effectively keeping all their options open as to which scanner to select for 2009. This seems to be a sensible course of action.
We'll be revisiting this issue later this week after the courts hear vendor's arguments and render decisions. Oh yeah, the finish line is out there in the fall of 2009. We've got a lot of running and shouting to do before then.
23 January '08 and the election integrity advocates watching the goings on of the state Board of Elections in Saratoga were proud of Commissioner Doug Kellner as he tried to hold the board together to do their duty. He failed, the two Republican Commissioners refused to come to the table. They wanted their favored friend, Liberty Election Systems, to be approved and were holding the meeting up while various Albany politicians twisted arms and threatened kneecaps.
Before the Board even began their meeting it was announced that Republican Co-Executive Director Peter Kosinski had left the office and legal assistant Todd Valentine was to replace him. I have no info as to the reason for these personnel moves but the timing causes one to suspect a connection to the voting equipment struggle. We note the Republican side of the board has been championing Liberty from day one. (Another observer notes that Sequoia has also had political champions since early in the game. If so that might partially account for that vendor's success)
Many of us had to leave Saratoga that evening without knowing how the struggle would play out. The next morning we were gratified to hear that the Republicans had joined Kellner in approving three ballot marking systems, all compatible with paper ballots. The joy was short lived however.
Within hours of the vote rumors were heard that at least one of the rejected applicants was planning to litigate their exclusion. And then, on Monday, the authorization for two systems using the AutoMark BMD were recinded by vitue of a vote by the Republican Executive Director, leaving Sequoia the only system standing. Before the end of the week we knew that two vendors were in court attempting to compel the BOE to include their machines.
Should Liberty Election Systems prevail some local Election Commissioners would likely choose this DRE-jury-rigged-to-BMD, a very poor choice. The other litigant, Premier Election Solutions, will be arguing to be reinstated. They probably should be since the AutoMark BMD they feature has been in service in other states for several years and enjoys the acceptance of the disabled community.
The absurdity of this wretched drama is that the three machines initially approved have not been tested and are not certified by the state BOE. These systems are prototypes and are only available by virtue of the pressure applied by the Federal Court. The two systems using the AutoMark BMD (Premier and ES&S) at least have that unit's experience supporting their acceptance. The Sequoia ImageCast is a totally untested BMD mated with a scanner used in Canada.
Several counties have already announced their decision. Schoharie County Commissioners Cliff Hay (D) and Lew Wilson (R) are reported to have chosen the Sequoia within just a couple of days after the BOE met. That same news report quoted the contract total cost as $250,000.00 for eighteen Sequoia units. That's $13,888.00 each unit! A scary high number which seems to indicate the vendors are taking advantage of the federal court's pressure.
Part of the reason for the high price tag is that the vendors offer their equipment as a system comprised of a ballot marking device and a ballot scanner. I understand the Sequoia must be purchased this way while ES&S and Premier will sell the AutoMark BMD alone. Jurisdicitions choosing the AutoMark BMD only for this year are effectively keeping all their options open as to which scanner to select for 2009. This seems to be a sensible course of action.
We'll be revisiting this issue later this week after the courts hear vendor's arguments and render decisions. Oh yeah, the finish line is out there in the fall of 2009. We've got a lot of running and shouting to do before then.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Partisanship, Arrogance, Malfeasance & We Won!
My earliest contact with the NY State Board of Elections with respect to our struggle against electronic voting machines was over three years ago. At that time I delivered a written complaint which included an observation that one machine vendor was receiving favorable treatment. Our complaint was delivered to Chairman Neil Kelleher(R) .
I explained the board's actions could be cause for suspicion and I demanded explanations which might assure NY citizens that the board was not corrupted and was indeed living up to their mission statement. The following from their mission statement:
I never did get an answer to this question or the many others asked since. The accuracy of the suspicions I expressed back then was borne out this week in Saratoga.
The NYS Board of Elections met Wednesday morning concurrent with the Election Commissioners Association meeting at the Holiday Inn, Saratoga. County Election Commissioners, their staff, news media, and election integrity advocates were all there to hear which machines the state board would authorize as ballot marking devices because much hangs on the type of equipment chosen(see my earlier post concerning the BMD issue). I was there also.
I will spare you all the gory details. In short, the two Republican State Election Commissioners (Kelleher & Donohue) prevented a decision from being made by simply not coming into the room - no Republican Commissioners - no meeting - no vote!
Furthermore, there was no pretense. The Republicans were holding out for the inclusion of the LibertyVote machine - the same machine we believed was getting special treatment at the beginning. For a heartfelt description of the goings on at Saratoga check out Bo Lipari's blog: http://nyvv.org/blog/bolipariblog.html
As the day wore on into early evening we learned that the two recalcitrant commissioners were serving the interests of Senate Majority leader J. Bruno. And Bruno is serving who? And who is the Republican party serving?
The actions this day of these partisan operatives make a powerfrul arguement for reform of New York election administration. We desperately need an independent, non-partisan system of election administration.
Some election integrity advocates vowed to return to Saratoga Thursday to watch over the miscreants and perhaps shame them into making the right decision.
WE WON! - Thursday 1/24/08 11:40 AM, This message from Susan Lipari:
"The Board just approved the Automark and the Dominion. No DRE was approved."
I explained the board's actions could be cause for suspicion and I demanded explanations which might assure NY citizens that the board was not corrupted and was indeed living up to their mission statement. The following from their mission statement:
| "...In addition to the regulatory and enforcement responsibilities the board is charged with the preservation of citizen confidence in the democratic process and enhancement in voter participation in elections." |  | |
| ||
The NYS Board of Elections met Wednesday morning concurrent with the Election Commissioners Association meeting at the Holiday Inn, Saratoga. County Election Commissioners, their staff, news media, and election integrity advocates were all there to hear which machines the state board would authorize as ballot marking devices because much hangs on the type of equipment chosen(see my earlier post concerning the BMD issue). I was there also.
I will spare you all the gory details. In short, the two Republican State Election Commissioners (Kelleher & Donohue) prevented a decision from being made by simply not coming into the room - no Republican Commissioners - no meeting - no vote!
Furthermore, there was no pretense. The Republicans were holding out for the inclusion of the LibertyVote machine - the same machine we believed was getting special treatment at the beginning. For a heartfelt description of the goings on at Saratoga check out Bo Lipari's blog: http://nyvv.org/blog/bolipariblog.html
As the day wore on into early evening we learned that the two recalcitrant commissioners were serving the interests of Senate Majority leader J. Bruno. And Bruno is serving who? And who is the Republican party serving?
The actions this day of these partisan operatives make a powerfrul arguement for reform of New York election administration. We desperately need an independent, non-partisan system of election administration.
Some election integrity advocates vowed to return to Saratoga Thursday to watch over the miscreants and perhaps shame them into making the right decision.
WE WON! - Thursday 1/24/08 11:40 AM, This message from Susan Lipari:
"The Board just approved the Automark and the Dominion. No DRE was approved."
Board Reaffirms Support for PBOS
VIP at County Board Meeting
Last week two representatives of the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project addressed the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors appealing to them to reaffirm their commitment to paper ballot/optical scan voting (PBOS).
Adair DeLamater and Sue Spivack were assertive and eloquent Friday morning.....and apparently effective in as much as the board again unanimously approved a resolution favoring a paper ballot voting system. They had first expressed such sentiment in the fall of 2005 following an intense lobbying effort and petition drive by the Peacemakers.
Supervisor Robert Mann of Blenheim Town was absent and did not vote.
The statements of the two VIP representatives are reproduced below.
Wayne
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 18, 2008
Remarks of Adair DeLamater to the Schoharie Board of Supervisors
Chairman VanWormer, Town Supervisors
I appreciate the opportunity to express to you my concerns about the type of voting system that will be chosen for Schoharie County. Time is short; the decision must be made by February 8, 2008. Our two Election Commissioners were appointed to their positions by the Board of Supervisors; you are responsible to see that they carry out their duties in the best interest of the voters and taxpayers of Schoharie County.
I would like to review the advantages and disadvantages of electronic voting systems vs. paper ballot/optical scanners. I will refer to electronic systems as DREs, and paper ballot/optical scanners as PBOS.
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: Multiple polls have demonstrated that the public prefers PBOS over DREs. In 2006, 69 million voters used OS ballots; 66 million used electronic equipment. Many countries and states that utilized DREs are replacing them with PBOS. New Mexico installed PBOS statewide in 2004. Maryland’s governor is trying to replace DREs with PBOS. All six New England states utilize PBOS or hand counted ballots in many election districts. California’s Sec of State decertified some DREs and will use hand counted ballots until scanners are deployed. Presently, over half the counties in California use PBOS systems. In Ohio and Colorado, Sec of State have decertified DREs and will substitute PBOS systems. A recent poll by the PBS program New York NOW provided the results that 0% of respondents favored DREs.
COSTS; DREs have higher costs than PBOS for initial purchase, transportation, secure climate controlled storage, and maintenance. A PBOS system can process more voters per machine than DREs. Thus, more machines (at $8,000 to $10,000 each) would be needed with a DRE system. Because DREs are very heavy (about 235 lbs each, as opposed to 19 to 39 lbs for OS), they require two people to move them on a wheeled device, and must be transported on a truck with a lift system. One person can carry a scanner, and they can be stacked for storage, thus requiring much less space in secure, climate controlled storage. In districts utilizing PBOS, local election staff transport the equipment. With DREs, software is a trade secret, and company officials program the DREs, test them, and count the ballots, without input from public election staff. There is an annual fee (approximately 12% of the contract) for continued use of the DREs. HAVA funds would cover the cost of OS and ballot marking devices for Schoharie; because a greater number of more expensive machines would be needed for a DRE system, the cost would greatly exceed the funds that will be available.
EASE OF USE With PBOS, the voter marks their ballot themselves, and can see what choices they have made before presenting the ballot for scanning. The scanner alerts any under vote or over vote, and the voter is able to correct the ballot in the case of an under vote, or is given a fresh ballot in the case of an over vote. This is not true of DREs; multiple sites have experienced problems with under votes, and over votes are rejected and not counted. PBOS provides a paper ballot on good quality paper; the original ballot is stored, and available for recount. DREs provide a thermal paper trail printed with ink that fades with time, thus making recounts more difficult. With PBOS, multiple voters can be marking their ballots in privacy booths at the same time. It takes only 3 seconds for the scanner to record their votes. DREs can handle only one voter at a time, which may result in long waits to vote for voters who may have time pressure of family or work. In the event of a power failure, or machine failure, PBOS enable voters to continue to vote, and the ballot can be held for scanning in a locked box. If a DREs backup batteries fail, or the machine malfunctions, the voter is unable to vote.
With PBOS systems, the same ballot can be used for absentee voters, provisional voters, and the military. DRE systems require the use of paper ballots for those voters.
Expected lifetime: DREs have an expected lifetime of 5 years, and none carry warrantees for a longer period. Replacement and repairs after the warrantee has expired will be entirely the responsibility of the taxpayers of Schoharie County. OS have been in use for 20 years. The ones in Oklahoma have been in use for 14 years and are still going strong.
SUMMARY We have the opportunity to learn from the frustrating, expensive choices made by others. The experience of DREs has demonstrated that they are not trusted or liked by the public, and they have a history of malfunctions causing multiple problems for voters and election officials. Many New York newspapers have had editorials supporting PBOS systems, including the NY Times, the Times Union, Newsday, and the Oneonta Star. The NYT editorial of 9/6/07 called electronic voting an abysmal failure. DREs are new, untried systems, whereas PBOS systems have been in use for over 20 years with minimal difficulties.
PBOS systems are cheaper, more reliable, more secure, easier to transport and store, and enjoy greater public confidence than DREs. Please hold true to your resolution of 1/18/05, in which the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to express a preference for PBOS.
I urge the Board of Supervisors to see that our Election Commissioners do not make the costly mistake of choosing an electronic voting system, but that they act in the best interests of the voters and taxpayers and select the previously certified AutoMark ballot marking device, and PBOS.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Adair DeLamater
Sharon Springs
An Appeal to the Conscience of Everyone In this Room in the Name of the Democratic Process and Our Wallets
January 18, 2008, Remarks of Susan Spivack to the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors
Chairman VanWormer, Town Supervisors,
I thank you for the chance to be heard today. As the grandchild of immigrants, I was raised to believe that my very life depended on participating in and protecting this Democracy, and to cherish my right to Vote.
I am here to represent Peacemakers of Schoharie County’s Voting Integrity Project, and the citizens of this county who believe Electronic Voting Machines will endanger the reliability and integrity of our votes, and to advocate for a paper ballot/optical scan (PBOS) voting system for Schoharie County.
On November 18, 2005 this Board unanimously passed Resolution 82 in which you stated, “….the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors wishes to go on record that its preference in type of voting machine is a paper ballot/optical scan voting system” I thank all who voted for that resolution.
In 2007--NYS, the only State not in compliance with HAVA--The Help America Vote Act, began testing electronic voting and optical scan machines, and ballot marking devices (BMD’s) for the disabled. Not one electronic voting machine has yet been certified!
This December, Judge Sharpe ruled that all NYS counties must implement BMD’s (ballot marking devices) in all polling places by the fall ’08 election season.
Five days from now on January 23, the NYS Board of Elections (BOE) will release a list of voting equipment from which our Election Commissioners, Cliff Hay and Lew Wilson are charged to select a BMD for every polling place. February 8 is the decision deadline, but they CAN decide as early as January 23.
SO THE HOUR OF DECISION IS UPON US!
It is almost certain the PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AutoMark BMD which is compatible with a paper ballot, will be on the State BOE list. But the State BOE recently redefined DRE's as Ballot Marking Devices if the vote counting function is disabled and the device prints a full size ballot. So it is certain that DRE’s will be on the list EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT REALLY BMD’S, ARE UNCERTIFIED AND CANNOT BE USED WITH PAPER BALLOTS.
Schoharie County usually needs only one voting machine per polling place. To choose a BMD created from a disabled, uncertified DRE, which is incompatible with an optical scan machine, is to make the unacceptable back-door decision to purchase uncertified DRE’s instead of a PBOS system. Over half of our county’s HAVA funds will be spent on these expensive Ballot Marking Devices. It is widely expected that the State BOE will hastily certify the already purchased DRE’s after the fact.
Our County Election Commissioners have repeatedly praised the LibertyVote DRE made by NEDAP. NEDAP has posted no profits for five years because their LibertyVote machines were discarded by Ireland, Holland, and Germany. Recently, Russia dropped electronic voting machines for paper ballots.
The following US States have decertified their DRE’s (in many or all districts) after spending millions of dollars purchasing them: Florida, California, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio. States in the process of changing over from DRE’s to PBOS systems include Colorado, Maryland, Kentucky.
We fear our County Commissioners despite all the recent news about the decertification of DRE’s in Europe and the US, will still chose DRE’s, even though the long delay by our State BOE has given us this great opportunity to avoid the mistakes made in other places!
In fact I want to enthusiastically proclaim your Ability and Responsibility as our County Supervisors to make decisions on what kind of voting system we will use:
1. The 2005 NY Election Reform and Modernization Act and the State BOE have declared that final voting machines decisions will be made at the County level by local Election Commissioners. This means you are a part of the process.
2. You as a Board must DECIDE NOW what voting system will best serve this county’s citizens, and which system we can best afford. We urge you to renew your commitment ASAP, today!! to the Paper Ballot Optical Scan voting system, and to demand that Lew Wilson and Cliff Hay choose the PBOS voting system and the AutoMark as our Ballot Marking Device. Madison County’s two Election Commissioners have already declared their intention to purchase PBOS systems for their county. If they can do it, our Commissioners can do it. You can tell them to do it. As your appointees, they answer to you.
3. If our Election Commissioners choose DRE’s, we expect you to refuse to authorize funding these expensive unreliable machines.
For years our Election officials have said they could not decide on a new voting system because the STATE BOE had not certified the machines. Some County Supervisors have told us, "It’s up to the Election Commissioners to make this decision, not me” We call this “passing the buck.”
As elected officials you are public servants, pledged to watch out for the political and fiscal health of your towns and the county as a whole. You have a responsibility (as we all do) for maintaining our democracy. You are also responsible for supervising the Election Commissioners you appoint and evaluating how they do their jobs.
To stand up to them if they insist on DRE voting machines when you want a PBOS system may prove to be:
· labor intensive
· time consuming
· and require you to take political risks, which may take courage.
But you have the opportunity here to secure the integrity of our vote, save your constituents untold hundreds of thousands of tax dollars over the long-term, and earn public honor for having the energy and courage to do the right thing. I suggest you begin by voting today to tell the Election Commissioners to consult with you before deciding on the Ballot Marking Device and delaying their decition to February 8 to give you time to consult with one another and let them know what you want. As our public servants we expect you to embrace this opportunity to preserve the right of every citizen to a verifiable, economical, user-friendly voting system.
Thank you for your time and your listening.
Last week two representatives of the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project addressed the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors appealing to them to reaffirm their commitment to paper ballot/optical scan voting (PBOS).
Adair DeLamater and Sue Spivack were assertive and eloquent Friday morning.....and apparently effective in as much as the board again unanimously approved a resolution favoring a paper ballot voting system. They had first expressed such sentiment in the fall of 2005 following an intense lobbying effort and petition drive by the Peacemakers.
Supervisor Robert Mann of Blenheim Town was absent and did not vote.
The statements of the two VIP representatives are reproduced below.
Wayne
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 18, 2008
Remarks of Adair DeLamater to the Schoharie Board of Supervisors
Chairman VanWormer, Town Supervisors
I appreciate the opportunity to express to you my concerns about the type of voting system that will be chosen for Schoharie County. Time is short; the decision must be made by February 8, 2008. Our two Election Commissioners were appointed to their positions by the Board of Supervisors; you are responsible to see that they carry out their duties in the best interest of the voters and taxpayers of Schoharie County.
I would like to review the advantages and disadvantages of electronic voting systems vs. paper ballot/optical scanners. I will refer to electronic systems as DREs, and paper ballot/optical scanners as PBOS.
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: Multiple polls have demonstrated that the public prefers PBOS over DREs. In 2006, 69 million voters used OS ballots; 66 million used electronic equipment. Many countries and states that utilized DREs are replacing them with PBOS. New Mexico installed PBOS statewide in 2004. Maryland’s governor is trying to replace DREs with PBOS. All six New England states utilize PBOS or hand counted ballots in many election districts. California’s Sec of State decertified some DREs and will use hand counted ballots until scanners are deployed. Presently, over half the counties in California use PBOS systems. In Ohio and Colorado, Sec of State have decertified DREs and will substitute PBOS systems. A recent poll by the PBS program New York NOW provided the results that 0% of respondents favored DREs.
COSTS; DREs have higher costs than PBOS for initial purchase, transportation, secure climate controlled storage, and maintenance. A PBOS system can process more voters per machine than DREs. Thus, more machines (at $8,000 to $10,000 each) would be needed with a DRE system. Because DREs are very heavy (about 235 lbs each, as opposed to 19 to 39 lbs for OS), they require two people to move them on a wheeled device, and must be transported on a truck with a lift system. One person can carry a scanner, and they can be stacked for storage, thus requiring much less space in secure, climate controlled storage. In districts utilizing PBOS, local election staff transport the equipment. With DREs, software is a trade secret, and company officials program the DREs, test them, and count the ballots, without input from public election staff. There is an annual fee (approximately 12% of the contract) for continued use of the DREs. HAVA funds would cover the cost of OS and ballot marking devices for Schoharie; because a greater number of more expensive machines would be needed for a DRE system, the cost would greatly exceed the funds that will be available.
EASE OF USE With PBOS, the voter marks their ballot themselves, and can see what choices they have made before presenting the ballot for scanning. The scanner alerts any under vote or over vote, and the voter is able to correct the ballot in the case of an under vote, or is given a fresh ballot in the case of an over vote. This is not true of DREs; multiple sites have experienced problems with under votes, and over votes are rejected and not counted. PBOS provides a paper ballot on good quality paper; the original ballot is stored, and available for recount. DREs provide a thermal paper trail printed with ink that fades with time, thus making recounts more difficult. With PBOS, multiple voters can be marking their ballots in privacy booths at the same time. It takes only 3 seconds for the scanner to record their votes. DREs can handle only one voter at a time, which may result in long waits to vote for voters who may have time pressure of family or work. In the event of a power failure, or machine failure, PBOS enable voters to continue to vote, and the ballot can be held for scanning in a locked box. If a DREs backup batteries fail, or the machine malfunctions, the voter is unable to vote.
With PBOS systems, the same ballot can be used for absentee voters, provisional voters, and the military. DRE systems require the use of paper ballots for those voters.
Expected lifetime: DREs have an expected lifetime of 5 years, and none carry warrantees for a longer period. Replacement and repairs after the warrantee has expired will be entirely the responsibility of the taxpayers of Schoharie County. OS have been in use for 20 years. The ones in Oklahoma have been in use for 14 years and are still going strong.
SUMMARY We have the opportunity to learn from the frustrating, expensive choices made by others. The experience of DREs has demonstrated that they are not trusted or liked by the public, and they have a history of malfunctions causing multiple problems for voters and election officials. Many New York newspapers have had editorials supporting PBOS systems, including the NY Times, the Times Union, Newsday, and the Oneonta Star. The NYT editorial of 9/6/07 called electronic voting an abysmal failure. DREs are new, untried systems, whereas PBOS systems have been in use for over 20 years with minimal difficulties.
PBOS systems are cheaper, more reliable, more secure, easier to transport and store, and enjoy greater public confidence than DREs. Please hold true to your resolution of 1/18/05, in which the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to express a preference for PBOS.
I urge the Board of Supervisors to see that our Election Commissioners do not make the costly mistake of choosing an electronic voting system, but that they act in the best interests of the voters and taxpayers and select the previously certified AutoMark ballot marking device, and PBOS.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Adair DeLamater
Sharon Springs
An Appeal to the Conscience of Everyone In this Room in the Name of the Democratic Process and Our Wallets
January 18, 2008, Remarks of Susan Spivack to the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors
Chairman VanWormer, Town Supervisors,
I thank you for the chance to be heard today. As the grandchild of immigrants, I was raised to believe that my very life depended on participating in and protecting this Democracy, and to cherish my right to Vote.
I am here to represent Peacemakers of Schoharie County’s Voting Integrity Project, and the citizens of this county who believe Electronic Voting Machines will endanger the reliability and integrity of our votes, and to advocate for a paper ballot/optical scan (PBOS) voting system for Schoharie County.
On November 18, 2005 this Board unanimously passed Resolution 82 in which you stated, “….the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors wishes to go on record that its preference in type of voting machine is a paper ballot/optical scan voting system” I thank all who voted for that resolution.
In 2007--NYS, the only State not in compliance with HAVA--The Help America Vote Act, began testing electronic voting and optical scan machines, and ballot marking devices (BMD’s) for the disabled. Not one electronic voting machine has yet been certified!
This December, Judge Sharpe ruled that all NYS counties must implement BMD’s (ballot marking devices) in all polling places by the fall ’08 election season.
Five days from now on January 23, the NYS Board of Elections (BOE) will release a list of voting equipment from which our Election Commissioners, Cliff Hay and Lew Wilson are charged to select a BMD for every polling place. February 8 is the decision deadline, but they CAN decide as early as January 23.
SO THE HOUR OF DECISION IS UPON US!
It is almost certain the PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AutoMark BMD which is compatible with a paper ballot, will be on the State BOE list. But the State BOE recently redefined DRE's as Ballot Marking Devices if the vote counting function is disabled and the device prints a full size ballot. So it is certain that DRE’s will be on the list EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT REALLY BMD’S, ARE UNCERTIFIED AND CANNOT BE USED WITH PAPER BALLOTS.
Schoharie County usually needs only one voting machine per polling place. To choose a BMD created from a disabled, uncertified DRE, which is incompatible with an optical scan machine, is to make the unacceptable back-door decision to purchase uncertified DRE’s instead of a PBOS system. Over half of our county’s HAVA funds will be spent on these expensive Ballot Marking Devices. It is widely expected that the State BOE will hastily certify the already purchased DRE’s after the fact.
Our County Election Commissioners have repeatedly praised the LibertyVote DRE made by NEDAP. NEDAP has posted no profits for five years because their LibertyVote machines were discarded by Ireland, Holland, and Germany. Recently, Russia dropped electronic voting machines for paper ballots.
The following US States have decertified their DRE’s (in many or all districts) after spending millions of dollars purchasing them: Florida, California, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio. States in the process of changing over from DRE’s to PBOS systems include Colorado, Maryland, Kentucky.
We fear our County Commissioners despite all the recent news about the decertification of DRE’s in Europe and the US, will still chose DRE’s, even though the long delay by our State BOE has given us this great opportunity to avoid the mistakes made in other places!
In fact I want to enthusiastically proclaim your Ability and Responsibility as our County Supervisors to make decisions on what kind of voting system we will use:
1. The 2005 NY Election Reform and Modernization Act and the State BOE have declared that final voting machines decisions will be made at the County level by local Election Commissioners. This means you are a part of the process.
2. You as a Board must DECIDE NOW what voting system will best serve this county’s citizens, and which system we can best afford. We urge you to renew your commitment ASAP, today!! to the Paper Ballot Optical Scan voting system, and to demand that Lew Wilson and Cliff Hay choose the PBOS voting system and the AutoMark as our Ballot Marking Device. Madison County’s two Election Commissioners have already declared their intention to purchase PBOS systems for their county. If they can do it, our Commissioners can do it. You can tell them to do it. As your appointees, they answer to you.
3. If our Election Commissioners choose DRE’s, we expect you to refuse to authorize funding these expensive unreliable machines.
For years our Election officials have said they could not decide on a new voting system because the STATE BOE had not certified the machines. Some County Supervisors have told us, "It’s up to the Election Commissioners to make this decision, not me” We call this “passing the buck.”
As elected officials you are public servants, pledged to watch out for the political and fiscal health of your towns and the county as a whole. You have a responsibility (as we all do) for maintaining our democracy. You are also responsible for supervising the Election Commissioners you appoint and evaluating how they do their jobs.
To stand up to them if they insist on DRE voting machines when you want a PBOS system may prove to be:
· labor intensive
· time consuming
· and require you to take political risks, which may take courage.
But you have the opportunity here to secure the integrity of our vote, save your constituents untold hundreds of thousands of tax dollars over the long-term, and earn public honor for having the energy and courage to do the right thing. I suggest you begin by voting today to tell the Election Commissioners to consult with you before deciding on the Ballot Marking Device and delaying their decition to February 8 to give you time to consult with one another and let them know what you want. As our public servants we expect you to embrace this opportunity to preserve the right of every citizen to a verifiable, economical, user-friendly voting system.
Thank you for your time and your listening.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Voting Equipment Selection
Now is the time for lawmakers to act
On 1/23, the NYS BOE will release a list of authorized but untested and uncertified voting equipment from which the Election Commissioners will select a Ballot Marking Device (BMD) to be deployed in every polling place.
County Election Commissioners are required to make their selection no later than 2/8 according to the timeline set by the state BOE. It is important to understand the selection might be made as early as 1/23.
It is almost certain that the very serviceable and previously certified AutoMark BMD will be on that list. The AutoMark is the BMD which is intended to paired with a paper ballot voting system to provide access for the disabled.
It is also very likely that one or more Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machines (DRE) will be on the list as well. In a disturbingly perverse move the state BOE recently agreed to allow the voting machine manufacturers to submit their DREs as BMDs if the vote counting function is disabled and the device prints a full size ballot.
I believe the above perverse ruling was made specifically to help DRE voting machine vendors such as Albany based Liberty Election Systems. We can expect a modified LibertyVote DRE to be on the list of authorized BMDs.
And it is also very likely Schoharie County's Election Commissioners Cliff Hay & Lew Wilson will select the LibertyVote DRE, or any machine other than the AutoMark, in order to avoid committing to a paper ballot voting system. I say “committing” because a major portion of the available HAVA funds will be expended on the BMDs mandated for 2008 deployment.
Re: committing to a system. Because the court ordered HAVA compliance plan requires devices to assist the disabled in every polling place, rural counties, like Schoharie with most polling places with only one voting machine, will effectively be committing to DREs if they choose an experimental BMD created from a DRE.
The Perverse Plan (as formulated by the E.C.s & vendors) goes like this:
A Make Believe BMD (MBBMD) created from a DRE is authorized by the state.
The ECs select the MBBMD and pay some fraction of the usual DRE price and deploys them in 2008.
The state BOE subsequently tests and certifies the DRE on which the MBBMD is based (no one believes the state would not certify machines that the counties have already purchased).
The vendor returns to the county reprograms the MBBMD machine to function as a full functioned DRE and collects the balance due, probably some additional premium fees, and sells the county what ever additional DREs the county E.C.s think they can afford.
The county deploys all the DREs in 2009 and everyone is happy:
Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe will no longer feel ashamed to be a New Yorker and will sleep well again,
The Justice Dept. lawyers can report to the Bush administration criminal cabal that their mission is accomplished,
The NYS BOE Commissioners can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that they weathered this crisis without being thrown under the bus or into jail…..now all they need to remember is to keep their mouths shut and reap the rewards,
Bobby Witko of Liberty Election Services will have made his daddy proud - he was able to peddle a crappy voting machine that has been rejected in Ireland, The Netherlands and Germany… at an incredibly exaggerated price,
Nedap (manufacturer of the LibertyVote) can rejoice at being able to report to their stockholders their voting machine has been introduced into the USA market, and maybe even show some black ink for that division for the first time in five years. That black ink can’t help but be improved with each election cycle in the US….New York State has a bunch of very valuable electoral votes,
Cliff Hay and Lew Wilson will have broken into the big time. Now if anyone wants to buy a particular election outcome in Schoharie County they will have the means to deliver with much greater efficiency then ever before. Also, if someone is working a state or federal scam they will be able to demand their cut. AND hey, there’s no paper ballots - Happy times are here again!
The only people who might not get what they want is the little people who believe their vote counts - but then it’s only some of those little folk that might not get what they want since the bosses need only switch a few percent of the ballots. Those people who’s vote might get switched won’t know - and what they don’t know won’t hurt them - right?
The only recourse for the little people then is Civil Disobedience (CD) - I say the only recourse because I’m not a violent person. I can not speak for the rest of our citizens who might feel they are not represented because their votes are not being counted...we fought a war over this very problem once before didn't we.
What CD? How about something as simple as "Just Say No! These are our elections and it is our vote we're talking about. We should just say no to electronic voting!
Every citizen needs to take ownership of their individual ballot and demand we use the only system which makes it possible for the voter to mark their own ballot and see their ballot being recorded and counted, the paper ballot system.
I've been telling everyone I encounter that I will refuse to vote using an electronic voting machine. It is not hard to imagine that election administrators and poll workers will have little choice but to provide paper ballots if enough of us demand it. I've printed my own calling card with just that message on it - it works, I recommend it.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Amicus Curiae Brief PR
For immediate release 15 December 2007 Contact: W. Stinson 518.287.1463
Peacemakers in Friend of Court appeal on Voting Machines
The Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project has joined with thirty other election integrity groups, legislators, authors and scholars in an amicus curiae submission to the US District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The amicus brief, filed this past week, seeks to inform the court with respect to U.S.A. v New York State Board of Elections.
In a recent filing the U.S. Justice Department asked the court to assume control of the selection of voting machines for New York State because the Board of Elections has failed to meet deadlines set by the court.
The groups and individuals joined in this amicus brief hope to avoid this outcome because it would likely result in untested electronic voting machines being imposed upon the voters of New York State. A crescendo of criticism has been directed at electronic voting machines (DREs) due to the many reports of machine failure and apparent manipulation of vote tabulations in recent elections.
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator of the Voting Integrity Project, is critical of the Justice Department's position.
"The Justice Department argues that New York State's certification testing program be ignored and some machine, any machine, be selected, purchased and deployed for the 2008 election cycle. The absurdity of this position becomes obvious when many other states are presently scrapping their DREs in favor of a paper ballot system. I'm convinced the Justice Department does not have the best interests of New York voters at heart in this case" Stinson said.
Two other amicus briefs are expected to be submitted in this case. The association of County Election Commissioners is asking to be heard and several additional voting integrity groups have joined in an additional appeal.
New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The Leage of Woman Voters, The New York Public Interest Research Group and Citizen Action of New York are also suggesting the adoption of paper ballot voting rather than DRE electronic voting machines.
U.S. District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe could rule in this case as early as this week.
Citizens interested in learning more about the Peacemakers, the Voting Integrity Project or voting technology should contact Wayne Stinson at 518.287.1463 or airhead@midtel.net .
Peacemakers in Friend of Court appeal on Voting Machines
The Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project has joined with thirty other election integrity groups, legislators, authors and scholars in an amicus curiae submission to the US District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The amicus brief, filed this past week, seeks to inform the court with respect to U.S.A. v New York State Board of Elections.
In a recent filing the U.S. Justice Department asked the court to assume control of the selection of voting machines for New York State because the Board of Elections has failed to meet deadlines set by the court.
The groups and individuals joined in this amicus brief hope to avoid this outcome because it would likely result in untested electronic voting machines being imposed upon the voters of New York State. A crescendo of criticism has been directed at electronic voting machines (DREs) due to the many reports of machine failure and apparent manipulation of vote tabulations in recent elections.
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator of the Voting Integrity Project, is critical of the Justice Department's position.
"The Justice Department argues that New York State's certification testing program be ignored and some machine, any machine, be selected, purchased and deployed for the 2008 election cycle. The absurdity of this position becomes obvious when many other states are presently scrapping their DREs in favor of a paper ballot system. I'm convinced the Justice Department does not have the best interests of New York voters at heart in this case" Stinson said.
Two other amicus briefs are expected to be submitted in this case. The association of County Election Commissioners is asking to be heard and several additional voting integrity groups have joined in an additional appeal.
New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The Leage of Woman Voters, The New York Public Interest Research Group and Citizen Action of New York are also suggesting the adoption of paper ballot voting rather than DRE electronic voting machines.
U.S. District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe could rule in this case as early as this week.
Citizens interested in learning more about the Peacemakers, the Voting Integrity Project or voting technology should contact Wayne Stinson at 518.287.1463 or airhead@midtel.net .
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A Democracy Appeal
The following remarks were originally prepared for the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors with the hope that the lawmakers would rise to the occasion and do the right thing for the electorate and our democracy. Because of pending changes to the Makeup of the board, and the imminent intervemtion of the Federal Court, the remarks have not been directed to the board but are posted here for your consideration.
The greatest threat to peace and security for any person is their own government, not some foreign power or alien national. Government has great power over a citizen’s everyday life, and therefore, the potential to cause great harm. America’s founders understood this and structured the constitution to protect us, today however, some of those constitutional protections are in doubt.
Naomi Wolf, writing in "The End Of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," informs us that democracy can be lost, and indeed, has been lost to other peoples in the past. We would be wise to learn the lessons of history that are there for us.
It should be obvious to anyone watching national political developments that our democracy is threatened. The important underpinnings of democracy, well articulated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, have been systematically attacked by the Executive, Congress and sometimes even by the courts over the past several years. Recognizing the damage that has been done, let’s agree that we all must assume responsibility for protecting democracy!
Politicians frequently remind us of the many Americans who have fought and died for democracy, and then admonish us to "support the troops." I suggest the same rationale for supporting democracy and the integrity of our elections. The least we can do is not let democracy and election integrity go without a fight.
Where am I going with this? Well, you should expect that I’m going to talk to you about voting machines again. I will not disappoint you, but the main point I want to make is our shared responsibility for preserving democracy by protecting the integrity of our ballot.
The purpose of elections is freely choosing our public servants by majority-rule. The essence of America is self-government, recognizing that all legitimate government power comes only from elections in government "of the people, by the people and for the people." To this end election officials must provide a voting system compatible with democracy, that is a system which is trustworthy, or they're not public servants. Democracy can not long survive in secrecy behind closed doors, or in the secret black box of an electronic voting computer. Democracy requires transparency in elections.
An August 2006 Zogby poll found 92% of Americans preferred observable vote counting over secret proprietary systems. The electorate intuitively knows that they shouldn’t trust something they can’t see. If we were to survey the citizens of Schoharie County about computerized voting machines, something our Election Commissioners should have done years ago, I expect a similar proportion of our citizens would reject the invisible ballots of electronic voting machines.
Is it possible for public servants to pursue policies out of touch with over ninety percent of the electorate? Yes, they can and will if you let them. Remember those 6th grade lessons about checks and balances? It's time for election officials to be checked on the voting machine issue.
Thirty some years ago the New York State Election Law was amended to create the election administration we have today. The legislature, apparently embracing a security philosophy of mutually assured distrust, gave the two major political parties control over the process. This was tantamount to putting two foxes in the henhouse. These two partisan groups are not committed to protecting democracy. Their job is winning elections - not protecting the integrity a citizen’s ballot . This is evinced by a long history of fraud and anti-democratic actions by election officials.
I’m sure that somewhere out there there’s an honest, idealistic election official who might justifiably take offense at this generalization. We can acknowledge that there are exceptions, but this does not alter the facts which must guide public policy. In this debate over voting systems the only party without a conflict of interest is the electorate, the people you represent.
Because national election results since 2000 have been so controversial there have been many election fraud investigations, most conducted by voting integrity advocates rather than government agencies. This fact is itself additional evidence of failed election administration. Such private party investigations are usually reported in documentary films, reports, or books.
One such report is "Was the 20045 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count" by Steven F. Freeman Ph.D. & Joel Bleifuss. Doctor Freeman is a Visiting Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, Graduate Program of Organizational Dynamics. Mr. Bleifuss is an investigative reporter and Editor of In These Times.
Historically, election exit polls have been very accurate. Germany uses exit polling to verify the integrity of their elections. Their polls average less than ½ of 1% divergence from official counts. A 2005 initial exit poll in England was right on the mark. And, in 2004, a discrepancy in the exit polls resulted in the presidential election being voided in the Ukraine.
Edison/Mitofsky pollsters have been conducting exit polls for the national elections since 1993. Over the past few years those exit polls have been seriously off the mark, sometimes almost a double digit divergence from the official tallies.
The 2004 presidential race produced some highly improbable exit polls. If the polls were inaccurate due to chance circumstances those discrepancies should have been distributed more or less evenly between Kerry and Bush.
However, in that nationwide survey, the discrepancies between the exit polls and official results favored Bush in 44 states but in only 6 states for Kerry. The odds against this happening by chance are tens-of-millions-to-one according to Freeman & Bleifuss.
The investigators also report that in ten of the eleven so-called battleground states the official count differed from the exit polls. In all ten states the difference favored George Bush, a one-in-a-thousand possibility.
Another "improbable" statistic: In every presidential election between 1988 and 2004 the official count was divergent from the exit polls. In each case it was a Republican candidate that benefited from the discrepancy. In each case that Republican was named George Bush. And, in each case that candidate was running with the benefit of an incumbency except for the 2000 contest.
In that race George W. Bush was not an incumbent, but he did have his brother Jeb the Governor of Florida, Secretary of State Kathleen Harris, and the US Supreme Court pulling for him.
The statisticians found other curious correlations; the racial makeup of the state, Republican control of governorship, whether a swing state, and … where paper ballots were not used, all correlated positively with poll discrepancies.
When they were done analyzing the available election polling data Freeman and Bleifuss had uncovered considerable evidence tending to answer their title question in the affirmative. They confidently reported:
"National exit polls indicate that Bush suffered a defeat in the popular vote by approximately 7 million votes, a margin of about 5 percentage points. On the other hand, the official story of Bush’s 3 million vote victory is simply not substantiated by the data.
The only conclusion consistent with the data is that the 2004 U.S. presidential election was stolen."
And there’s more: Remember the hanging chads? - Just a few weeks ago several former employees of Sequoia Pacific came forward to confirm that the voting machine company had sabotaged the 2000 vote in Florida.
In another investigation, we learned that intentional degradation of quality control standards by another voting machine manufacturer resulted in machine failures that altered the outcome of a 2006 congressional race in Florida.
This past month, We learned that the government of The Netherlands has decided to decertify and withdraw from service the Nedap/Liberty voting machine because of security concerns. Said security concerns are likely due to exposure of the machine‘s security weaknesses by voting integrity advocates, and possibly the unethical behavior of the company’s software executive.
Last year Ireland decided to put their Nedap machines into storage because the responsible authorities were unconvinced as to the machine’s security.
Mounting numbers of election administrators across the country are abandoning the electronic voting machines they purchased with HAVA funds and are now deploying paper ballot systems instead.
So, here we are:
There is no responsible argument supporting the use of electronic voting machines.
Citizen voters know it.
Election integrity activists know it.
Computer Security experts know it.
Newspaper editors know it - 20 NY papers support Paper Ballot Voting
Governors and Secretaries of State of the states which have either switched to paper ballot voting or seriously restricted DRE use know it, among them; California, Connecticut, New Mexico and Florida.
Some NY Election officials have admitted it.
And…..Certainly, by now I believe you know it, and you know what you should do.
The Election Commissioners are the appointed co-department heads of the Elections Department. Oversight of this department and its administrators is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors.
For the preservation of election integrity, you can not allow the Election Commissioners to impose electronic voting machines on the citizens of Schoharie County.
I repeat: The Election Commissioners must be checked on the voting machine issue. As the body with the power and responsibility to do so the citizens expect you to act.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, this problem is bigger than Schoharie County, however, each of us needs to do our part because democracy starts right here.
For the sake of our nation, and for our children, find your place in the struggle to defend democracy. Democracy is something you do!
The greatest threat to peace and security for any person is their own government, not some foreign power or alien national. Government has great power over a citizen’s everyday life, and therefore, the potential to cause great harm. America’s founders understood this and structured the constitution to protect us, today however, some of those constitutional protections are in doubt.
Naomi Wolf, writing in "The End Of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," informs us that democracy can be lost, and indeed, has been lost to other peoples in the past. We would be wise to learn the lessons of history that are there for us.
It should be obvious to anyone watching national political developments that our democracy is threatened. The important underpinnings of democracy, well articulated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, have been systematically attacked by the Executive, Congress and sometimes even by the courts over the past several years. Recognizing the damage that has been done, let’s agree that we all must assume responsibility for protecting democracy!
Politicians frequently remind us of the many Americans who have fought and died for democracy, and then admonish us to "support the troops." I suggest the same rationale for supporting democracy and the integrity of our elections. The least we can do is not let democracy and election integrity go without a fight.
Where am I going with this? Well, you should expect that I’m going to talk to you about voting machines again. I will not disappoint you, but the main point I want to make is our shared responsibility for preserving democracy by protecting the integrity of our ballot.
The purpose of elections is freely choosing our public servants by majority-rule. The essence of America is self-government, recognizing that all legitimate government power comes only from elections in government "of the people, by the people and for the people." To this end election officials must provide a voting system compatible with democracy, that is a system which is trustworthy, or they're not public servants. Democracy can not long survive in secrecy behind closed doors, or in the secret black box of an electronic voting computer. Democracy requires transparency in elections.
An August 2006 Zogby poll found 92% of Americans preferred observable vote counting over secret proprietary systems. The electorate intuitively knows that they shouldn’t trust something they can’t see. If we were to survey the citizens of Schoharie County about computerized voting machines, something our Election Commissioners should have done years ago, I expect a similar proportion of our citizens would reject the invisible ballots of electronic voting machines.
Is it possible for public servants to pursue policies out of touch with over ninety percent of the electorate? Yes, they can and will if you let them. Remember those 6th grade lessons about checks and balances? It's time for election officials to be checked on the voting machine issue.
Thirty some years ago the New York State Election Law was amended to create the election administration we have today. The legislature, apparently embracing a security philosophy of mutually assured distrust, gave the two major political parties control over the process. This was tantamount to putting two foxes in the henhouse. These two partisan groups are not committed to protecting democracy. Their job is winning elections - not protecting the integrity a citizen’s ballot . This is evinced by a long history of fraud and anti-democratic actions by election officials.
I’m sure that somewhere out there there’s an honest, idealistic election official who might justifiably take offense at this generalization. We can acknowledge that there are exceptions, but this does not alter the facts which must guide public policy. In this debate over voting systems the only party without a conflict of interest is the electorate, the people you represent.
Because national election results since 2000 have been so controversial there have been many election fraud investigations, most conducted by voting integrity advocates rather than government agencies. This fact is itself additional evidence of failed election administration. Such private party investigations are usually reported in documentary films, reports, or books.
One such report is "Was the 20045 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count" by Steven F. Freeman Ph.D. & Joel Bleifuss. Doctor Freeman is a Visiting Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, Graduate Program of Organizational Dynamics. Mr. Bleifuss is an investigative reporter and Editor of In These Times.
Historically, election exit polls have been very accurate. Germany uses exit polling to verify the integrity of their elections. Their polls average less than ½ of 1% divergence from official counts. A 2005 initial exit poll in England was right on the mark. And, in 2004, a discrepancy in the exit polls resulted in the presidential election being voided in the Ukraine.
Edison/Mitofsky pollsters have been conducting exit polls for the national elections since 1993. Over the past few years those exit polls have been seriously off the mark, sometimes almost a double digit divergence from the official tallies.
The 2004 presidential race produced some highly improbable exit polls. If the polls were inaccurate due to chance circumstances those discrepancies should have been distributed more or less evenly between Kerry and Bush.
However, in that nationwide survey, the discrepancies between the exit polls and official results favored Bush in 44 states but in only 6 states for Kerry. The odds against this happening by chance are tens-of-millions-to-one according to Freeman & Bleifuss.
The investigators also report that in ten of the eleven so-called battleground states the official count differed from the exit polls. In all ten states the difference favored George Bush, a one-in-a-thousand possibility.
Another "improbable" statistic: In every presidential election between 1988 and 2004 the official count was divergent from the exit polls. In each case it was a Republican candidate that benefited from the discrepancy. In each case that Republican was named George Bush. And, in each case that candidate was running with the benefit of an incumbency except for the 2000 contest.
In that race George W. Bush was not an incumbent, but he did have his brother Jeb the Governor of Florida, Secretary of State Kathleen Harris, and the US Supreme Court pulling for him.
The statisticians found other curious correlations; the racial makeup of the state, Republican control of governorship, whether a swing state, and … where paper ballots were not used, all correlated positively with poll discrepancies.
When they were done analyzing the available election polling data Freeman and Bleifuss had uncovered considerable evidence tending to answer their title question in the affirmative. They confidently reported:
"National exit polls indicate that Bush suffered a defeat in the popular vote by approximately 7 million votes, a margin of about 5 percentage points. On the other hand, the official story of Bush’s 3 million vote victory is simply not substantiated by the data.
The only conclusion consistent with the data is that the 2004 U.S. presidential election was stolen."
And there’s more: Remember the hanging chads? - Just a few weeks ago several former employees of Sequoia Pacific came forward to confirm that the voting machine company had sabotaged the 2000 vote in Florida.
In another investigation, we learned that intentional degradation of quality control standards by another voting machine manufacturer resulted in machine failures that altered the outcome of a 2006 congressional race in Florida.
This past month, We learned that the government of The Netherlands has decided to decertify and withdraw from service the Nedap/Liberty voting machine because of security concerns. Said security concerns are likely due to exposure of the machine‘s security weaknesses by voting integrity advocates, and possibly the unethical behavior of the company’s software executive.
Last year Ireland decided to put their Nedap machines into storage because the responsible authorities were unconvinced as to the machine’s security.
Mounting numbers of election administrators across the country are abandoning the electronic voting machines they purchased with HAVA funds and are now deploying paper ballot systems instead.
So, here we are:
There is no responsible argument supporting the use of electronic voting machines.
Citizen voters know it.
Election integrity activists know it.
Computer Security experts know it.
Newspaper editors know it - 20 NY papers support Paper Ballot Voting
Governors and Secretaries of State of the states which have either switched to paper ballot voting or seriously restricted DRE use know it, among them; California, Connecticut, New Mexico and Florida.
Some NY Election officials have admitted it.
And…..Certainly, by now I believe you know it, and you know what you should do.
The Election Commissioners are the appointed co-department heads of the Elections Department. Oversight of this department and its administrators is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors.
For the preservation of election integrity, you can not allow the Election Commissioners to impose electronic voting machines on the citizens of Schoharie County.
I repeat: The Election Commissioners must be checked on the voting machine issue. As the body with the power and responsibility to do so the citizens expect you to act.
As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, this problem is bigger than Schoharie County, however, each of us needs to do our part because democracy starts right here.
For the sake of our nation, and for our children, find your place in the struggle to defend democracy. Democracy is something you do!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
