NY State Leading from Behind on Voting Machines
Some have criticized NY State for being behind in compliance with the Federal government's HAVA requirements for new voting machines, but in reality our state may be slow because we are being more careful. While many states are simply taking vendor statements at face value (something I NEVER do in my job and our government shouldn't either), NY State has been standing its ground, even if in some cases it has only been because of a lack of decisiveness among our legislators. From Vote Trust USA:
The history of New York's purported non-compliance with Help America Vote Act (HAVA) is a long one. Much has been made of HAVA's lack of requirements for voter-verified paper audit records (VVPARs) or paper ballots that can be used to allow independent verification of e-voting system tallies produced by Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) and Optical Scan (OS) systems (paper ballots provide this capability inherently of course). But bills in the New York State legislature from both sides of the aisle have required VVPARs with random audits since at least 2004. New Yorkers may be stubborn but they're not stupid.
It would be patently absurd to replace a transparent, statewide, non-proprietary, low-tech mechanical lever voting system that even prevents write-in overvotes and can only be corrupted the old fashioned way -- one machine at a time -- with opaque, proprietary, computerized e-voting systems, programmed en masse by as few as a single insider, with no means of independent verification whatsoever. And contrary to popular belief the potential for programming error or malfeasance applies equally to DRE and Optical Scan technologies. Fortunately, the independent verification issue was resolved here years ago; the legislature declared, "There shall be paper." So too was the issue of source code escrow, which recently prompted at least one major e-voting vendor (Diebold Election Systems) not to compete in the state of North Carolina. As in the Tarheel State, the escrow of vendors' proprietary software has been a requirement in New York's legislation for years.
New York law also requires the testing of every e-voting machine or system in the state approved after 1986 with at least 800 votes per year. While some may consider this excessive it's not burdensome to do with optical scanners. However, it should be noted that a typical ballot can have literally trillions of valid vote combinations, all of which cannot be tested. This is one reason why New York law also provides for party representatives and others to audit the ballot definition programming generated by election management systems. The significance of this statute is something that even some in the election integrity community do not yet fully appreciate.
In numerous states we have seen incidents of miscounted races, the outcomes of which were reversed by errors or misconduct affecting ballot programming (also known as election configuration, ballot definition files and election definition). Clearly New York and all other states need to be able to audit this data before it's loaded onto their voting systems for each election and vendors must be required to provide a means for doing so on every machine or scanner to ensure its correctness. New York provides for this, including a formal definition of the Election Configuration, in its latest Voting System Standards approved unanimously by the State Board of Elections last April. After all, verifying the ballot definition can easily be done by any poll worker with a lever machine simply by inspecting the ballot face. Unlike e-voting systems, with lever machines what you see it what you get. Read the Entire Article
In reality our state legislators have simply passed the buck, letting local legislators make the decision. And local legislators have largely been ignoring the issue. But at least there hasn't been the blind trust that some state governments have been showing when company reps try to sell them the most expensive, least reliable machines (DRE machines). The intransigence of NY State just might force some real substantial improvements in the machines offered, if we stand our ground.
As always, I urge you to write your state and local politicians (follow link and look in the left column of the page to find local and state politicians) to tell them you want paper ballots, a reliable system and not the over-priced, more expensive to maintain, unreliable DRE machines. We have to have a paper ballot for recounts and we have to have election software that is transparent so we know how our elections are being run.
I cant' believe that you're actually defending NYS!
HAVA was passed, in part, to enable voters with disabilities to cast an independent ballot.
Our lever machines are awful. They were old when I started voting 40 years ago! They break down frequently, and, from what I understand, spare parts haven't been available for many years, so they just recycle the old ones. Ballot propositions and minor party candidates are pushed off to the left of the machine, where many voters miss them.
They can be tampered with, as the travel writer Arthur Frommer found out many years ago while serving as a poll watcher in a district in which an unknown, minor candidate won a plurality of votes because the machine was set up so that the favored candidate would obtain an maximum of votes (because the fix was improperly done, these votes drifted to the minor candidate).
As far as paper is concerned, it is the oldest form of vote manipulation. Brazil gave up voter verified paper trails because landlord and employers founds ways of using it to support the candidates they favored.
Many persons with disabilities cannot vote without assistance, usually that of an aide or an election inspector, so, unlike others, their votes are not secret. Also, voters covered under the voting rights act because they are not English speaking are also often denied a secret ballot.
New York is far behind other states in compliance with HAVA, not because of caution, but because the members of the "bipartisan" panel couldn't come to agreement on the creation of a statewide voter data base, standards for certifying a voting machine, or anything else.
People with disabilities were supposed to cast an independent ballot in this election. Instead, they have the option of continuing to vote as they had in the past, or going to their local Boards of Elections to vote on ballot markers. Since many people with disabilities will have difficulty using public transportation to get to their borough Board of Elections, Access-A-Ride may be utilized. Should there be a long wait on line, they will not be offered the option of voting on paper because, as Chairman John Ravitz says, after traveling a long distance on a segregated transportation system, they should be allowed to vote "like everyone else!"
Get rid of the idiotic fantasy that voting with lever machines or paper is better and welcome the 21st Century!
You clearly didn't read the article
What are you talking about? You are misrepresenting me. NO ONE is saying keep the lever machines.
The choice is between PB/OS and DRE. THAT is the issue. Both have improved accessibility for disabled people, complying with HAVA. Get that? BOTH OF THEM.
The differences are: 1. cost, 2. reliability, 3. transparancy and 4. ability to do an accurate recount.
Here is the comparison, made simple for people who don't read carefully:
1. cost: DRE are MUCH more expensive both to purchase and maintain and have to be replaced more often. PB/OS systems are cheaper to purchase and maintain and last longer. DRE machines have the added cost that the state has to hire company employees to run the elections
2. reliability: DRE machines have proven to be easily hacked, full of bugs and generally unreliable. Some say these problems can be fixed. If so, why are the machines being offered for use with the bugs? Why haven't they been extensively tested BEFORE selling them to states? PB/OS machines have some problems as well, but there are fewer bugs and are easier to catch and resolve. PB/OS machines are more reliable.
3. transparancy: DRE machines use software that companies want to keep secret. That means, as things stand, the elections are done without transparancy. Only the company knows how the machines record and tabulate votes. THe public does not know. With DRE machines the election is not verifiable. PB/OS machines do not have this problem.
4. recount: DRE machines do not have a permanent record that can be used for a hand recount should it be necessary. THe public is forced to take the word of the company that owns the machines without any independent method of checking. PB/OS machines have a paper version of the actual ballot that can be used to verify the vote. It has an independent method of verification from the machines. The problem arises (as in Ohio) when a partisan election board refuses to do the recount, which is why I also push for bi-partisan, multi-partisan or non-partisan election boards. With DRE machines there is no independent recount no matter what problems arise.
Did you get all that? No mention of lever machines. Got that?
Optical scan machines, by
Optical scan machines, by themselves, are NOT accessible to persons with disabilities.
Only one machine, the Automark Auto Assist Terminal, has been devised to be compatible with optical scan machines. In this case, it is compatible with only the optical scan machine produced by E S & s. So, the solution you suggest requires the use of TWO machines, E s & S and the Automark. The alternative is to have one DRE at every polling place in addition to an optical scan machine.
You can GOOGLE E S & S, and you will find it has it's own problems. In Nebraska, Chuck Hagel defeated an incumbent Democrat who had a lead in the polls, on E S & S machines. Guess who owned E S & S? Chuck Hagel! Furthermore, when Georgia's incumbent Democratic Senator Max Clelland narrowly lost to his Republican challenger despite a lead in the polls, guess what machines were used? E. S. & s! E S & S has failed to meet their contracted obligations prior to voting in several states of late, whether the machines were DREs or Optical Scanners.
According to attorney Eve Hill of the Western Law Center for Disability rights, "we don't want counties to use optical scan. We prefer touch screens across the board - for a variety of reasons, including that if there's only one accessible machine, it will undoubtedly be broken or lost or out of order or no one will know how to use it (this is what always happens with the "special" equipment for people with disabilities)."
Partly accurate
You are mostly reiterating my point with your own slant. In otherwords, YES PBOS is adaptable for people with disabilities. And even with that it is cheaper than all DRE. And the interface has been designed by an advocate for disabilities.
All the DRE machine companies are owned by far right wingers, many of whose machines have been connected with potential election fraud. Your trying to link PBOS to the existing fraud is misleading. AS I ALREADY SAID, fraud with DRE machines cannot, unless there are major changes that are NOT being offered, be validated if fraud is suspected. With PBOS machines that option is always available to a much greater degree than has EVER been offered with DRE machines. PBOS fraud can be dealt with if the will is there in the election board. DRE machines depend 100% on the good will and integrity of companies that already are known to be suspect.
You are either Gary Tilden or an employee of DRE machines or a Republican who wants to steal elections. Truth is that a BROAD COALITION of people, including disabled advocates, Republicans like former San Diego mayor Roger Hedgecock (who bases his opinion on watching the horrible problems with DRE machines in SD County) and Democrats oppose DRE machines and support PB/OS. The technology is cheaper and more reliable. That means any problems there are are easier to fix than with DRE machines. DRE machines are starting from a much more expensive and unrelaible point. Most of the strongest advocates of DRE are either eager to take advantage of their possibilities for fraud or are due to profit from their sale.
You also ignore my suggestion that if people are serious about DRE machines the problems need to befixed BEFORE they are offered for sale and extensive testing carried out. That is not being offered by the companies. Until THEY come forward with machines that WORK, I say no way! PBOS is the better technology in every way. You cannot escape that fact. Even you admit that DRE are not acceptable without serious fixing. The bottom line is that with DRE there is NO independent verification. With PBOS there is. Until that changes DRE are unacceptable in a Democratic system.
No, I am not Gary Tilden
No, I am not Gary Tilden (who is he?), an employee of DRE machines, nor a Republican who wants to steal elections. I'm just a plain old Democrat disabiity rights activist.
Do I, as a Democrat, need your permission to advocate for the easiest voting technology?
Fine
You don't need my permission to do anything. Nor do I need your permission to challenge your more misleading statements.
Advocacy for disabled rights is great and should be a major part of the dialogue. But advocacy of a technology as flawed and overpriced as DRE is not logical. The DRE technology as it is being sold to us right now is unacceptable. PBOS is the only other alternative being offered now and it is quite simply more reliable (I never said 100% reliable), verifiable (DRE machines are not), and cheaper to buy and maintain by quite a bit. We cannot accept a technology that completely sacrifices the integrity of our vote the way DRE machines do. If an election does not have a reasonable level of transparency, accuracy and reliability, it is not a valid election. And if an election does not have a method of accurate recount, it is not a valid election. DRE machines as they are being sold to us fail on all of these counts. PBOS is less flawed that current systems and less flawed than DRE machines. And they are cheaper. They are thus overall the best available option. If you see flaws in them, let's work to fix the flaws starting with the best option that is currently available rather than starting with the worst option available.
Lawn mowers
Very good site. Large work is done.
[url=http://lawn-mower-battery.mowerssite.info]lawn mowe battery[/url] thank you
Vibrators
Hi. Very nice site. To you lonely? Look a topic .
[URL=http://concrete-vibrator.group-love.com]concrete vibrator[/URL]
Thanks.