FINALLY: Someone is telling the U.S. Gov't where to put its e-voting

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By Bev Harris (about the author) Page 2 of 2 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

And other comments:

FROM DR. REBECCA MERCURI TO THE EAC: "Another VVSG rewrite, novel designs, or more extensive testing cannot begin to solve these problems until the voters' demands for Transparency, reliability, security, accuracy and auditability requirements have first been appropriately defined and addressed. So long as the goal of certification trumps the need to ensure election integrity, the resulting systems, no matter whose imprimatur they bear, will be invalid and must be rejected."

FROM BRAD FRIEDMAN TO THE EAC, of the BradBlog: "The blizzard of technical specifications serves only to obscure the fact that, even if such specifications are followed to the satisfaction of federal testers, it will likely continue to remain next to impossible for citizen voters to determine for themselves whether or not reported election results are truly accurate.

"In eight simple words, certainly far fewer than 598 pages, or even the 6 pages of this document, we defined the heart of the mission I challenge all Americans . whether public servant, advocate, vendor or elected official to join... is simply: To encourage citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy....That ideal must underscore every effort we take today, tomorrow, and in the months and years ahead, as we all work to ensure the continued citizen ownership of a transparent, participatory democracy.

"That must become your mission at the EAC. Meeting that ideal must underscore your adoption of any new federal voting system guidelines. If we can't see it, we can't trust it. If it does not aid in the mission to encourage citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy, it must not be adopted or implemented.

FROM JOHN WASHBURN TO THE EAC: " To a large degree technology is not the solution to the problem. Technology is the problem. The needs are conflicting to the technology design because there is no consensus in the larger social, political, and legal worlds as to what is a successful election. It is not the place of the TDGC to balance these needs and election virtues. An evaluation of the technical options available cannot be made until a rough consensus in the political, legal, and social world has emerged."

* * * * *

See also: "The Myth of Verified Voting":

In a logical inversion that only Alice in Wonderland could love, that which was sold to the American public as a "solution" to the Florida voter disenfranchisement actually expanded Florida-style disenfranchisement to all 50 states....
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/73637.html

* * * * *
SUPPORT BLACK BOX VOTING "DREAM TEAM" SURGICAL STRIKE UNITS FOR 2008:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html or mail to:
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98057

Black Box Voting is supported entirely by individual citizen donations.

1 | 2