"The FEC standards were too weak."
Not.
You don't need to be a computer scientist to understand plain English: Both 1990 and 2002 FEC standards prohibit something called "interpreted code." The Diebold memory card architecture relies on interpreted code, executing logic on the memory card by passing memory card code through -- drum roll, please -- the interpreter.
But the FEC standards are deficient in some areas. Here's something that doesn't take a statistician to figure out: The FEC standards set a failure tolerance so low that 10 percent of the voting machines are allowed to fail on the first day of use. Would you buy a TV set if you knew there was a 10 percent chance it would stop working the first day? Hello? This is good use of taxpayer money?
The NASED voting systems panel appears to have gone rogue years ago and their certification oversight ability was stripped from them -- which should give you an idea just how shoddy their oversight really was. NASED duties were given to the new Election Assistance Commission (EAC) -- but the new standards, also "voluntary," have not been written yet and the EAC still isn't fully functional. About the only thing that's actually being enforced is the purchase deadline for new voting machines.
That hasn't stopped the California Secretary of State from inviting many of the most problematic members of the NASED voting systems panel in to an invitation-only meeting on Nov. 28 and 29 to help California set "best practices."
- Add to the mix: Various academics and "experts" who were supposed to be checking this stuff out.
Even the best of them (Dr. Doug Jones of Iowa and Dr. David Jefferson of California) didn't want to get too vocal about known problems, especially early on. Others like Georgia's Brit Williams and Florida's Paul Craft cannot possibly explain their unabashed cheerleading of systems which have now been proven to be defective.
There were a few notable exceptions. The outspoken Dr. Rebecca Mercuri has been telling it like it is since 1989.
HAVA: Who ordered this turkey?
The Help America Vote Act, which is used to justify the purchase of $4 billion in new voting machines, was lobbied into being by defense contractors and manufacturers looking to make a buck on the backs of U.S. taxpayers. (Documentation: See Black Box Voting book, chapter 16)
Demand a Hold on HAVA -- Megan Matson of Mainstreet Moms Operation Blue(MOB) has the right idea: "Hold on HAVA." The National Alliance of County Officials (NACO) wants to extend the HAVA deadline, at least until standards are set and adequate funding is available. The Election Assistance Commission, charged with supervising HAVA, is months behind its own deadlines.
Is anyone going to be held accountable for this turkey?
For 10 years, The Election Center and NASED ignored ITA ommissions the size of the federal deficit. When this became undeniable, secretaries of state at first commissioned independent studies from the SAIC, RABA, CompuWare, and recently Steve Freeman.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
