system that I think is ideal. It is a two step process.
* In the first step, a computer is used to help the voter create the ballot.
This computer does no counting so it can be any PC running the right programs.
It uses open source, non-proprietary, non-secret software that should be
available on the web for anyone to check. It can produce (print out) a complete
ballot that the voter can look at to verify; at the same time, the computer
printing ensures uniformity for an optical scan device to read without error.
Another important advantage of the PC at this step is that it can provide
marvelous aid to voters with disabilities.
* The second step is the reading of the ballot, and this could even be done
by hand. Or it can be done by an OS device which would count the votes and so
would need security protection like any other OS voting machine. And, like any
other voting machine, an audit, random manual hand count, would have to be an
essential part of the process. (Not to check the computer, but to check the
computer programmer.)
The OVC approach is a whole concept. It includes a non-secure computer to
produce the ballot. And it generally also includes a computer for the optical
scanning and ballot counting, and it includes every reasonable security step
between the use of open source software and the random manual recount at the
end.
have had, they must remember that the problems have never been shown to be with
the computational part of the computer, and it is not likely they ever will. The
problems are with the people who design the computer support, those who program
the computer, the people who set up the computer, and the people who design the
process that uses the computer. If there is a problem unique to computers, it is
not the computational part of the machines, it is that the technology is not
understood by the people who are using it. In the OVC system, if the OS fails,
the ballots can always be counted by hand. And if one of the machines used to
create the ballots fails, there should always be a couple replacements available
since they are not expensive.
When I started computer studies (way back in 1968), one of the first things they
taught is that computers are very, very fast, but they are also very, very
stupid. They will do exactly what they are told every time. We can rely on the
computers but not on the people around them.
So all this doesn't make the choice obvious for me either. In the end we are
dealing with people, many who are not sophisticated. Either solution must
address this common difficulty. If HCPB has an edge, it is that it will be less
expensive and will involve the community more in election process. But I also
think it will be a much harder sell.
Phil Fry, voting activist, CASE, Ohio
***
Joan,
This is a superbly eloquent and stirring piece of writing. You have summed
up
what would have taken me about the length of a novel to articulate.
I really believe this issue has legs. Recently Court TV recorded "Building
Confidence in US Elections" at the Carter Center here in Atlanta, with Pres.
Carter and other members of the Carter-Baker Commission (and Max Cleland).
The
main issue was supposed to be the voter ID bill recently passed by GA
legislature, but Diebold and e-voting became the centerpiece. I'm waiting
for
Court TV to show this program, which so far evidently hasn't been put on
their
schedule. I'll let you know when it airs. (Assuming it DOES air--who
knows?)
Carter gets it, but isn't targeting this issue the way I wish he would.
Cynthia McKinney had a press conference here in February, where more slime
about
Diebold was released--this time concerning the contractual amendments which
followed the original of May, 2002, all of them letting Diebold off the hook
in
some way. Was it covered by our local paper? Of course not! But, Cynthia
got
front page coverage for hitting that guy last week!
It's very interesting to me to read all the time about Califorinia, or New
Mexico, or Nevada, or Florida, or Ohio, when GEORGIA HAS THE WORST SYSTEM IN
THE
NATION! Practically nothing is written about us. Our legislature recently
passed the most useless legislation in the universe--in '06 there will be
three
precincts with "trial" paper trails. The paper won't be counted unless
there's an audit, and the legislation self-destructs after the election.
Needless to
say, Diebold can program those precincts to be honest, and the rest of the
state
be damned.
Sometimes I think I'm going insane, and I know you do too. But we can't stop
now.
Thank you for all you are doing.
Susan McWethy-Smith, voting activist, Georgia
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).