...chinks in the voting system armor could allow intrusion DURING voting day and during tabulation.
In addition to this article and the numerous citations found therein, the studies referred to earlier reveal that having the source code does not provide sufficient safeguards against grand-scale election theft. California had the source coding and almost $2 million dollars later concluded that the voting systems could all be rigged, often without detection, with or without the source coding. Unlike mechanical equipment (ie, the lever machines) software is not static. Software regularly requires updating or "patches" to improve or fix it. Are taxpayers to spend millions of dollars every year to vet the patches and the machines to find what California and other states have found: that uncertified software is installed; that the certified software has bugs which can undermine the will of the voters? Are jurisdictions willing or able to test each of thousands of machines just before they are sent out to precincts? Is that how we should be spending our tax dollars when there are safer means to vote that are far less costly? And even if the state had a surplus of our money to burn, all of this testing would not uncover those hacks designed to be undetected.9
HOW NEW YORK'S STORY WILL END:
WHAT CAN NEW YORKERS DO TO PREVENT THE UNDERMINING OF OUR DEMOCRACY
Anyone reading this could definitely answer that question. What is our responsibility having elected our legislators and our governor? At the moment, our legislators and the agency they appointed (SBOE) to make decisions regarding the next electoral system for New York, seem to be suffering from a condition that might be described as "under the influence". Alcohol consumption would be relatively harmless in this situation. It is the influence of the voting vendors that have successfully disinformed those who are poised to force New Yorkers to vote on theft-enabling voting machines. How else can we account for the fact that notwithstanding what California has now made public New York is still planning on buying these defective, unsafe machines? Of course nothing's preventing our decision-makers from getting beyond the propaganda from the vendors. Why should our decision-makers be permitted to remain misinformed about something as critical as the means by which we protect our sovereignty?
Computerized Voting Machines Should Have Been Recalled
When we found out that the Ford Pinto blew up upon impact, did we run out to test drive them and give them another chance? When Mattel announced it was recalling 11 of Barbie's playsets for lead paint and investigating the lead paint in other toys, how many parents rushed to embrace the other Barbie products? We expect people are capable of a rational response to such revelations. Why can't we insist our representatives behave rationally?
Consider this.
The federal government sets minimum performance and safety requirements for automobiles which are certified for use on public roads and highways. Failure to comply with these standards results in a recall of the car or its defective parts.
When there's lead found in the toys Mattel distributes, what's the consequence? Mattel at least claims to undertake extensive testing to ensure the safety and quality of the toys it sells, apologizes to the public, accepts responsibility and recalls millions of toys.
But when the voting vendors are exposed for selling shoddy, insecure equipment, that has been certified for use in public elections, what's the consequence? No recall. No apologies. No vendors accepting responsibility. Just legislators who, having waited this long, now can't wait to spend hundreds of millions of our dollars buying the should-have-been-recalled equipment for us!
New York can take advantage of what other states have had to learn the hard way and forego falling victim to these vendors' misrepresentations. New York can create a publicly accountable, reliable, properly safeguarded electoral system. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the people who want us to re-elect them have any interest in protecting our rights or behaving rationally. Our public officials in Albany seem to think the inadequate theft-enabling equipment sold by these vendors, who continue to misrepresent their defective products, is good enough for us. You gotta wonder where they're getting their information from. Certainly not from scientists who repeatedly have tried to tell us not to fall for the snake oil.
If New Yorkers get conned at this late date, we're going to be the rightful butt of that well known (if not well delivered) adage, fool-me-twice. We're also going to be stuck with the snake oil for a long time.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
