As hard as Sequoia must have had to search they actually found a way to blame the problem found on their machines in New Jersey on the poll worker. I am duly impressed. They even appear to admit that they stopped looking after they were able to figure out a way to blame the poor poll worker for the problem. "We identified a way in which poll worker error can result in the party turnout totals to be reported incorrectly." Did they look for any other potential answers for the problem? They don't say. Remember that the problem was the vote counts were correct, as far as anyone can know from a DRE, but the party totals did not match between the internal memory and the internal paper record. There were one or two Republican votes registered as being Democratic votes or vice versa. This only happened on 59 machines in 6 counties. Sequoia claims there was some special machinations poll workers used inside the control panel that allows them to select the R or D ballot for each voter. How did these machinations result in a different report on electronic memory from the paper memory? Also, why did it only happen once or twice on each machine? If a poll worker was making an error in the process why didn't that error happen much more often?? I have, again, requested that the EAC do their jobs and notify any potentially affected jurisdictions outside of New Jersey of this problem. They will ignore this problem as they have all previous problems with voting systems. Election officials in Pennsylvania counties that use these machines need to be made aware of the issues. Please pass on the word.
Late this afternoon it was reported that the first two pretests of Cuyahoga Co Ohio's new ES&S optical-scan machines were failures. The computer showed error messages during the first two tests. The third test was successful. What? Me Worry?...
Secretary of state clears way to use Hart InterCivic machines LINK
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).