MAG: Now I’ll put you on the spot: Congress is apparently finally waking up and is supposedly considering banning DREs and giving states money to replace [them] with optical scan. Would you support that?
MB: That seems, from what we’ve seen, my opinion, and I’m speaking only for myself, is that that would make me feel a lot more comfortable with the security of these elections.
MAG: But you would still like to see a fair number of procedural changes, as well.
MB: That’s right. We still need procedural changes, we still need to look at the security of the optical scan ballots, but I think the most serious problems we found, and most importantly, the ones that are hardest to correct, once they’ve happened, are the problems with the DREs.
MAG: That even raises the question, because you mentioned checks and balances, and that’s pretty important; I’m wondering if you could ever design and have a DRE system that would meet that, because a DRE system, even with a printer, would never be a separate and independent system.
MB: The disadvantage of a DRE is that the voters’ intentions—are touching a screen, this ephemeral process, that, at the end of it, you’re left with only the record produced by the machine, you’re not left with something that the voter has produced themselves, so you don’t know if it’s an accurate reflection of what they actually intended. So, DREs start from a security disadvantage right there. Now, it’s important not to confuse DREs with touch-screens.
MAG: Understood.
MB: This, I think, has been a source of considerable confusion on the issue because people often equate the nice user interface of a touch-screen, which many voters, particularly disabled voters, like quite a bit because you can, for example, have assistive devices hooked up to it that will speak in different languages, you can have sip and puff interfaces for mobility-impaired voters, and so on. These are all very important considerations, but they don’t actually require a DRE machine in order to accommodate these voters.
MAG: Do you think that we’re going to be faced in 2008 with doing a lot more hand counting to give us any security?
MB: Well, I think if we want secure elections, with the equipment at least that we looked at, we’re going to have no alternative.
MAG: Is there any reason for you to think that, and here again, this is strictly your opinion, that the equipment you didn’t examine, although it covers a large majority, that it would be that much different?
MB: Well, all we can do is speculate. We looked at three. Of the three we looked at, all of them were very deeply and pervasively flawed. Are the others any better? I suppose it’s possible that they are, but unfortunately, they haven’t been looked at with the same kind of scrutiny.
MAG: So, how do you feel as a Pennsylvanian and living in Philadelphia, where you have a Danaher machine which actually doesn’t even have a print-out, and you will be going, unless there is a change, up to that machine, entering your vote and not knowing where it went? How secure will you feel in 2008 if we have no change?
MB: Well, I hope that the procedures that are put in place in Philadelphia to prevent tampering are really sound.
MAG: But we still have that problem without any proof.
MB: That’s right.
MB: That seems, from what we’ve seen, my opinion, and I’m speaking only for myself, is that that would make me feel a lot more comfortable with the security of these elections.
MAG: But you would still like to see a fair number of procedural changes, as well.
MB: That’s right. We still need procedural changes, we still need to look at the security of the optical scan ballots, but I think the most serious problems we found, and most importantly, the ones that are hardest to correct, once they’ve happened, are the problems with the DREs.
MB: The disadvantage of a DRE is that the voters’ intentions—are touching a screen, this ephemeral process, that, at the end of it, you’re left with only the record produced by the machine, you’re not left with something that the voter has produced themselves, so you don’t know if it’s an accurate reflection of what they actually intended. So, DREs start from a security disadvantage right there. Now, it’s important not to confuse DREs with touch-screens.
MAG: Understood.
MB: This, I think, has been a source of considerable confusion on the issue because people often equate the nice user interface of a touch-screen, which many voters, particularly disabled voters, like quite a bit because you can, for example, have assistive devices hooked up to it that will speak in different languages, you can have sip and puff interfaces for mobility-impaired voters, and so on. These are all very important considerations, but they don’t actually require a DRE machine in order to accommodate these voters.
MAG: Do you think that we’re going to be faced in 2008 with doing a lot more hand counting to give us any security?
MB: Well, I think if we want secure elections, with the equipment at least that we looked at, we’re going to have no alternative.
MAG: Is there any reason for you to think that, and here again, this is strictly your opinion, that the equipment you didn’t examine, although it covers a large majority, that it would be that much different?
MB: Well, all we can do is speculate. We looked at three. Of the three we looked at, all of them were very deeply and pervasively flawed. Are the others any better? I suppose it’s possible that they are, but unfortunately, they haven’t been looked at with the same kind of scrutiny.
MAG: So, how do you feel as a Pennsylvanian and living in Philadelphia, where you have a Danaher machine which actually doesn’t even have a print-out, and you will be going, unless there is a change, up to that machine, entering your vote and not knowing where it went? How secure will you feel in 2008 if we have no change?
MB: Well, I hope that the procedures that are put in place in Philadelphia to prevent tampering are really sound.
MAG: But we still have that problem without any proof.
MB: That’s right.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
