Re: Daily Camera editorial mentioning touchscreens

[Renifer <denver_renifer@xxxxxxxxx>]

Paul W.,
Thanks for posting this article.
My comments are inline.

> "many analysts concluded that voting just wasn't convenient
enough."

Where is the analysis and data to back up this statement?
I have seen nowhere where an "analyst" is making this statement.

> "The upshot in Boulder County has been a significant increase in
> voter turnout."

This is a good thing, right?

> "That's good news." 

I thought so.  So why do you argue this next point?
 
> "That resulted in a molasses-slow count, which didn't conclude
until
> late Thursday night."

"Molasses slow"?  I think not.  I challenge _anyone_ to do better.
Besides, slow is not a problem, is it?
The problem is one of "convenience" according to this report.
I haven't heard one argument from the voters about slowness.
I have heard many arguments regarding the accuracy, or lack thereof,
of mail in ballots.
 
> "We'll take security over speed any time."

Will you?  Then why complain about "molasses slow"?
Which point are you trying to make here?
Is it convenience or speed?
I thought that mail in ballots were "good news"?

> "we didn't have to sacrifice speed for security." 

So speed is at odds with security?
Prove that.  
Show me the data that says that voters think that a vote that is cast
on a Tuesday night and fully counted by sometime Thursday evening is
considered "slow".
Show me that mail in ballots are more or less secure than a DRE.
I want data, not speculation.


> "Congress passed the Help America Vote Act to supposedly stave off
future snafus."

Show me the data that proves this point.
How can you speculate as to the intent of Congresspersons?
I believe that HAVA was passed to gain speed and therefore eliminate
any disagreements by saying that the vote, however inaccurate, is old
news, just like the 2000 selection.
This is, however, speculation on my part, and therefore irrelevant.

> "Every county in the nation must adopt new technology by next year,

> including touch-screen computer voting at every precinct."

This is a gross misrepresentation of HAVA, in my opinion.

> "Most fifth graders can count paper ballots," 

I doubt the accuracy of this statement.  Has this been tried?
I believe that accurate vote counting should only be done by trained
officials to get the most accurate count.
Shame on this reporter for denigrading the work of the county
elections officials.
It demeans and belittles them and their work.
I for one am grateful for their excellent work.

> "but few of us could audit software."

This statement misses the point.
Some of us could perform software test, of course, but it would take
a specification, a test plan, an oversight committee, and thousands
upon thousands of hours of labor, proper equipment, and patience.
It can be done, contrary to the uninformed opinion of this reporter.


> "In other words, the purity of every election will rest with a few
skilled technicians. 
> That's a little unsettling."

That is not as unsettling as the idea that those technicians will
have to be employees of the vendor selected, who may have some bias
in the outcome of the election.
Again, this misses the point.


> "By mid-December, Boulder County should have selected its new
voting 
> system, after a long vetting process."

"Long vetting process"?  What the hell is he talking about?
This statement is just plain false.

> "The new machines, probably touch-screens, will be in use next
fall."

How can the reporter make such a certain statement?

> "This isn't the place for an analysis of concerns about
touch-screen systems." 

It most certainly bloody well is the time and place.
If not now, when?  If not here, where?

Shame on this reporter for not stating more facts and less opinion.


> "We trust officials to choose the best system, but they must ensure
maximum accountability."

Trust is the one thing that should _NOT_ be a factor at all.
Should we have trusted Lyndon B. Johnson when he had himself
photographed in front of a poll box that he himself stuffed?
Please.
It's about oversight and accuracy, and the assurance that the vote
cast is the one counted.

> "In the meantime, there's this (thin) silver lining: Just maybe,
with > a slick, new e-voting system, we'll chuck the hassles of mail
> balloting, and 
> voters will just have to reach out and touch some screen." 

Silver lining?  Slick?  Is he kidding?
Ease of use is only an issue for the minority of those who are
differently abled.
For the rest of us, mail balloting has been largely seen as a
benefit, as it has increased voter turnout and reliablility, as this
reporter echoes.
What "silver lining" is he talking about?
Who gives a damn about "slick"?



Jeez.  This opinion piece is both pathetic and factually inaccurate.

-Christian

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree