[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: letter to the editor, 11/11

Ms. Rhodes has indeed written an intelligent and useful letter.  However, she somewhat mispeaks when she says HAVA "has mandated that all 50 states have computerized voting machines by 2004 elections."
 
HAVA mandates only that all precincts have an (meaning at least one) ADA-compliant voting machine for the disabled.  That means DREs because DREs are the only technologies currently capable of allowing the disabled to vote privately and unassisted.
 
There is no mandate that all other voting equipment (i.e. for the 98% "abled" voters) be any particular method/technology, as long as it is not punch card or lever style voting equipment.  Paper ballots and handcounting are perfectly acceptable under HAVA.
 
Also, I don't think the deadline of 2004 (for ADA compliant voting equipment) is correct; I think the correct time by which these systems must be up is by Jan 1, 2006.
 
Please let me know if I am wrong.
 
kell

Evan Daniel Ravitz <evan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'll invite Donna to tomorrows meeting. She's a longtime friend of
mine...

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Laura Price wrote:

> There is a wonderful letter to the editor in the Camera today that echoes many
> of our sentiments. Not sure if Donna Rhodes is involved with CVV, but thought
> I should share this piece...laura.
>
> http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/letters_to_editor/article/0,1713,BDC_2491_2417818
> ,00.html
>
> VOTING
>
> Electronic systems vulnerable to fraud
>
> I challenge the Daily Camera to do some real investigative journalism, to be
> bold, question authority, and uncover the truth about the push for computerized
> voting in the next major election. It is possible that the greatest voter fraud
> in American history is set to take place in the next presidential election, and
> it will make the last one seem trivial in comparison, unless we citizens do
> something about it.
>
> The "Help America Vote Act" has mandated that all 50 states must have
> computerized voting machines for the 2004 election and Boulder officials are in
> the process of selecting ours. On the surface it appears to make voting much
> easier, but it makes fraud much easier too. The law does not require a printout
> or ballot of our vote and the computer manufacturers are discouraging the use
> of this available technology. Why would anyone be against a verifiable paper
> trail, a check system of sorts? Here are just a few of the problems encountered
> in 2002.
>
> In Scurry County, Texas two Republicans won by a landslide when polls had been
> predicting the Democratic candidates to win by a large margin. The county clerk
> demanded a recount both manually and electronically using a new computer chip
> and indeed the Democrats did win. A faulty chip was to blame that counted
> Democratic votes as Republican. They did not demand a recount in Comal County,
> Texas when three Republican candidates received the exact same number of votes ?
> 18,181. How likely is this coincidence?
>
> In Georgia, the first state to use all-electronic voting, a Republican governor
> was voted into office; the first one since the end of the Civil War, and pre-
> election polls showed the Democratic candidate to be in the lead.
>
> Voters in Florida reported touching the screen to vote for the Democratic
> candidate for governor and having the computer screen show that they had voted
> for the Republican incumbent, Jeb Bush.
>
> In Nebraska, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel was the former CEO of ES&S, the
> voting machine manufacturer that supplied all the voting machines for the state
> of Nebraska. For more information on this subject check out
> www.blackboxvoting.com.
>
> Talk to our local officials about their options in selecting a computerized
> voting machine for us. Get informed, demand a verifiable paper trail and make
> your vote count!
>
> DONNA RHODES, Boulder
>

Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard