[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
County spins blame for vote delay
(This is not a letter to the editor.)
The news media are reporting that Jim Burrus is laying the blame for
the election counting delay on Citizens for Verifiable Voting
(http://coloradovoter.net).
Burrus says CVV insisted on paper voting instead of the better
faster electronic voting. This relies on people's ignorance. These
are facts:
1. ALL voting (except a few small rural districts) in the US has
been electronically counted by computers since the 70s. All the
software is secret ("closed source") not public ("open source")
which is being successfully used in Australia (see
http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,61045,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1)
Burrus uses "electronic" voting to mean "direct recording
electronic" (DRE) machines which uses no paper. Boulder used
Datavote punch cards and now paper ballots. Both are read and
counted by computers using proprietary software.
2. CVV asked for either hand-counted paper ballots OR public
software with a few other protections. In just 3 days over 130
people signed a pledge to hand-count this election for free. You can
see the list at http://vote.org/hand (This points to
petitiononline.com, which wasn't working properly this morning. I do
have the list of emails.)
3. ALL citizens at ALL meetings with the County Commissioners spoke
AGAINST the system now used. ONLY the election bureaucrats want the
system we have.
4. The system used is FAR slower, more expensive and less accurate
than hand-counting. Canada, Britain, Germany and others use hand
counting. Canada spends about $1.82 per vote, compared to $3-5
here. See The New York Times, September 19, 2004 The Hand-Marked
Ballot Wins for Accuracy
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=68308
5. In ONLY Colorado, Arizona and Nebraska, the paper or punch-card
"backups" or "audit trails" or whatever, is irrelevant because our
state laws say that any recount has to be done by the original
method of counting -the same secret software. ONLY if the Secretary
of State or a judge mandates a manual recount will it happen. I
don't believe it has ever happened here. Paul Danish tried to get a
manual recount of his close loss to Todd Saliman in 1994, with no
success.
Here are the relevant laws on recounts:
Laws all found at www.findlaw.com
First Colorado, Arizona & Nebraska, the states prohibiting manual recounts of computer-counted elections.
Then California & Texas, much more typical in allowing manual recounts of computer-counted elections.
Colorado Revised Statute 1-10.5-108. Method of recount.
Statute text
(1) The recount shall be of the ballots cast, and the votes shall be
recorded on sheets other than those used at the election.
(2) Unless otherwise directed by the secretary of state, the ballots
cast shall be recounted utilizing the same procedures, methods, and
processes that were utilized for the original count of the ballots
cast.
History
Source: L. 99: Entire article added with relocations, p. 487, 13,
effective July 1. L. 2001: Entire section amended, p. 301, 4,
effective August 8.
Annotations
Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as 1-10-306.
http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
Arizona:
A.R.S. 16-664. Recount of votes by automatic tabulating system
A. In the event of a court-ordered recount of votes which were cast and
tabulated on electronic voting equipment for a state primary, state general
or state special election, the secretary of state shall order the ballots
recounted on an automatic tabulating system to be furnished and programmed
by the secretary of state. In the event of a court-ordered recount for
elections other than for the office of supervisor, the secretary of state
may designate the county board of supervisors to perform the duties assigned
to the secretary of state.
B. If the office of secretary of state is contested, the governor shall
order the ballots recounted on an automatic tabulating system to be
furnished and programmed at the direction of the governor.
C. The programs to be used in the recount of votes pursuant to this section
shall differ from the programs prescribed by section 16-445 and used in the
initial tabulation of the votes.
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00664.htm&Titl
e=16&DocType=ARS
NEBRASKA: 32-1119
Automatic recount; when; waiver; procedure.
(6) The procedures for the recounting of ballots shall
be the same as those used for the counting of ballots on election
day. The recount shall be conducted at the county courthouse,
except that if vote counting devices are used for the counting or
recounting, such counting or recounting may be accomplished at
the site of the devices. Counties counting ballots by using a
vote counting device shall first recount the ballots by use of
the device. If substantial changes are found, the ballots shall
then be counted using such device in any precinct which might
reflect a substantial change.
Source:
Laws 1994, LB 76, § 362; Laws 2002, LB 1054, § 24.
Effective date July 20, 2002.
http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/Corpus/Statutes/chap32/R3211019.html
CALIFORNIA:
15627. If in the election which is to be recounted the votes
were recorded by means of a punchcard voting system or by
electronic or electromechanical vote tabulating devices, the
voter who files the declaration requesting the recount may
select whether the recount shall be conducted manually or by
means of the voting system used originally, or both.
BILL NUMBER: SB 1547 CHAPTERED 09/28/94
CHAPTER 920
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 28, 1994
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=76483324700+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
TEXAS:
§ 214.042. Counting Method for Recount
(a) A person requesting a recount of electronic voting system ballots has a choice of:
(1) an electronic recount using the same program as the original count;
(2) an electronic recount using a corrected program under Section 214.046(c), if obtainable; or
(3) a manual recount as provided by Subchapter A.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986.
Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., 2nd C.S., ch. 59, § 18, eff. Oct. 20, 1987.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=ZYDMGPQMUSIQ&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=128157&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=1&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES
---------------------------------------------------------
Evan Ravitz 303 440 6838 evan@xxxxxxxx
Vote to Ratify the National Initiative at http://Vote.org
Photo Adventures: http://Vote.org/photos
Bush vs the Pope! http://Vote.org/Bush
Sins of the father Bush http://Vote.org/silence
NORAD's self-incriminating news release http://Vote.org/911