|
Kell (et al), A review of the minutes might reveal that we are
suggesting the rental of new systems, not lease. Leases are purchases for all
intents and purposes. Leases are very expensive, rentals are not. We don’t want
to go the lease route. One of the suggestions that we’re making is the rental
of precinct based paper scanners. This responds to federal and state HAVA’s
demands for ‘second chance’ voting, and leaves that in the hands of the voters,
not the clerk. Let the voters decide what they meant in overvotes and
undervotes, not a resolution team. And personally, I agree with everything else you’ve
stated here – with the exception of hand tallies, unless they are done at the
precinct level. Hand tallies in a central location would be a nightmare. Paul Tiger - LPBC -----Original
Message----- HartIntercivic sold
Boulder County a crummy, unreliable voting system. I sat on the Boulder
County New Voting Equipment Review Committee (August-December, 2003),
never missing a single meeting (more than 40 hours of meetings), and know that
HartIntercivic sales reps grossly misstated their system's capabilities,
and the 2004 election proved it. The HartIntercivic voting
system was largely untested at the time of purchase, and it performed
pathetically during the 2004 election. HartIntercivic had every incentive
to devote special attention to the Boulder County election, because it knew, as
we all knew, that the entire state was watching its performance
carefully. Despite that incentive, HartIntercivic offiicials were unable
to facilitate a remotely competent election. I was one of the many
people involved w/ Citizens for Verifiable Voting who urged the County
Commissioners to consider leasing a sytem to prove itself before committing to
a million dollar debacle. That advice was ignored. Additionally, many CVV
supporters urged a closer look at handcounting, but that too was ignored. I am probably one of the
few people in Boulder County who has actually handcounted an
official election -- Nederland in spring 2003, I believe. There are
ways of handcounting large numbers of ballots that are cumbersome and time
consuming (as in Nederland), and there are ways that are quite efficient, as in
the Swiss method outlined by Joe Pezzillo here in Boulder County. Now the County has the
opportunity to pick a system that is transparent
(meaning ordinary people can observe the tallying process and determine if it
is accurate and honest, an utter impossibility w/ private, proprietary
software), verifiable (meaning it can be cross- and
double-checked by ordinary citizens and a second counting methodology, whether
or not there are questions of propriety), and accurate
(meaning a voting system that has a proven record of sufficient checks and
balances insuring impeccable accuracy). Members of the public
have been suggesting voting system components that satisfy those
requirements, and handcounting is an important ingrediant. Turns out that
handcounting is cheaper, faster, transparent, verifiable and accurate, far more
so than the shabby HartIntercivic system. I urge you to renounce
unequivocally the intuitively and rationally assinine idea of
having Boulder County's democratic votes counted by secret, proprietary
software. If that is your choice, then the democratic contract is
effectively broken. If the people cannot count their own votes, then
the integrity of elections is by definition suspect. What is the difference
between having votes counted by secret, proprietary software and having votes
counted by a secretive cabal of unknowns in a back room? The answer is,
quite simply: none. No secret, proprietary
software, no electronic tabulating of votes. Handcounting. Thanks. Sincerely, Kellen A. Carey PO Box 1132 Boulder, CO 80306 Do you Yahoo!? |