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-----
From: kellen carey [mailto:kcarey636@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:04 AM
To: bouldervoting@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: CVV; Evan Daniel Ravitz
Subject: Voting System
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!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!