4/21/2005
Paul Condon Wrote on the CVV Mailing List:
BoCo owns the equipment, and it seems to me politically unrealistic to advocate junking it, at least in the next two or three decades.
But please consider this response to the Commissioners, the County Clerk, the ERC the CVV list and our community at large.
Fellow Citizens:
There is no reason for the taxpayers of Boulder County to tolerate this fundamentally broken elections system for decades, let alone even one more election.
The ERC has failed to prove that the electronic voting system we purchased can be repaired, and instead, has revealed and documented numerous inherent system design flaws, basic operational oversights, and standard business process failures. The ability to rely on every one of these, and to provide the maximum amount of transparency to assure they are reliable, is critical to the concept of trustworthy elections.
Thus, that the ERC by its charter is not allowed to or for political reasons will not produce any recommendation but "there must be some way to fix this system" is why I can no longer support their efforts, despite repeatedly trying to participate. Now TWO different methods used reliably for decades by nations with populations much larger than our county's showing in detail how to hand count paper ballots have been offered and recommended by leading citizen activists, only to be told that hand counting is not an option on the table, the only solution that is acceptable is one that continues to involve the deeply flawed system already purchased. This despite the fact that the Commissioners and the County Clerk have been presented with the signatures of hundreds of local citizens who would be willing to provide volunteer labor to hand count paper ballots at no charge. Note that while the Clerk complains of an inability to recruit more election judges, it's my understanding that not one of the people on that list had been contacted prior to the last election asking for assistance.
We've "only" wasted around $1.5 million at this point as long as you don't count the $500K in overtime for the November 04 debacle and decades of pending support costs. I'm sure that's not much compared to some of the other wasted resources around. Please don't let the County throw good money after bad, we've wasted enough of our time and money on this vendor already, and they have yet to take a single action that proves they are worthy of having us as a customer.
Don't forget, those "fancy" Dell servers are going to look like the disposable junk ("planned obsolescence") they are in only a few years, and will no doubt need to be replaced to "stay current." Are future versions of the vendor's software guaranteed to work on the old hardware? Is this system certified, frozen "as is" in perpetuity? Will the software or hardware or support the then current operating system in 5 years, will the operating system vendor support older versions of their operating system?
Who has done one iota of technology lifecycle planning for this or any other of these systems? This is basic stuff in the computer industry, funny that it's not top of mind for elections officials. These systems are intended to run the core of our democracy, and yet they've had about as much analysis as a dinner menu, a dinner no doubt paid for by an industry vendor, too!
The Elections are not a problem to be solved with technology, that's why nobody can figure out how to get the technology correct. I have seen so many proposals and e-mails about how to fix this or change that and add this or re-engineer that. STOP! We have to stop trying to design specifications for technologies where no technology will ever suffice! There is simply NO computer system reliable enough for us to entrust the most important act of our government.
Here's the Elephant in the Room, folks, submitted so that it is on the public record:
AT NO TIME prior to purchase did the County Clerk or the Vendor say, "This system is designed for absentee and early voting ONLY, it is NOT designed for election day use." Something we now know was the case all along, and worse, MANY CITIZENS SAID INSUFFICIENT ANALYSIS HAD BEEN DONE PRIOR TO PURCHASE. This information could have been revealed by the Orange County elections official who was quoted in the Daily Camera after November's debacle saying exactly this. Our County Clerk went to Orange County in 2004, prior to purchasing the system, and returned with a glowing report about how great the system was.
That is why we are in this mess. We bought the wrong system for election day voting. Period. That we might be able to make it work sometimes under certain ideal conditions is simply not good enough.
It should not be the business or responsibility of Boulder County citizens to write the requirements and specifications for a vendor's defective system that we were tricked into purchasing, either by commission or omission.
That the ERC has not been paid by the vendor for the work they have done is a further theft of our community resources.
Remember, they laughed at us when asked about giving a refund, and that appears to be typical of their customer focus. Furthermore, was any social screening done on this vendor prior to purchase? Is the fact that a major investor in this vendor is also a major investor in the current president compatible with our community's goals and values?
I hope you won't consider giving this vendor another dime, let alone working with them for 30 years! Instead, I hope that you investigate how this waste of our limited resources was allowed to occur, and worse, how it can continue to this day, with the potential to damage our elections for years to come.
Joe Pezzillo, Citizen Activist Boulder, Colorado USA jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx
On Apr 21, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
BoCo owns the equipment, and it seems to me politically unrealistic to advocate junking it, at least in the next two or three decades.
.