Conny McCormack, California elections, and touch screen voting.

About a week ago I came across this thread in the LBN concerning Conny B McCormack, California elections, and touch screen voting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=534194

I sent Conny an email voicing my concerns about the flaws in this new voting system as follows:

"Dear Conny B. McCormack,
The electronic, touch screen voting machines are flawed when there cannot be a recount. Please allow the paper receipts with these, otherwise a majority of the people will see this election as being fixed."

A few minutes ago I finally recieved this reply:
"There are issues with a "take-away" receipt for voting. An ATM receipt, for example, is for your records, and in itself has no re-sale value. A receipt showing how you voted, however, could be sold to prove you voted for a particular candidate. For this reason, we know of no jurisdiction in the US that is contemplating a "take-away" receipt.

The key reason that elections officials are purchasing electronic voting equipment has nothing to do with partisanship nor with the desire to manipulate election results. Most jurisdictions in the United States have used a form of electronic voting for decades -- punch cards, for example, are nothing more than a set of instructions to a computer on how to tabulate votes. The most easily-manipulated voting system in US history is the Shoup lever machine, still used by a number of jurisdictions along the Eastern seaboard. This machine uses no paper, but keeps a mechanical tally in the back of the machine which pollwokers call in to election headquarters at the close of polls. If you will review some early 20th Century American history, you will see that in a number of juridictions, pollworkers were murdered for not calling in the "correct, " pre-determined totals from these unverifiable machines.

It is much easier to fabricate and manipulate paper ballots than it is to falsely program electronic voting systems. The core issue, clearly articulated in your email, is that some voters do not trust even non-partisan election officials and are therefore highly susceptible to bogus "scientific" findings by experts who have their own agendas.

All elections officials in the US are under a deadline to comply with a federal mandate that by 2006 the blind and visually impaired must be able to vote unassisted in each polling place. As of today, electronic voting systems are the only technology that meets this requirement. We eagerly await the invention and demonstration of other options that will meet this requirement.

Deborah Wright

Executive Liaison Officer

LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk

(for Conny McCormack, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk)"

~~~
So....this is going to be their arguement in favor of this. Interesting.

Ask her why they can't use optical scan ballots, which the blind can fill in secretly using the AutoMark from Vogue Election Systems.


a link to the AutoMark page:
http://www.vogueelection.com/products_automark.html

Minnesota is using optical scan ballots in November, with the AutoMark for the blind.


Also, no one is calling for a "receipt" voters walk away with.

The idea of a voter-verifiable paper ballot is to leave it for auditing and recounts.

I hear ya and I'll send off another email to her after we all discuss this for a bit and I can better formulate a petition. Thank you for your input.

...has the most massive corruption/fraud potential in history.

Paper is NOT as easy as a little computer code. Lever machines can be rigged but they can also be watched (another issue) to make sure they are working. However, they have a fatal flaw- no way to recount.

The Help America Vote Act, to which she refers, does NOT mandate touch screens. Any OTHER means by which the disabled are enabled to vote is acceptable. That means that ballot templates, used in Europe and Rhode Island, at a fraction of the cost, can be used.

As mentioned above, the AutoMark can be used.

And the DOJ rulled that touch screens that produce a voter verified paper ballot comply with HAVA AND the American Disabilities Act.

Counties DO NOT have to buy machines that do not produce a paper ballot.

By the way, the above argument from McCormick is why we keep trying to get people to stop using the term "receipt." First of all, it was propogated by the non-paper faction. Secondly, you know that you meant that the paper stayed in the polling place, but by using "receipt," allowed McCormick to take off on a tangent about vote selling, completely sidetracking the issue of a voter verified paper ballot.

Say "ballot," and use "ballot." Ballots are not to leave the polling place, there is a long history of that. Always include, "...to be placed in a secure ballot box at the polling place."

Don't let them lead and twist the argument.

eom.

when for over a year now every single public argument she's been in refer to keeping the ballot in a ballot box. If she's sincere, why is she answering a question with a total red herring?

By the way, most of Los Angeles is optical scan. They only use touch-screens for early voting, though they've wanted to buy them. They use the GEMS central tabulator for all of it.

Bev

I respect you and admire you Bev Harris. Anything I can do to help you within my scope of power, I'll surely do. Thank you for your input. I'll be bringing this up with Conny.