BBV people, I need help re: DRE's and optical scans/do op. scans suck too?

I was under the impression that optical scans were the preferred voting machine because they come with a paper ballot even though it is read electronically.

But in OH and FL it looks like major fraud was perpetrated using optical scan machines, maybe they were rigged to read a certain way regardless of what the ballot showed, or rigged to choose W. when the person chose Kerry..

I want to make sure I got this right, do optical scans suck now too, I don't want to misinform anyone. Before it seemed like the answer was going to be a Voter Verified Paper Ballot, or VVPB, but if the machines can be rigged to electronically calculate a victory outside of the margin needed for a recount, then doesn't that make a VVPB useless?

Are there ANY voting methods that are not counted electronically? Can ANY machinery reading them (do machines read punch-cards and butterfly ballots?) be rigged to show a desired result? What is the best answer for the voting system here, machinery (or not) wise?

as a failsafe in case the numbers are wacky.. There is a window of spearation that must be met in order to trigger a recount.. I think if there is a recount, they re-scan the ballots, and if the numbers come up different, they manually recount..

So...if the internal workings of the optical scan is tweaked to NOT count all of a particular candidate, and the margin of defeat is not close, people NOT really elected could be (and probably are)serving in congress/senate..elsewhere:(

were all optical scan.

And the majority of OH is optical scan.

I just don't want to go around saying that all we need is a VVPB if that is no longer true.

What does the window of separation mean?

I have a new bumper sticker on my car, and I am going to make up some of those post-it things Bev was talking about, but if VVPB is no longer enough,then what should I recommend, because I know I'll get questions.

for national office elections..

If they cannot get their heads around that simple fact, then ALL DREs shold be scrapped and NEW optical scanners with reliable software(open source) should be used..

BUT..

we MUST be able to manually recount ballots..

paper trails...receipts...printouts...NONE of those are a BALLOT..

they are just a printed version of what the voter "saw" or thought they voted for..

What natters is what can be actually recounted..

Optical scan IS better because there IS a voter verified paper ballot, BUT (and it's a BIG but) the benefit of the paper ballot is only gained if the recount is done by hand.

DO NOT RELY ON A RE-SCAN OF THE BALLOTS,
COUNT THE PAPER ORIGINALS BY HAND

If there is any question as to the accuracy of the machine's interpretation of the first scan, there is NO reason to believe that the machine's interpretation of a second scan would be any more accurate.

You see, the scanner only looks for a dark mark at a particular spot on the paper. If the voter has placed an X through the bubble or circled the bubble or made some other indication of intent, the machine will NOT see it, nor recognize it.

These are not scanners like you can get for your home or office PC, they DO NOT take an image of the entire page. They 'see' ONLY the areas where the bubbles (or broken lines) are, and all they do is register a 'darker than the paper' or 'same as the paper' response for each target area. Depending on the type of light source that the scanner uses (many use infrared light) the type of writing utensil is important. Some writing utensils do NOT register under infrared, because they don't absorb enough of the infrared light. That's why #2 pencil is required - the graphite/ carbon content absorbs the infrared and the sensor in the scanner doesn't get as much reflected back as it does when it 'sees' the blank paper.

The same is true with the visible light scanners. Depending on the color of the light (often red) certain inks don't respond as well.

This is also why the type of paper is important. Some papers reflect the light more or less than others. So if your county or precinct ran out of ballots and got extras photocopied, unless they were done on the correct paper, the results could easily be influenced.

Speaking of photocopies, you know the black stuff that flakes-off from a photocopied document? It's called toner and is usually carbon based - which absorbs infrared.

Some counties use their Central Tabulator to print-off 'ballot images' for the recount. They think they're getting a nice clean copy of each scanned ballot. What they're ACTUALLY getting is a piece of paper formatted to look just like a ballot, with the machine's interpretation of the voter's intent printed into each bubble. Yea, it's nice and clean, but it hasn't been verified by the voter. All it is, is a re-print of the interpreted results.

There are a number of other things that can easily influence the outcome with optical-scan ballots, but a hand count of the original ballots will solve those issues, too.

DO NOT RELY ON A RE-SCAN OF THE BALLOTS,
COUNT THE PAPER ORIGINALS BY HAND

And now you know the rest of the story.

HG ;-)