HEY NEW YORK VOTERS: HAVE YOU SIGNED UP YET?

NY is gradually being forced to implement electronic vote counting systems. The Legislature, in order to "comply" with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), passed the Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 (ERMA). ERMA said to replace all lever voting machines by Sept. 2007. But HAVA only requires NY's voting system to be accessible to voters with disabilities, which NY is currently in the process of providing by using ballot marking devices and hand counting the paper ballots on Election Night (our lever voting machines already meet all other HAVA requirements). Thankfully, NO computerized e-vote counting is being used so far (except for the small number of NY's absentee ballots), and for good reason:

1. In 2006, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who advises the US Election Assistance Commission, has stated that software-based vote counting systems are NOT possible to certify to high levels of reliability and security, as we have seen in other States.
http://vote.nist.gov/DraftWhitePaperOnSIinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf

2. No systems have even come close to meeting either federal (2005) or New York standards, despite the fact that such standards are inadequate anyway, according to NIST.

3. Most computer scientists who have studied these systems, hacked them, and published the results of their work for States such as CA, CT and OH, agree that they are not suitable for use in elections, and even they have NOT found ALL the bugs (it's widely believed that finding them all is impossible, and definitely impossible to prove!). For example, Diebold's Global Election Management System has been shown to routinely drop vote tallies from WHOLE PRECINCTS, which was NOT discovered in any software review or certification process. (It was discovered in actual elections!)

4. As a result of the above issues, last year, the NY Legislature extended the deadline for the replacement of lever voting machines indefinitely by amending ERMA. Here's the link to the law:
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/hava/Chapter506.pdf

NOW, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THIS, I'M SORRY TO SAY YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. PROPONENTS OF E-VOTE COUNTING IN NY HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLICIZING THESE FACTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN PUSHING OPTICAL SCANNERS FOR SO LONG, THAT IT'S JUST TOO INCONVENIENT FOR THEM TO CHANGE COURSE. APPARENTLY, THEY THINK SOFTWARE CAN BE RELIABLY CERTIFIED, OR THAT WE WILL BE RECOUNTING PAPER BALLOTS ANY TIME THERE IS A "SUSPICIOUS" ELECTORAL OUTCOME, BUT NY'S HISTORY, CASE LAW, AS WELL AS EXPERIENCE IN OTHER STATES, SHOW THIS IS NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN. THE COURTS AND APPARENT WINNING CANDIDATES WILL REQUIRE PROOF THAT THE PAPER BALLOTS HAVE NOT BEEN TAMPERED WITH POST-ELECTION AND PROOF THAT VOTES WERE LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN MISCOUNTED BY THE COMPUTERS. Such evidence is difficult or impossible to obtain, so NO HAND RECOUNTS will occur at the drop of a hat in NY. It is more likely that we will simply become the NEXT FLORIDA.

Despite these concerns, the move to software-driven e-vote counting is proceeding, albeit at a snail's pace. The reason is simple: nobody has said "NO!"

New York already has one of the most secure and reliable voting systems in the country, and is the only State does NOT count votes with computers. WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

SO HAVE YOU SIGNED UP YET?

Here's a petition that you can sign to support the continued use of lever voting machines on NY State Constitutional grounds -- hopefully forever!:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/ny_levers_petition
SO SIGN IT!

Don't believe all the hype about paper ballots. They are easy to vote on and count by hand, but THEY WILL BE COUNTED BY COMPUTERS as early as 2009 unless we act today. And they will NOT be audited by hand in sufficient numbers to confirm the outcomes of elections. If we don't stop this, NY will slowly become the NEXT FLORIDA, and we have more than enough of those as is.

SO SIGN THE PETITION PLEASE.
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/ny_levers_petition

Also NOTE: if you are disabled, or know voters who are disabled, this litigation will benefit you (or them) by requiring accessible paper ballots to be counted by hand on election night, which is the current standard in NY, instead of by computers.

If you'd like to hear more about this, listen to attorney Andi Novick on Internet Radio here:
http://www.toginet.com/podcasts/election%20defense%20alliance/ElectionDefenseAllianceLIVE_2008-09-17-18-58.mp3
She will be suing the State to keep the levers. And if you know of any attorneys who would be willing to help, PLEASE have them contact her at: anovick AT fnklaw.com

Testing regulations pretty good. Levers have never really been litigated, just that precendent and Judge's rulings requirement replacement.

My first choice was always a second generation lever because it is near to impossible to hack it, and if can, only one machine at a time. Never been a movement back to mechnaical, which is always better, because using them requires less of the election administration (especially if we got lighter weight ones). Asking a lot of our election people to do the work necessary to audit and assure results of electronic systems.

I agree with limits of op-scan counting, and having paper doesn't always mean we will count them to determine outcome altering. Florida saying they won't once machine counted. Yet, if people want simple and insist on electronic, there is cross check if they count them.

who haven't thought this through and don't want to be seen as flip-floppers.

The software will pass "certification" eventually. If not, then why bother trying?

The problem is that NO certification is adequate. The software is too complex and too easy to modify. Certification does not rule out hardware problems, or interactions between hardware and software, as we have seen with GEMS. It was reviewed by Debra Bowen's team of experts who even had access to the source code, and even they could not detect these huge flaws. While NY will not be using Diebold, the point is that certification cannot prove the absence of flaws -- only their presence -- if you're lucky. That's no way to run a voting system.

Levers on the other hand can be reliably tested 100% at any time, and once tested, they can't change all by themselves the way software can. And unlike scanners, levers are "programmed" one machine at a time. There is no way to replicate the flaws.

It is the height of arrogance to suggest that it's possible to anticipate such problems and "certify" them out of existence. This is what we are being asked to believe now by those who refuse to accept the reality of the situation.

Even though NY's certification may be "pretty good", it's not possible to find all errors and there is certainly a greater chance for malfeasance with computers than with levers.

So sign the petition!:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/ny_levers_petition
And pass it on.

This is IMPOSSIBLE to do with SOFTWARE!:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4087132#4091868

thank you