Write a Rebuttal to DIEBOLD in the NY Times!

From New Yorkers for Verified Voting (PBOS=Paper Ballots Optically Scanned):

>>
As many of you know, the New York Times came out last week in support of
paper ballot/optical scan systems, a very important endorsement for PBOS.
Today, the Times published four letters responding to the endorsement. Two
supported PBOS, and two were against
it.(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/l14vote.html?).

One of the letters against it was from the President of Diebold Systems, who
makes false claims about PBOS in the letter.

Please write the New York Times and call attention to the misstatements in
the pro-DRE letters.
Send your letters to:

letters@nytimes.com

You must include your full name, address and a phone number to be considered
for publication.

I've included the two anti-PBOS letters below. Here are some rebuttals to
the misstatements.

A)The letter from the president of Diebold claims -

"Additionally, optical-scan machines are not "far cheaper than
touch-screens." Per unit, the cost of optical scanners is about $1,000 more
than a typical touch-screen machine."

1) This ignores the obvious fact that an optical scan system requires far
FEWER machines be purchased than with DRE systems. In New York, a minimum of
one DRE, and perhaps more, must be purchased for each lever machine. With
optical scan systems, only one optical scanner must be purchased for each
polling place, except for the very largest, which may require one or two
additional scanners. New York State will save over $50 million dollars in
up-front costs by purchasing PBOS systems rather than DREs.

2) The claim that a DRE is less expensive than one optical scanner is only
true of the ATM style DREs that are made by Diebold. But in NYS, where we
have the full face ballot, the only DREs we can consider purchasing are MUCH
MORE EXPENSIVE per unit. Where a scanner can be purchased for around $5500,
a full face ballot DRE costs around $8000!

B) The Diebold letter claims - "Regarding the cost advantages of
optical-scan machines, you do not mention the long-term costs related to
printing ballots that are inevitably passed on to taxpayers".
But the long term costs of DREs are far worse, even though more ballots must
be printed with a PBOS system. Not only do DREs require substantially higher
storage and transportation costs, but they have a lifespan of about 5 years.
Optical scan systems have a lifespan of 12-15 years. Counties will need to
buy completely new equipment in 5 years with DRES! Also, paper ballots must
still be printed with DRE systems for absentee, affidavit, and emergency
ballots. A cost comparison of two Florida Counties using DRES and Optiscan
shows clearly shows this
(http://www.votersunite.org/info/costcomparison.asp)


C) The letter from Michael Shamos claims - "an optical-scan ballot can be
marked by a voter in an infinite number of ways."
While this is true, almost all of these ways to mark a paper ballot will be
detected as an invalid ballot by the scanner. Over-votes, under-votes, stray
marks, are all detected by the scanner and the voter is allowed to correct
their ballot BEFORE the vote is cast.Certainly there are many ways to
over-vote on a ballot, but none of them will make it past the scanner before
the vote is cast.

Please write your letter today and point out the misinformation in these two
letters.

Thanks,
Bo Lipari


*****

To the Editor:

A recent Caltech-M.I.T. study clearly shows that touch-screens are the most
accurate and efficient method of voting. The study recognizes Georgia, which
uses touch-screens across the state, as making the greatest improvement in
voting accuracy throughout the country.

Regarding the cost advantages of optical-scan machines, you do not mention
the long-term costs related to printing ballots that are inevitably passed
on to taxpayers. These costs, particularly in large cities that require many
ballots in several languages, are one of the primary reasons most election
officials prefer touch-screens to optical scanners.

Additionally, optical-scan machines are not "far cheaper than
touch-screens." Per unit, the cost of optical scanners is about $1,000 more
than a typical touch-screen machine.

If the bills in the New York Legislature are more focused on touch-screen
voting as opposed to optical-scan technology, it's because forward-thinking
legislators are acutely aware of the advantages of touch-screen voting.

Thomas W. Swidarski
President, Diebold Election Systems
McKinney, Tex., March 10, 2005
.

To the Editor:

You urge New York legislators to favor optical scanners because they are
"the best voting technology now available." They aren't.

Despite the fact that the voter personally marks the ballot and has the
chance to verify his or her choices, no machine has ever been built that can
read a ballot the way a human eye does, and there is no assurance that the
machine will count the ballot the way it was marked by the voter.

Even if a manual recount is performed flawlessly (an impossibility
considering the charged atmosphere under which such recounts occur), the
mark made by a voter may not be counted because the states have developed
different and obscure criteria for what constitutes a valid optical vote.

The fundamental problem is that a ballot offers only a finite number of
candidate choices, but an optical-scan ballot can be marked by a voter in an
infinite number of ways.

There is no consistent method of determining voter intent from an optical
ballot, so some voters will necessarily be disenfranchised through their
use.

Electronic machines do not suffer from this defect. They offer a finite
number of yes-no choices, so there is no possibility of mistaking voter
intent.

Michael I. Shamos
Pittsburgh, March 9, 2005
The writer, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, is a consultant to
the secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on electronic voting.
>>

Out-of-state letters are welcome!

Tell them how screwed up your DRE-based voting system is and help save NY from this catastrophe! Lots of electoral votes at stake here folks! Not to mention some MSM coverage--finally!

Thanks!