Curtis Chong, President...National Federation of the Blind***READ THIS***

in computer science


NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND
In Computer Science
3000 Grand Avenue, Apartment 810
Des Moines, Iowa 50312-4238
E-mail: curtischong@earthlink.net
March 12, 2005


Mr. Robert Resuali
Automark Technical Systems, LLC
200 West 22nd Street, Suite 220
Lombard, Illinois 60148
Dear Mr. Resuali:
Recently, I had an opportunity to thoroughly examine the ES&S AutoMARK
Voter-Assist Terminal. This device is unique in that it not only
provides a
nonvisual interface to a secret ballot, thereby allowing the blind
voter to
select and verify candidates without sighted assistance, but it also
affords
independent access to scanned paper ballots--a highly unique feature in
today's talking voting machine market.
As a blind person who has advocated for nonvisual access to computers
and
other devices for more than 30 years, I am very impressed by the
features
incorporated into the AutoMARK system.
1. The AutoMARK uses synthetic speech to provide nonvisual access to
the
ballot, and it has the ability to speed up or slow down the speech
generated. The default setting is understandable to everyone--even a
person
who has never listened to synthetic speech before. For blind people
like me
who use computers every day, it is a pleasure to be able to speed up
the
speech to a level that enables us to get through the business of voting
in a
timely and efficient manner.
2. The controls on the front of the AutoMARK unit are easily
identifiable by
touch. A person may need a few minutes to become acquainted with the
function of each control, but once that is done, AutoMARK is fairly
easy to
operate.
3. AutoMARK's ability to scan, print, and verify the optically-scanned
paper
ballot using synthetic speech is unique. I have found no other system
on the
market that can do this, and I am familiar with just about every
talking
voting system there is in the United States.
4. AutoMARK's ability to support standard headphones allows the blind
voter
to use his/her own device for private listening. This is highly
desirable.
Robert Resuali
March 12, 2005
Page 2
In conclusion, I would say that the ES&S AutoMARK system provides
nonvisual
access to the voting process, and I would highly recommend its use in
all
elections: local, state, and national.
Yours sincerely,

Curtis Chong, President
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND in Computer Science

of software and ease of manipulation by vote thieves. I would say, don't allow anyone to use this user ease endorsement for the blind as a substitute for an endorsement of integrity of counting and reporting - since we know there will be propagandists who will try.

What do you plan on counting....if you don't have a paper ballot to count?

Automark is a far site better than paperfree DRE's and it meets the standars laid out by HAVA. Disability groups INSIST they be able to vote unaided. Ok here is the system that allows them to do just that with the added benefit of a paper ballot.

I will use this endorsement everywhere there are people saying we have to go paperfree for the disabled.

autmated machines built by partisan corporations who are all Republican. I don't believe in HAVA.

I only believe in all paper only until the Republicans get out of the voter machine business and the entire job is given to the people of the U.S. - all vetted for honesty and multiple (I mean multiple, repeated hacking tests and fool proof recording and transfer and day of voting controls, plus storage. I won't believe in machines until people I respect do it all and maintain the integrity.

I want paper only and hand counting by bi-partisan poll people and well contnrolled assembling and no corporate propaganda networks calling the vote.

Machines are out of the question at the present time because our vote is our most precious possession and cannot be handed over to thieves.

Very simplistic thinking, but I'm a realist. We are an extremely undemocratic country and something must be done until there is a single government owned and citizen tested and maintained automated system

Do we know why there are so many vote thieving companies - to create a dis-reality and give appearance that there iscompetition?

I call on all our legislators to give us back our vote. It is their responsibility.

I say it is a USER endorsement only on the whole.

we MUST give the blind a way to vote unaided. You can't count paper ballots unless you have something to count. Unfortunately you are not ever going to get machines out of the mix. Elections officials are nnot keen on giving up the tools that help them do their jobs. Elections offices are notoriously underfunded they are the last priority when it comes to funds. With propper controls ie. opensource software and source code...auditing and mandatory random recounts...optical scan balloting can be safe.

I agree that the companies are partisan as hell...I have investigated them. You are right when you say the people should own the system. But it is not going to happen over night especially in a Republican controlled government. So we have to pick our battles right now and to me the most important one is a voter verified paper ballot. Without that we will never get to a hand counted model. And, it is imperative we get paper on all the machines that are going to be sold over the next few months. Just my opinion and you can take it or leave it...but if we don't get paper now from all machines...we can kiss our vote goodbye for good.

and as you well know we vote by paper ballot. The blind use braille templates and/or audio cassettes.

Re: "most important one is a voter verified paper ballot"
Wow, you frighten me with your priorities... the vast majority of machines in use today i America have paper ballots but you what you/America doesn't have is a fully-transparent and fully-accountable audit controls and procedures.

If you can't count the paper ballots you have today, what makes you think a few more DREs with paper ballots is the road to salvation?

Do you realize that in Canada and in many other countries that beyond every single ballot that must be accounted for in the polls, we also demand that every unadorned page of "ballot paper" be acccounted for.

Tell me, would you be satisfied with a monthly bank statement that just gave you your monthly balance with no record of your transactions -- debits, credits, pre-authorized payments, service charges etc? Why haven't the bodies responsible for the delivery of elections spelled out in detail what audit controls are required.

And that marked ballot would be opscanned, or could be Hand Counted.

It's not utopia, as Andy pointed out. But it's not a DRE.

You mentioned, "The blind use braille templates and/or audio cassettes." Does the audio cassette feature accommodate the blind who can't use Braille. I understand 75% of the blind can't read Braille.

And what about folk with other disabilities? This machine will give access and privacy to additional disabled sub-groups for whom the DRE is being promoted.

It is true, however, that there is a sub-group of the mobility-limited sub-group of the disabled who could use this machine, but would require someone to remove and deposit the completed ballot. But that must be a small group, and a means to serve them could be devised, if they really want (or if we successfully ban DRE's).

Just be prepared for that argument.

Another argument may be the expense. I don't know how that would be countered.

My favorite point is one observed and shared by Bill Bored. He noted that a blind person can verify the paper ballot generated by the AutoMark. But blind voter's would not be able to verify the VVPAT off of a DRE!

So for a fraction of a fraction of the disabled to deposit the ballot they fill out and verify, in secret, we take away the right for the blind to verify their VVPAT.

Hate to pick sides between those two groups, but that sounds way out of line.

So why can't we?

question-- is VVPB worth anything if there is secret code on the optical scanners and tabulation software, and no mandatory random hand count audits?

without the things you mention. That has been my position all along. Audits, opensource software and random hand recounts are all necessary to ensure electoral integrity.

I don't see how open source proves anything. I can examine the source code to my heart's content, but when I get to the voting booth I have no way of knowing if what's actually running on the machine was compiled from the source I examined. It may have been compiled from different source code, or it may have been patched after compilation, or there may be extra code running, or the operating system may have been compromised. There are all kinds of possibilities. I'm a software engineer and I DON'T TRUST VOTING MACHINES. I possibly could accept them if we have voter verified paper ballots and properly done mandatory random sampling of the paper ballots done by citizens groups consisting of members of all parties. Anything less than that is, in my opinion, insufficient.

...blind faith that George Bush's good buddies will tell us who really won.

The blind, the deaf, the limbless, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the young, the discriminated against, the polluted, the exploited, the underpaid, the jobless, the homeless, and all vulnerable people, including those with responsibilities to any of the above, are suffering under this regime, and it's only going to get worse--far worse--when the enormous deficit that this regime is creating, from their oil war, and their tax cuts, and their outright looting of the government, hits home.

The organizations for the blind that have given aid and comfort to the enemies of democracy, by their support for paperless electronic voting, will have much to regret, when all this hits the fan. Don't they remember what it was like for them BEFORE liberals and progressives began implementing equal rights and equal protection, against the total opposition of the right-wing?

Which national Blind organization was gifted within the last few
years by a $100K grant from Diebold? Any relation to this one?
I'd say the endorsements that came after this bribe were more
than colored by $$$....

I can sure USE it!

The significane of this is that there is NO CONFLICT between verifiable elections and accessible voting! THAT'S the POINT!

THE AUTOMARK CAN BE USED WITH HAND-COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS.
You want HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS, DON'T YOU?
Then MAYBE you should write your decision-makers about this and suggest that they consider it instead of the DREaded DREs!

And therein lies the rub.

Let the Divestiture of Democracy campaign roll out with the lawsuits that are in full swing so we can see all the companies source code and get to the bottom of this election alone.

Then write everyone to endorse VVPB by AutoMark or someone else, but only after open-source is guaranteed or else they force the likes of ES&S to go down the financial gutter...

reveal that the election was hacked, or whatever?

There are numerous reasons why this probably won't be the case.

Let me see if I can make an analogy:

You have a car that can go 100 mph.
The speed limit is 65 mph or less everywhere in the country.
You suspect that there are some people who have been speeding so, for the safety of the public, you demand that you be shown the engineering blueprints and other schematics for the car. The car company says they're secret so you go to court and demand that they show them to you. You win your case and you get the diagrams, and based on the laws of Physics, expert testimony, etc., you find that the car can indeed go 100 mph, even though the speed limit is only 65.

So what?

Can you prove that anyone actually drove over 65?
Maybe, but NOT just by looking at those diagrams you can't!

All you can do is prove that it was possible to go faster than 65, which you knew to be the case to begin with.

Anyone who thinks it was necessary to alter and hide source code to steal the election is deluding themselves, although it could have helped!