Reply #25: Yes NDAs have been signed - and that's biz as usual

[Fredda Weinberg]

But I note that Diebold waived their agreement in the Alaska dispute.

As far as qualifications go, the loudest voices have been coming from those with the least - when raising this issue in public, it helps to quote the experts literally and offer references whenever possible.

And as far as vendor influence is concerned, that again is a larger issue, one I've dealt with for a long time. We can both question it, but addressing it effectively should be our mutual concern. However, in the case of voting systems, I know that the public has had many opportunities for input - I remember one HAVA commission meeting in NYC that was sparsely attended ... I listened while the deals were being discussed and no one except me was a disinterested observer.

But please remember, I have mobilized an effective public response to verifiable official misconduct. In this case, I'm trying to advise someone who wants to participate in the process on the most constructive way to adress the issue. Eliminating extraneous concerns, such as the method by which software is routinely commissioned for government purposes, will advance constructive advice already provided by recognized authorities.

Maybe it's my own predisposition, but I don't see us going back to hand-counting ballots. I remember Professor Mercurio's recommendation, offered a long time ago, that voting machines should be used as elaborate printers used to prepare ballots for optical scanning. I still find merit to her argument.