You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Voter's Unite Responds to NYVV's Innaccurate and Incomplete "Fact (sic) Sheet" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-20-09 11:24 PM
Original message
Voter's Unite Responds to NYVV's Innaccurate and Incomplete "Fact (sic) Sheet"
Advertisements [?]


    VotersUnite takes no position in the debate on whether or not to replace lever
    machines in New York. Our goal is to make complete and accurate information
    available to those responsible
    for making decisions regarding elections.

New Yorkers for Verified Voting recently posted and publicized an analysis of HAVA
requirements to replace lever machines.1 Some individuals have asked VotersUnite to
respond to NYVVs assertion that:
    there are two sections of HAVA, Title I Section 102, and Title III Section 301, that are
    clear and unambiguous about the requirement to replace mechanical lever machines.

VotersUnite does not agree that these sections unambiguously require replacing levers.
NYVV first cites Section 301(a)(2), which requires that every voting system used in a
Federal election shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for
such system. NYVV asserts that Lever machines have no such capability.


While NYVV is correct that many lever machines do not produce a paper record, the term
voting system is defined in HAVA Section 301(b) to include not only the equipment, but
also practices and associated documentation.
So, for example, HAVA explicitly states
that jurisdictions using hand-counted paper ballots and mail-in ballots may use voter
education to meet the requirement that a voting system must warn voters of overvotes.
The tally sheet on which poll workers manually record the results that they copy from a
lever machines mechanical counters is comparable to the tally sheet on which poll workers
record the results in jurisdictions that hand-count paper ballots. In hand-counted paper
ballot jurisdictions, this document and the practices of the poll workers in producing the
document are regarded as an integral part of the voting system.

With lever machines, the audit performed with the manually-copied tally sheets consists of
opening the locked lever machines and making visual comparison of the tally sheets to the
numbers on the machines counters, a procedure performed before observers. Also, we note
that the term audit in HAVA has been generally accepted to require significantly less
than it requires in the financial world; a reprint of a tally report by a Direct Record
Electronic (DRE) voting machine has been accepted as an audit of the original tally report.

The second section cited by NYVV is Section 102. NYVV asserts:
    HAVA Title I, Section 102 requires that states which take Federal funding to replace
    lever machines and punch card systems must use the funds to replace these machines.
    New York State has accepted and used these funds. HAVA clearly states that in this
    case lever machines must be replaced.

However, NYVV omits the fact that HAVA provides an alternative to replacing the machines.
Section 102(d) Repayment of Funds for Failure To Meet Deadlines states that if a jurisdiction
does not meet the deadline for replacing its punch card or lever system, it shall repay the
replacement funds. Note that this alternative does not include repaying Title II funds used for
meeting HAVA requirements, such as purchasing accessible devices.

1 http://www.nyvv.org/newdoc/2009/LeverMachinesAndHAVA020...

John Gideon and Ellen Theisen
Co-Directors
www.VotersUnite.org

(.pdf) http://www.wheresthepaper.org/ResponseToNYVVFactSheet.p...

Refresh | +7 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -Voter's Unite Responds to NYVV's Innaccurate and Incomplete "Fact (sic) Sheet" Wilms  Feb-20-09 11:24 PM   #0 
  - Are they all sleeping? Or are they just not doing their job  kster   Feb-21-09 01:11 AM   #1 
  - hey, do you have hand counted paper ballots in your home town, county or state?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-21-09 12:31 PM   #3 
  - Hand Count  a777pilot   Feb-21-09 12:37 PM   #4 
     - Welcome to DU, 777.  troubleinwinter   Feb-21-09 07:49 PM   #5 
     - Hand Count E'm if you Got Em  kster   Feb-22-09 01:12 AM   #8 
  - We in NC deliberately chose the term "voting system" to ensure  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-21-09 12:29 PM   #2 
  - They are not working against each other. NYVV has mistated some facts and VU has corrected them.  Bill Bored   Feb-21-09 10:46 PM   #7 
  - yeesh  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-22-09 07:28 AM   #9 
     - Wrong.  Wilms   Feb-22-09 10:53 AM   #10 
        - huh?  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-22-09 01:17 PM   #11 
           - I'll put a lever up against a DRE, any day, in a transparency competition.  Wilms   Feb-22-09 04:14 PM   #12 
              - is that the choice?  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-22-09 07:41 PM   #13 
                 - The difference is...  Bill Bored   Feb-22-09 08:38 PM   #14 
                 - Pencil lead will wear away as gears rub against it over the course of election day...  demodonkey   Feb-22-09 09:26 PM   #15 
                    - Well, that's why the machine should be tested before each election and LOCKED.  Bill Bored   Feb-23-09 01:42 PM   #20 
                       - The old-time reasoning was that the person doing the locking was the person inserting the lead.  demodonkey   Feb-23-09 06:17 PM   #22 
                          - One problem with this scenario in NY:  Bill Bored   Feb-23-09 08:56 PM   #25 
                 - You brought up DREs. I didn't.  Wilms   Feb-22-09 10:40 PM   #16 
                 - but so far you haven't addressed my central point  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-23-09 05:44 AM   #17 
                    - I did address your point.  Wilms   Feb-23-09 09:25 AM   #18 
                       - it's my vote, not yours  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-23-09 12:51 PM   #19 
                          - Wilms' point about the "Me Generation" is intertesting.  Bill Bored   Feb-23-09 02:25 PM   #21 
                          - I just don't think this is correct  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-24-09 08:02 AM   #30 
                             - This isn't about Novick...or Jones.  Wilms   Feb-24-09 09:29 AM   #31 
                             - I'll tell you who's really in deep denial:  Bill Bored   Feb-26-09 02:36 AM   #34 
                             - Can I quote you?!?  Wilms   Feb-26-09 09:13 AM   #35 
                                - Wilms, WTF?  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-27-09 04:09 PM   #36 
                                   - I'm just appreciating it.  Wilms   Feb-27-09 09:07 PM   #37 
                                   - Now boys, boys...please let's try to keep the discussion CIVIL!  Bill Bored   Mar-02-09 02:23 PM   #51 
                          - How's those ballot security bills going in the NYS Legislature?  Wilms   Feb-23-09 09:34 PM   #26 
                             - no, I'm totally frustrated about the matter at hand  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-24-09 07:57 AM   #29 
                                - It's bizarre to you.  Wilms   Feb-24-09 09:34 AM   #32 
                 - Levers are NOT transparent, their plus is the limited risk compared to risk with computerized voting  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-23-09 07:17 PM   #23 
                 - Avi Rubin on software vs. lever machines:  Bill Bored   Feb-24-09 03:14 AM   #28 
                 - Levers are NOT transparent, their plus is the limited risk compared to risk with computerized voting  WillYourVoteBCounted   Feb-23-09 07:17 PM   #24 
                    - See Post #21. Transparency is in the eye of the beholder, but with software,  Bill Bored   Feb-24-09 03:07 AM   #27 
  - self delete  Cookie wookie   Mar-06-09 07:14 AM   #52 
  - K&R!  Stevepol   Feb-21-09 08:28 PM   #6 
  - NYVV's interpretation re permanent paper records is reasonable  payin attention   Feb-26-09 12:48 AM   #33 
  - well...  OnTheOtherHand   Feb-28-09 10:10 AM   #38 
  - GIven the EAC Advisory, NYVV is reasonable  payin attention   Feb-28-09 10:29 PM   #39 
     - the ground is getting a bit boggy  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-01-09 09:24 AM   #40 
     - Professor Blur, do you still defend Lipari being disingenuous and misleading?  Wilms   Mar-01-09 10:19 AM   #41 
        - dude, you are flatly misquoting him  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-01-09 12:40 PM   #42 
           - I have not misquoted him.  Wilms   Mar-01-09 01:41 PM   #43 
              - look, you can't win this  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-01-09 06:05 PM   #46 
                 - Hey. I already "won".  Wilms   Mar-01-09 07:14 PM   #47 
                    - I welcome anyone to listen to the MP3  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-01-09 09:00 PM   #48 
                       - Forget my "line". It's Lipari's at issue.  Wilms   Mar-01-09 10:48 PM   #49 
     - That advisory is NOT reasonable!  Bill Bored   Mar-01-09 05:11 PM   #45 
  - You are wrong. Here's why:  Bill Bored   Mar-01-09 05:00 PM   #44 
  - Oh, and BTW, you're wrong about this too:  Bill Bored   Mar-02-09 02:01 PM   #50 
  - kick! nt  Bill Bored   May-20-09 10:58 AM   #53 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC