Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Feedback needed regarding Micro-vote advertisement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 05:35 PM
Original message
Feedback needed regarding Micro-vote advertisement
I'm wondering about some of the allegations in a Micro-Vote advertisement that can be seen by clicking on www.microvote.com \vvpat

It claims for example that HAVA doesn't require a vvpat (voter-verified paper audit trail). That could be right. I was also told that this film was done by "unbiased" experts on electronic voting. Of course, it pooh-poohs the need for the paper trail.

Take a look at it and post back any conflicts. Of course, it claims that the machine without the paper is more accurate than the one with the paper, which is a meaningless statement actually since you can't even know if it's accurate unless you audit the thing w/ paper.

But anyway, I'm just curious just in case I have any more contact w/ salesmen from Micro-Vote.

And if you haven't seen some of the slick merchandising these DRE companies come up with to wow the elections people, take a look at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. HAVA doesnt mandate a VVPB
Which it shold be called-- there is no entry in a law dictionary for the word trail

try Record or ballot. Using the word trail is wrong- we dont want legislators hearing it because it could end up being written into law-- that would carry less legal weight than if Reocord or ballot is used
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. I used "trail" only because the salesman I talked to used it.
By the way, even tho the guy was well-versed in his sales spiel and was following orders, I felt he understood and in reality knew you can't trust these machines.

I had thought that Micro-Vote might be a little less corrupt than Diebold and ES&S, not having read a great deal about MV, but in talking with him I realize that this corruption is just pervasive in the industry. In order to compete with the big two, the smaller fish have to engage in shady practices too (intimidating those who might publish the machine's failings, offering bribes and kick-backs when forced to and maybe just as common practice, etc., tilting and completely mis-representing the truth). Actually, they're just like used car salesmen. It's just sickening that we've turned our vote over to private, for-profit firms and because the negotiation etc. takes place in secret, the dickering and bartering and every other aspect of the sales and merchandising are just fraught with illegality and corruption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. microvote reps are getting desperate, getting ugly
Microvote is currently not able to meet standards for HAVA or VVPB, so they try to force their propaganda on election officials who don't know better.

They even tried to oppose our VVPB legislation here in NC - one of the only vendors to do so.

Here is some info on Microvote you need to know:

R/E Microvote, and fraud.

Microvote was tied up in a lawsuit with the state of PA over some defective voting machines during the 90's. Pennsylvania ended up winning the lawsuit.

The machines ended up being sold to Indiana and North Carolina.
Mecklenburg bought 400 of them. The machines continued to have the
same problems they had in PA, but the Mecklenburg Election Director,
Bill Culp didn't speak up, because he was accepting bribes from the salesman,
Ed O'Day, an voting machine salesman.

Microvote has "clean hands" in this part of the story, as Ed O'Day is not an actual
Microvote employee. He was a sales representative.

Microvote's clearest guilt is in making poorly designed machines, as evidenced in the failures that got them thrown out of Pennsylvania.

There is no lemon law for voting machines, and there is nothing to take them off of
the road, at least not in most states. Carteret County is working on a way to unload their
voting machines on some other poor state of voters. There will be nothing to stop that.
Buyer beware!

Most voting machine companies have "authorized dealers" who sell the machines for them,
kind of like a car salesman does.

Bill Culp was convicted of taking bribes and kickbacks, and went to prison.
Ed O'Day is still selling voting machines, and even hosted a hospitality suite for election officials in a Georgia event last year.

See this page for more on that:
http://www.ncvoter.net/briberyNC.html

For more on problems with Microvote, see
http://www.votersunite.org/info/MicroVoteinthenews.pdf

Microvote has discontinued the Microvote 464 model that Mecklenburg has 1,400 of:
http://www.microvote.com/products.htm#MV-464

They also have a disclaimer that they do not warrantee or service "used" models of the Microvote Infinity (their most current model) that other states are selling (like South Carolina), unless a Microvote examines them for a $2,000 per machine examination fee. http://www.microvote.com/docs/usedpanels.htm

Mecklenburg's Microvote machines malfunctioned in 2004,
the internal printout of the votes did not match the tally of the vote
accumulation software.
http://www.votersunite.org/info/content/mess-up_110504....

None of Microvote's machines have the most current (2002) federal certification
(as woefully inadequate as that is)
http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASEDQualifiedVo...

Microvote's DREs do not meet the disabled accessibility standards
( chart http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=... )
as described in a recent EAC advisory
http://www.eac.gov/docs/EAC%20Advisory%2005-004%20 (%204%20page%20fit%20).pdf
Most DREs don't. Only AccuPoll does at this time, and SOMEONE amended our bill
to disallow DREs that print a ballot that voters can handle.

During recent public forums, the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) has been hearing from state officials, and others, that there is confusion over the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) Section 301(a). Section 301(a) sets forth the requirements that must be met by voting systems. Due to those concerns the EAC has published an advisory that explains more fully the requirements of Section 301(a).
The following is a discussion of that advisory. It must be noted that the author is not an attorney and any discussion of the legal aspects of the advisory are only the author’s opinion. For the reader’s convenience the author has incorporated into this document the contents from many of the references included in the advisory.
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_conten...

What do counties do when these fragile and complicated DREs need repair or parts, and the vendor has discontinued them?

At least optical scanners have a lifespan of 10-15 years easily.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Wow, that's a lot of links. Thanks WillYourVote. I'll keep your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Microvote lost lawsuit to PA over defective machines
MicroVote loses court appeal
MARGARET GIBBONS, For The Reporter
02/28/2003

NORRISTOWN For Montgomery County voters MicroVote electronic voting machines are just a fading nightmare. For county taxpayers those machines are the subject of years of costly litigation.

However that litigation soon may be over. The U.S. District Court of Appeals this week ruled in favor of the county upholding a federal court jury award of $1.05 million in damages to the county.

In addition to the $1.05 million that the federal jury awarded to the county in November 2001 the county also had secured a $600000 out-of-court settlement from Carson Manufacturing Co. Inc.

http://www.thereporteronline.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7...

If the link is dead, or requires you to pay for article, pm me and I will email you the full article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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