Soaries to Rolling Stone: Where are the Standards?
By Howard Stanislevic, VoteTrustUSA
June 08, 2006
snip
(Said Soaries) "Look at Ohio. Is a two-hour line appropriate or inappropriate? We don’t have an answer to that question. What we say is that democracy means that you have the right to vote without intimidation and undue burdens. But if you stand in line for six hours, technically, today there is no document, no standard, no law that says that that’s wrong. And the problem is this is six years after Florida 2000! What number of votes is an acceptable number to lose in any race? We don’t have a performance rate for machines. If we discovered that of 10,000 Diebold machines model XYZ, 1,000 break down during the day, is that acceptable or unacceptable? If it were a toaster we could tell you, it were a tire we could tell you. If a certain tire malfunctions a certain number of times then they have a recall."
But before we say "Amen", it should be pointed out that there actually are some standards, and the EAC is now responsible for creating them and even testing the machines to see that they meet those standards. One such standard is even codified in HAVA Section 301 - the 1 in 500,000 maximum allowable error rate from the 2002 Voting System Standards. The rest are pretty much voluntary as Mr. Soaries points out, but that's partially because the standards themselves say that the EAC can waive them and certify non-compliant voting systems. As far as 1,000 out of every 10,000 e-voting machines breaking down during an election day, well guess what: That's an EAC standard too. It's actually 1,000 in every 11,000 or 9.2%. The EAC could have actually done something about that - by setting a higher standard and a test procedure to back it up. That way, even though the states wouldn't have to comply, the equipment vendors would.
snip
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1358&Itemid=26