BBV - another example of systems & officials NOT working

[harmonyguy]

A common theme from proponents of the current crop of electronic voting systems is that they are fine when used in the context of an election, with all the professional election staff, and along with all the processes and procedures and election oversight.

The problem is that many (not all) election staff get duped into a false sense of security with the electronic systems, resulting in lax or non-existant processes, procedures and oversight. It would appear that the evoting proponents make the unrealistic assumption that all the processes procedures and oversight is in place, and that their systems do not have to prevent any deviance from such processes.

Here is yet another example where processes, procedures and oversight obviously wasn't in place. More votes were counted in some races than the total number of voters that was posted. Perhaps a keying error, but doesn't anyone doublecheck this stuff before it's published? Aren't these systems supposed to eliminate keying errors, especially when coupled with the online Election Reporting systems? (SOEWeb?)

This article speaks of only one race, however my own captures from Hillsborough's website indicates that multiple races showed more votes than the total number of ballots. I'll post more detail on this on Saturday.

Elections site posts errant tally
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/23/Hillsborough/Elections_site_posts_.shtml

(And before someone starts a rant with his talk of hysterics, boogiemen and destroying all life as we know it, this time it isn't Diebold - so you can go back to fly fishing.)