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

Reply #29: NY election law requires cut-and-drop VVPATs. They are just as auditiable [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
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. NY election law requires cut-and-drop VVPATs. They are just as auditiable
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 02:52 PM by Bill Bored
as scanned paper ballots. They would probably even be full-face ballots, except that propositions could be on the back as with scanned paper ballots. This does NOT mean I'm in favor of DREs, because DREs have other serious problems.

But the whole idea that somehow because we have scanners there won't be a need for more than a 3% audit is a non sequitur. Yet NYVV has tried to take this position with election officials to placate them and push scanners.

They have also deliberately and consistently misread both HAVA and the NY election law with respect to NOT banning lever machines, feeding the popular media frenzy about this and effectively blunting State efforts to argue vigorously against the DoJ in court to retain levers, based on the law, despite the fact that none of the so-called "HAVA-compliant" electronic systems can be certified under NY law or regulations. Now they say levers are OK until 2009, as if the certification process or the new e-vote counting systems will radically change by then. WTF? Bo has even suggested op scans in 2008 if the courts ruled completely in favor of the DoJ this year. This borders on fundamentalism in my view.

Let's see what happens if NY caves on its source code escrow provision and allows Windows and other unmodified Commercial Off The Shelf Software to be used in voting systems without any disclosure requirement, even in the event of a contested election in a court of law. Up until now, NYVV has been completely opposed to un-escrowed software, in agreement with the NY election law, which even the Republicans say includes ALL software used in voting systems. They have correctly said that vendors had years to come up with an open-source solution and have all failed. See Bo's blog:

But now, because scanners are on the table, I would wager that NYVV will cave and support vendor scanners and EMSs with proprietary operating systems. Why, when NY has a perfectly acceptable voting system in place today, with no software whatsoever to worry about? Hiding behind the DoJ's illegal mandate is no excuse.

My prediction is that while it was OK to blame Microsoft for seeking to weaken NY election law (which the legislature had NO interest in doing by the way), NYVV will cave, now that scanners are on the table. Hope I'm wrong!

The point is, Bo may not only be pushing op scans; he may be pushing proprietary op scans. I think this is what Wilms is getting at, in kind of a roundabout way.

And no one is smart enough, besides you, to realize that a 3% audit can be "spread around" in such a clever way, esp. when there is a mandatory 3% minimum in the election law that prevents this from happening! I doubt this is what NYVV has in mind, especially since it's against the law!

No, I think when NYVV says 3%, they mean a flat 3%. And that's just not good enough for many elections run on software.

So what exactly does the first "V" in NYVV stand for anyway? I sincerely hope it's not "Vendor." There is still time for them to get with the program. A wake up call every now and then is not a bad thing. Everyone needs to be held accountable -- not just vendors and the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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