Conny McCormack, California elections, and touch screen voting.

[icymist]

About a week ago I came across this thread in the LBN concerning Conny B McCormack, California elections, and touch screen voting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...

I sent Conny an email voicing my concerns about the flaws in this new voting system as follows:

"Dear Conny B. McCormack,
The electronic, touch screen voting machines are flawed when there cannot be a recount. Please allow the paper receipts with these, otherwise a majority of the people will see this election as being fixed."

A few minutes ago I finally recieved this reply:
"There are issues with a "take-away" receipt for voting. An ATM receipt, for example, is for your records, and in itself has no re-sale value. A receipt showing how you voted, however, could be sold to prove you voted for a particular candidate. For this reason, we know of no jurisdiction in the US that is contemplating a "take-away" receipt.

The key reason that elections officials are purchasing electronic voting equipment has nothing to do with partisanship nor with the desire to manipulate election results. Most jurisdictions in the United States have used a form of electronic voting for decades -- punch cards, for example, are nothing more than a set of instructions to a computer on how to tabulate votes. The most easily-manipulated voting system in US history is the Shoup lever machine, still used by a number of jurisdictions along the Eastern seaboard. This machine uses no paper, but keeps a mechanical tally in the back of the machine which pollwokers call in to election headquarters at the close of polls. If you will review some early 20th Century American history, you will see that in a number of juridictions, pollworkers were murdered for not calling in the "correct, " pre-determined totals from these unverifiable machines.

It is much easier to fabricate and manipulate paper ballots than it is to falsely program electronic voting systems. The core issue, clearly articulated in your email, is that some voters do not trust even non-partisan election officials and are therefore highly susceptible to bogus "scientific" findings by experts who have their own agendas.

All elections officials in the US are under a deadline to comply with a federal mandate that by 2006 the blind and visually impaired must be able to vote unassisted in each polling place. As of today, electronic voting systems are the only technology that meets this requirement. We eagerly await the invention and demonstration of other options that will meet this requirement.

Deborah Wright

Executive Liaison Officer

LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk

(for Conny McCormack, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk)"

~~
The touch screen voting machines are the big issue this time in how we vote, which is why I emailed the LA County Clerk about it to get a gist of what her arguement will be in defending the use of these. I tried bringing this discussion up in the GD, but it sank so fast that I thought I should post a copy here, as well.

[hedda_foil]

1. Write her back.

Few are advocating a take-away receipt because it would be challenged on legal grounds. What everyone is advocating is a voter-verified paper ballot (spit out by the machine) that is verified by the voter and deposited by him/her in a locked ballot box to serve as the only legal ballot for recount purposes. A random recount of a percentage of actual vvpb's is a requirement of this method to ensure that the machines are reporting correct numbers.

[icymist]

2. I intend on writing her back.

This issue is finally getting some input at the GD, also. (Patience Icy, just be patient!) I'll listen to what y'all got to say on this matter and the I'll formulate a petition. Thank you for your input.