Hearing on The Hazards of Electronic Voting:
Focus on the Machinery of DemocracyWednesday, February 7, 2007 10:00 a.m.SR-301, Russell Senate Office Building
http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2007/020707hrg.htmThe grave misconceptions of electronic voting systems by this one election official, exercising tremendous say and sway over other election officials in the nation, is at best rooted in her interest of lessening the workload of election officials over accuracy and integrity of our elections.
After all the well documented problems, complaints and hearings across the country one would truly wonder where on Earth she has been? Reminiscent of this administrations interpretations of reality, whether it is the state of the "blooming" economy, the "prospering workforce" in the nation, or the war in Iraq.
For someone, who acts in the capacity as the immediate past president of the California Association of Election Officials (2004-2006), as a member of the Election Center's Task Force on Election Reform (in 2001 and 2005) which provided input to Congress on development and implementation issues with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Election Law Journal, a member of the Steering Committee of the Voices of Reform project of the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco and a member of the Board of Directors of the Poll worker Institute, I do scratch my head. Why?
As a resident under her jurisdiction, I don't want her. I don't want someone who can not even properly input my daughter's voter registration into the system to this day. My daughter's registration process has now taken
five - FIVE months. As of yesterday, the registrar's office has her in the computer as a "fatal pen". Puzzling lingo? I learned, it means the registration has required information missing - more accurately it is "fatal pending".
No one in that office knows what they are doing and how to correct problems. There is no notification that came to her stating that she needs to provide any additional verification information, instead they keep sending new registration forms.
In light of having a clerk physically verify all the needed information at headquarters on November 3rd, 2006, stamping the document on the spot it is throughly ridiculous.
Now mind you, this registration was in fact a duplicate for the "never received" mail-in registration, automatically disenfranchising her vote in November '06. How many phone calls does it take? How many visits does it take? How many wrong recommendations are they providing other voters, such as to fill out another form - and another form - and another form? My suggestion to voters who have problems is to write a formal complaint to your County Supervisor, log the complaint with those that oversee
her actions. They only get her periodic report that everything is rosy. They need to hear from you.
But more importantly the following comments at the hearing are simply mind-boggling;
Our survey responses continually show that voters overwhelmingly express great
enthusiasm for voting on the electronic equipment. Additionally and significantly, with the most complex ballot in the U.S., we
have experienced no technical problems with the tabulation of votes with the DRE
equipment. Electronic voting has proven to be reliable, accurate and well-accepted by
our voters.
It goes without saying that all members of Congress seek the same overriding goal for
election administration - the accurate casting, tabulation and reporting of all votes in
accordance with ihc voters' intentions, The fact is that existing DRE systems have the
proven record of doing the best job of all available voting systems in achieving that goal.
The suppositions and theories espoused by critics contending that DRE systems are more
susceptible to tampering are not based on evidence.
FACT: Each electronic voting machine is a stand alone unit, not networked or connected
to the Internet. A report issued prior to the November 2006 Election, by Edward Felten,
Ariel J. Felman and J. Alex Halderman of Princeton University, left the erroneous
impression that an individual electronic voting unit could be compromised in such a way
as to infect equipment at other voting precincts. However, when delving into the details
of the report, the authors admit that the only way to alter vote totals in a comprehensive,
systemic manner is via the central computer that accumulates the vote totals from the
stand alone DRE units.
FACT: Of all voting systems, electronic voting equipment has the best record of reliably
counting the votes accurately.
Significantly, in every statewide election in which parallel monitoring tests have been
conducted, the results reveal 100% accuracy of the electronic voting equipment. These
parallel monitoring tests occurred under both a Democratic Secretary of State in
conjunction with the March 2004 Presidential Primary Election and a Republican
Secretary of State with regard to the November 2006 General Election.
The party affiliation of a Secretary of State should be irrelevant - why would she even present it as such?
She continues on with the problems of VVPAT's, to which I do agree is not a solution, albeit not because of jamming and introducing additional complexity and problems, but due to the fact that no one can see what is going on inside
any machine. Unless she can tell me exactly, as she reads the alogorythms as it is being exectued; "yes, see - there is your vote for president."
Currently, Congressman Rush Holt's bill mirrors California's language with regard to
requiring the VVPAT to be as the ballot of record. In light of the solid evidence of paper
jams rendering some VVPAT copies unreadable, I strongly urge reconsideration of this
provision.
As a note to those here with an interest in CA-50 were you aware that there exists a 4 minute video of "problems for
precinct-level pollworkers, attempting to attach a VVPAT printer to a DRE for the the April 1 1,2006 special election in San Diego County,
California for the 5oth Congressional District vacancy?
FACT: Local election officials recognize that all aspects of election security, including
securing and maintaining rigorous chain of custody of all voting supplies and equipment,
are vital. A crucial component of maintaining appropriate chain of custody and
accountability lies with citizen pollworkers who oversee the election at the precinct level.
Pollworkers are the backbone of our democracy; more than one million Americans serve
honorably in this capacity for every major election in the US. Across the country
pollworkers either pick up the voting equipment, ballots and supplies several days, weeks
in advance of each election or it is delivered to their homes or to polling places.
Attacks are now being leveled at election jurisdictions, including Los Angeles County,
where pollworkers take custody of election equipment and supplies in advance of
Election Day and then transport the supplies and equipment to their assigned voting
location on Election Day. Distributing secured and sealed voting equipment and supplies
to lead pollworkers, who have taken an oath to uphold the integrity of the elections
process, is an appropriate, effective, accountable and transparent practice that greatly
contributes to the successful conduct of elections. For Los Angeles County, with 5,000
voting precincts, this model provides the greatest assurance that the voting locations will
prepared to serve the voters when the polls open. We have learned through experience
that when lead pollworkers follow through with their commitment to pick up election
supplies and equipment prior to election day, that proves the best indicator of their
readiness and willingness to show up and serve. The California Association of Clerks
and Election Officials recently issued a one-page position paper fully describing the
security and appropriateness of this practice (see Attachment E). Incredibly, proposals
are now being discussed, without a scintilla of evidence of pollworker malfeasance, to
ban this effective practice, including a provision to that effect in the current Holt bill.
Wow, an oath is stringent computer security...
How can I trust Ms. McCormack to reside over the largest jurisdiction in the country, when she is consistently spewing illusions as fact?
The entire hearing incluing video:
http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2007/020707hrg.htmstatements are in pdf
All members welcome and encouraged to participate.Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.
If you can:
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.
2. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.
3. If you have information from an election reform activist organization outside of DU feel free to post (local or national)
4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.
5. Election related sources
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... 6. If you want to know how to post "News Banners" or other images, go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/faq.html#im ...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
