Aug. 23, 2004 - 18:43 MDT

THE WONDERING JEW

Voodoo Vote

The closer to November it gets, the wonder behind the blunder increases, it seems. An article in the Rocky Mountain News this morning by Bill Poovey of the Associated Press -- in part:

Vote technology under wraps

Companies that certify machines operate in secrecy

Huntsville, Alabama -- "The three companies that certify the nation's voting technologies operate in secrecy, and they refuse to discuss flaws in the ATM-like machines to be used by nearly one in three voters in November."

"Despite concerns over whether the so-called touchscreen machines can be trusted, the testing companies won't say publicly if they have encountered shoddy workmanship."

"They say they are committed to secrecy in their contracts with the voting machines' makers -- even though tax money ultimately buys or leases the machines."

"Although up to 50 million Americans are expected to vote on touch-screen machines Nov. 2, federal regulators have virtually no oversight over testing of the technology. The certification process, in part because the because the voting machine companies pay for it, is described as obsolete by those charged with overseeing it."

"I find it grotesque that an organization charged with such a heavy responsibility feels no obligation to explain to anyone what it is doing,' Michael Shamos, a Carnegie Mellon computer scientist and electronic voting expert, told lawmakers in Washington, D.C."

"The system for 'testing and certifying voting equipment in this country is not only broken, but is vitually nonexistent,' Shamos added."

"Four years after the last presidential election, very little has been done to assure the public of the accuracy and integrity of our votings systems,' Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo. told members of a House subcommittee in June at the same hearing at which Shamos testified."

"If there are any problems, we will spend years rebuilding the public's confidence in our voting systems,' Udall saide. 'We need to squarely face the fact that there have been serikous problems with voting equipment deployed across the country in the past two years."

Failures involving touch-screens during voting this year in Georgia, Maryland and California and other states have prompted questions abut the machines' susceptibility to tampering and software bugs."

"Also in question is their viability, given the lack of paper records, if recounts are needed in what's shaping up to be a tightly contested presidential race. Paper records of each vote were considered a vital component of the electronic machines used in last week's referendum in Venezuela on whether to recall President Hugo Chavez."

"More than a decade ago, the Federal Election Commission authorized the National Association of State Election Directors to choose independent testers."

"On its Web site, the association says, The three testing outfits 'have neither the staff nor the time to explain the process to the public, the news media or jurisdictions.' It directs inquiries to a Houston-based non-profit organization, the Election Center, that assists election officials. The center's executive director, Doug Lewis, did not return telephone messages seeking comment.

"The election directors' voting system board chairman, former New York State Elections director Thomas Wilkey, said the testers' secrecy stems from the FEC's refusal to take the lead in choosing them and to the government's unwillingness to pay for it." NOTE -- Associated Press writers Erica Werner in Washington; Rachel Konrad in San Jose, Calif.; and Jay Reeves in Birmingham, Ala., contributed to this report.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My opinions in short. I it were in my power all voting machines of any kind would have a guaranteed mechanism to have paper evidence of how many votes were cast and how voted. Thinking about hanging chads and all that duff.

Along with that I feel there should be no disqualifying people as has been done in the past, unfairly actually."

Having once worked for a company which manufactured equipment for the military in this country, I remember the testing the company had to do and the government inspectors who went down the line checking on the product. Everything had to be certified, from raw material to finished product - open to government inspection of printed data. The amount of Technical Writing and explanation was astronomical. But we turned out a good reliable product, that worked. So this amalgamated mess of voting machines makes my head spin. Seems to me that I read that Diebold was one of the manufacturers of some of the voting machines, I used to think that company was dyed in the wool reputable, but wonder now.

We have a bunch of voting machines for our elections that not even the companies that manufacture them, will truly certify them as accurate and not prone to interference or will explain them to the government, let alone the media and the public. Our givernment has not insisted that the whole ball of wax be melted down so the hooks inside are visible. Seems to me that there is hanky-pankying in the backfield somewhere, and would guess that the machines will not be guaranteed to be reliable in any way until after the November election is in the past.

I am trying to remember how some things are referred to in industry, is it proprietary possession of information and processes ? ? ? ? ? Shouldn't be to my mind, the operation, functioning and reliability of our voting machines should be an open book to anyone wishing to peer into the subject. Doesn't look to me like that will happen.

So gather round folks and get ready for the November Voodoo Vote . . . . . . . . . .

Blog