Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

State Voting Machine Problems Won't Be Fixed Before November

By Paul Kiel, ProPublica. Posted August 18, 2008.


A series of mainstream media reports find states will still be wrestling with different voting systems for the presidential election.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

After the 2000 election, the nation that first sent a man to the moon set for itself what seemed an attainable technological goal: ensure that states had efficient and reliable voting machines. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which allocated nearly $3 billion to the states for election administration. But eight years later, with an election fast approaching, the system is still characterized by the same panicked improvisation.

At least $1.2 billion went towards new voting machines between 2003 and 2007, McClatchy reports. But many states (Alaska, California, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Tennessee and New Mexico) that bought touch-screen machines have decided to replace them due to concerns about their reliability. In a number of places, that process won't be completed until long after the 2008 election.

Ohio's secretary of state recently sued to recover the $83 million in state funds spent on touch-screen machines, yet the machines will nevertheless be used in November. The machines will still be widely used in dozens of other states, but the trend, McClatchy reports, is apparent:

Election Data Services, a consulting firm that specializes in elections, estimated that half the electorate used touch-screen voting in 2006. This year, less than a third will be using the touch screens.
Meanwhile, while the states struggle with the reliability of new technologies, the federal commission formed by HAVA to help set national standards has yet to certify a single machine or software package. And it won't be able to be any help before Election Day, the New York Times reports.

The simple reason for this seems to be that the Election Assistance Commission has established a rigorous testing regime. As the chair of the commission puts it, "We simply are not going to sacrifice the integrity of the certification process for expediency."

That's faint comfort to states left to decide which technology to use this November. A number of states even have rules or laws requiring federal certification. The commission's tardiness has precipitated a movement by states away from relying on the commission. Ohio, site of election controversy in 2004, is typical of the grumbling by state election officials. According to the Times:
In Ohio, for example, which requires federal certification, election officials found that in this year's presidential primary the touch-screen machines used in 43 counties, or by more than three million voters, dropped at least 1,000 votes as memory cards sent data to the central server in each county. The discrepancy was caught and corrected before final tallies were calculated, but election officials say the risk is too high. The newer software being provided by manufacturers fixes the problem, but it has not been certified, and so the state cannot use it.
Cuyahoga County, the most populous county in Ohio, plans to use a type of optical scan machine that lacks safeguards to prevent election officials from tampering with the ballots and affecting tallies, said the Ohio secretary of state, Jennifer L. Brunner. Those safeguards do exist on a later model, she said, but it remains uncertified.
"We need the federal oversight to create consistent standards and to hold the manufacturers to a certain level of quality, but we also have to be able to get the equipment when we need it," Ms. Brunner said. "Right now, that equipment is not coming, and we're left making contingency plans."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: ohio, voting machines. voting r

Paul Kiel is a full-time reporter for ProPublica now

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Politics! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Do any of you think that this group is going to leave, peacefully?
Posted by: TarryFaster on Aug 18, 2008 5:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the election is anywhere near to being close, these people are NOT going to lose all that they have gained in the last 7 years!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What are WE going to do?
Posted by: chorton on Aug 18, 2008 8:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The interview with cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonman (AlterNet, 8/13/08) leaves no lingering doubts; the Diebolt voting machines are designed - optimized - for stealing elections. There are multiple features in the machines to facilitate fraud at every step in the voting and vote-tallying process, and they cannot be fixed. Also on 8/13 AlterNet posted the story about a massive purge of voters in the works in Ohio. Earlier we had reports of massive voter intimidation in the South, reminiscent of the days of Jim Crow, and spreading through the so-called "Red States". Now this article paints an overall picture of chaos in the "voting reform" process, with no general recognition that electronic voting machines cannot be made secure or verifiable.

It is totally foreseeable that there will be massive fraud in enough key states this November to throw this election to McCain, unless Obama wins by a landslide. That's not how it's shaping up, and doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Spoonman claims that statisticians would agree that a discrepancy between exit polls and vote tallies of 3% or more is virtual proof of fraud. Those kinds of discrepancies were very rare in the US before 2000, but now they have become commonplace, even in one case reaching 16%. It was a discrepancy on that order which set off the Orange Revolution in Ukrane. People took to the streets in huge numbers crying foul, and they didn't let up until the Ukrane Supreme Court ruled out the results!

So what are WE going to do when the tainted results pour in and it is apparent that key states - and the presidency - have been stolen once again? We, the activists and the people, know now that we cannot trust the system. And we know that we can't count on the Democratic Party or Obama to deal with this. If we want our country back, WE will have to deal with it!

It's all on the line now. We need to be laying the groundwork for a massive protest, putting millions into the streets demanding - what? Recounts? Yes, where possible, but you can't recount where electronic voting machines were used! Demanding the results be thrown out and the election rerun with paper ballots? Why not? Unresonable? You bet! Against the law? Change it, now! It's time to be unreasonable and it won't take too much for the people to get there! They've stolen our country, and there is nothing reasonable about *that*!!

But how do we organize this, and how do we prepare the people for it? How do we establish that kind of communication with the people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Diebold ... Posted by: chorton
Otto .
Posted by: otto on Aug 20, 2008 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wouldn't it be simple enough to just print up ballots and have voters mark an X, and return to the long slow process we always used to use: counting the votes one at a time? Better to take longer and have a true honest election!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement