Reply to Ms Burt
It depends on the optical scanner being used, whether it is locally read or whether it is networked, and whether the tests are done, as they are in Oregon, immediately before and after each and every counting run.
Perhaps "salvage" was too strong. However, at this stage, there should not be a compromise with respect to the integrity of our elections: putting, expensive, difficult to maintain, and easily manipulated, networked, electronic devices between us and the result is patently surrender.
There is not need to report an election result any faster than the Oregon system does - first results in my county were reported within twenty minutes of the official deadline for ballot receipt.
I question the opinion of your ballot experts regarding the "largest opportunity for fraud." That fraud, if it occurs, must be performed one voter at a time. A computer program that is well crafted and subtle, can perpetrate the fraud at the precinct or even county level, manipulating the votes of many people at a time, leaving no trace or witness to the crime.
You claim that one system will not fit all circumstances. That's the problem now. Multiple systems cannot be well supervised or tested. If we're going to reform the system, then the job should be done well enough to supply the most secure system to all voters. In my view, simple is best.
You have a lot invested in a publicly announced program. You have not come close to convincing me that you're doing anything but defending a poorly considered surrender. I have been involved with the evolution of a truly successful conversion of an absentee ballot system to one that uses the mail, well trained and professional election personnel, and the mails to insure that the Oregon election process is fair, accurate, and timely.
I will not fund your latest solicitation so long as you insist on including computer driven voting machines in the mix. I encourage all who might respond to the appeal to fund this Common Cause campaign.
Richard Yarnell
Beavercreek, OR
ryarnell
|