Common Cause - Holding Power ResponsibleCommon Cause - Holding Power Responsible

Topics
Our Issues
Money in Politics
Election Reform
Media and Democracy
Ethics in Government
Government Accountability
Press Center
Research Center
Register to Vote

Sign Up and join the Community - click here

red arrow Common Blog

Common Cause

Mr. Yarnell,

A couple of points: First, the original "Hursti hack" was done on a tabulator in Leon County, FL -- a machine that counts paper ballots (optical scanner). So they are not invulnerable to attack.

Second, Common Cause in NO WAY is trying to salvage computer driven touch screen voting machines. We are just trying to be realistic. Those poor voters living in jurisdictions stuck with the things should at least have a vvpb and audit safety precaution. We are concerned that some vvpb printouts are difficult to read and to count. We are also concerned because some places with vvpb don't have an audit provision, rendering the vvpb in fact useless.

Third, anyone who's worried about fraud around elections should be concerned about vote by mail. I am not saying that Oregon has a fraud problem by any means. But election experts agree that the largest opportunity for fraud is with absentee ballots. Who knows what is happening between the time the ballot leaves the election office and when it arrives back completed. Was the voter coerced? Did the voter sell his or her vote? Was the ballot filled out by someone else?

Voting and elections are a complicated issue with many variables depending on geography, local culture, etc. A one-size-fits-all solution just won't work in the U.S. There are no panaceas.

Barbara Burt, Common Cause Election Reform Team Leader

by Barb Burt on Fri May 26, 2006 at 03:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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

by ryarnell on Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 04:15:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]



State Issues
RSS Feeds
contact us | volunteer/intern programs | employment opportunities | site map | privacy policy