Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> There is *NO* *MENTION* of a "voter verified" paper record. There is >> *NO* requirement that the voter be allowed to *see* the paper record >> indicating how they voted. > > The link you point is the 2002 law. Do you mean the replacement S.3212, > "Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act of 2008."
No, I'm just out of touch with the times. HAVA came up in a recent news story about problems with newly purchased voting machines, so I chased it down, and that page was what I found. I totally overlooked S.3212. (Ah, well, if nobody ever pointed out my bloopers I'd never learn anything.) > VerifiedVoting.org > opposes it for the reasons you point out, and some other: > > http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6603 > > "1. S.3212 allows "independent" vote records that would exist only in > computer memory to be used to verify electronic vote totals. Yow! That sounds even worse than HAVA-2002! We're moving backward, not forward! At least HAVA required a piece of paper be generated on the spot, so you couldn't play games with the results after the fact -- any messing around had to be done onsite in the voting machines. > > 2. The non-paper verification methods allowed by S. 3212 would increase > the costs and burdens of conducting elections without the benefit of > increased confidence and auditability. > > 3. Language in the bill would exempt from any verification requirement > those paperless voting systems purchased before January 1, 2009 to meet > HAVA's accessibility requirements. This would leave millions of voters > (particularly those with disabilities) dependent on insecure paperless > electronic machines for the foreseeable future. > > 4. S. 3212 is opaque and disturbingly open to interpretation on a > critical question: would the bill require that it be the voter that > verifies the contents of the independent record? . . . " > > Fortunately, Verified Voting and other grassroots organizations have > developed considerable political clout. They have been strongly > supported by the New York Times and other establishment organizations. I > predict that national voting machine reform will pass soon and it will > be along the lines that they specify. Many states have already reformed, > and decertified some of the worst voting machines. Unfortunately, > Georgia is not among them. I sure hope you're right about the clout they have, and the impending voting machine reform. The fact that S.3212 has even looser auditing requirements than HAVA-2002 isn't encouraging, tho. "Help us, Verified-Kanobi! You're our only hope!" > > - Jed >
