NY’s new Election Reform and Modernization Act (“ERMA”) bans lever machines as of 9/1/07, requires each county and the City of New York to choose a new voting technology, and allows two options:
· PBOS -- consists of paper ballots to be marked by hand (or by ballot-marking devices for voters with disabilities or minority languages), and optical scanner machines in each polling place to check each ballot for correctness before it is cast and to print a tally at the end of the election day.
· DREs -- consist of “Direct Recording Electronic” voting machines (computers) with a touchscreen or pushbuttons, and a tiny printer to print a receipt-like list of each voter’s choices for the voter to verify before pressing “Cast My Ballot.” The printout then goes into a secure storage box in the machine.
1. ERMA has many flaws
ERMA requires our State Board of Elections to create regulations for certifying voting systems.
2. Part of the regulations were adopted on April 20, 2006.
NYC appears to have made an early decision for DREs. This article says NYC will receive $72 million, but needs $100 million, the 2005 estimate for DREs. PBOS would cost $30 million (see item 11).
3. Daily News, July 6, 2005
A. Jurisdictions with PBOS love PBOS.
4. Optical Scan Survey Results
B. Many voters with disabilities are enthusiastic about the Automark ballot-marking device, and
want security of their vote as well as accessibility. Another successful device is the Vote-PAD.
5. a. AutoMARK Quotes
b. PBOS is more accessible, private, and secure.
c. Survey: Disabled prefer absentee ballots
C. Many New Yorkers have endorsed PBOS.
6. Editorial Endorsements as of February 6, 2006 (includes New York Times, Daily News)
7. Resolutions of the Public Employees Federation (PEF), DC 37, and other organizations.
8. Press Release, League of Women Voters of the State of New York
D. Many states use PBOS, and many use the Automark ballot-marking device
9.a States with Optical Scanners
9.b AutoMARK in the news!
10. Press Release, Arizona Secretary of State
E. PBOS costs less for initial purchase, transition, and continuing operation.
11. NYC Costs, PBOS versus DRE
12. North Carolina Legislative Fiscal Note: PBOS is $45.9 million, DRE is $135.1 million;
2 new felonies for vendors; requires vendors to post a bond, reveal source code, etc.
13. Acquisition Costs of DRE and Precinct Based Optical Scan Voting Equipment
14. Paper Ballot Costs and Printing
15. How many paper ballots must be printed for 1000 voters? PBOS: 1100. DREs: 333.
16. Comparing Annual Costs of DRE and Optical Scan systems
17. Cost Comparison of Voting Equipment for New York State, Touchscreen DRE with
VVPT Printer vs. Precinct Based Optical Scan + Ballot Marking Device
18. Was it all about money from the beginning? 12/14/00: $9.5 billion needed for DREs.
19. So far, cost estimates in our state have been slanted (biased in favor of DREs):
Election Commissioners' Assn. of the State of NY vs. NYVV's correction of their errors.
F. We should learn from the experience of other jurisdictions, such as Miami Dade County,
Florida, which are struggling to convert to PBOS and to get rid of their evote equipment
due to lost votes and out-of-control cost overruns.
20. Miami Dade County Officials Recommend Scrapping DRE system for Optical Scanners
21. Computerworld, April 14, 2005. Fate of $25M e-voting system in Miami-Dade dangling
G. We should be forewarned by the documented failures of evote vendors and their equipment.
22. Montgomery County, MD: 7% failed on election day, 5% more were suspect.
23.VotersUnite.org, 120 pages of documented failures of 7 vendors.
24. Case Study – New Mexico: Irregularities, minorities targeted, lawsuits, conversion to PBOS
a. http://www.nyvv.org/reports/NewMexico2004ReportSummary.pdf (Irregularities)
b. http://www.nyvv.org/reports/NewMexico2004ElectionDataReport-v2.pdf (more details)
d. http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/06%20Regular/final/SB0295.pdf (Legislation adopted)
e. http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/06%20Regular/firs/SB0295.pdf (Fiscal Impact Report)
f. http://www.votersunite.org/info/NM_UVbyMachineandEthnicity.pdf (Minorities targeted)
25. Bipartisan News Release, GAO Report on Security Problems with Electronic Voting
H. We should be forewarned by increasing citizen opposition. Evoting undermines voter confidence
in the legitimacy of elections: voters can’t witness the recording and casting of their own votes.
Observers can’t observe the storage, handling, and counting of votes.
26. Inside Bay Area, June 18, 2005. Call rises to 'dump diebold'
27. Daytona Beach News-Journal Online, June 8, 2005. Voter verification
28. American Coup. The world is questioning the legitimacy of American electronic elections.
I. Buyer beware! We should learn from the experience of other jurisdictions, warnings of computer
professionals/scientists, past reputation of vendors, and the expressed distrust of voters.
29. Refuting Sequoia Claims about Optical Scan
30. USA Today, Doubts over touchscreen tech choice for Venezuela recall
31. Coup in Venezuela, Evidence of Fraud Abounds
32. A Summary of the Tulio Alvarez Report on Fraud
http://www.venered.org/english/ then click "Más articulos"
33. a. Smartmatic: all things connected. Are they owned by a pharmaceutical or money manager?
b. Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2006
34. New York Should Ban Communications Capability in Voting … Equipment
K. Security concepts derived from paper ballots and mechanical lever machines won’t help us
with computer technology.
35. Paper Ballot Concepts in a Computerized World
L. Evoting undermines democracy in numerous ways, and any benefit attributed to evoting
can be obtained with less risk from lesser technology.
36. Frequently Asked Questions, Why Do Informed Citizens Oppose Electronic Voting?
37. Electronic Voting - Why It's Bad For Democracy
M. Computer security is impossible to control. The FBI says 87% of companies have been
hacked, 44% by insiders. Financial institutions with the most sophisticated computer security
have had massive losses. How will Boards of Elections prevent electronic tampering?
USA Today. 40 Million credit card holders may be at risk
N. More information about PBOS.
39. Precinct Based Optical Scan Voting Systems