June 29, 2005
(Paper Ballots, Optical Scanners, and
Automark Ballot-markers for voters with special needs)
A. Jurisdictions with PBOS love PBOS.
1. "Optical Scan Survey Results"
B. Many voters with disabilities are enthusiastic about the Automark, and are concerned
about the security of their vote as well as accessibility.
2. Automark: "AutoMARK Quotes"
C. PBOS costs much less than evoting, both initial purchase and continuing operation.
3. "… Acquisition Costs of DRE and Precinct Based Optical Scan Voting Equipment …"
4. "Paper Ballot Costs and Printing"
5. "How many paper ballots must be printed for an election?"
6. "Comparing Annual Costs of DRE and Optical Scan systems"
7. "Cost Comparison of Voting Equipment for New York State, Touchscreen DRE with
VVPT Printer vs. Precinct Based Optical Scan + Ballot Marking Device"
D. 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.
8."Miami Dade County Officials Recommend Scrapping DRE system for Optical Scanners"
9. Computerworld, April 14, 2005, "Fate of $25M e-voting system in Miami-Dade dangling"
E. We should be forewarned by the documented failures of evote vendors and their equipment.
10. VotersUnite.org list of failures of 7 vendors.
11. Brief Summary of New Mexico State Election Data
12. Summary Report on New Mexico State Election Data
F. We should be forewarned by increasing citizen opposition to evoting. Evoting undermines voter
confidence in the legitimacy of elections: voters cannot meaningfully witness the recording and
casting of their own votes. Observers cannot meaningfully witness the storage, handling, and
counting of votes.
13. Inside Bay Area, June 18, 2005. "Call rises to 'dump diebold'"
14. Daytona Beach News-Journal Online, June 8, 2005. "Voter verification"
G. Buyer beware! Despite claims of eager vendors, we should be guided by the experience of
other jurisdictions, warnings of computer professionals and computer scientists, past reputation
of vendors, and the expressed distrust of voters.
15. "Refuting Sequoia Claims about Optical Scan"
16. USA Today, "Doubts over touchscreen tech choice for Venezuela recall"
17. www.MilitaresDemocraticos.com, "Coup in Venezuela, Evidence of Fraud Abounds"
18. www.venered.org, "A Summary of the Tulio Alvarez Report on Fraud"
http://www.venered.org/english/ then click "Más articulos"
19. "New York Should Ban Communications Capability in Voting … Equipment"
I. Security concepts derived from paper ballots and mechanical lever machines won’t help us
with computer technology.
20. "Paper Ballot Concepts in a Computerized World"
J. Evoting undermines democracy in numerous ways, and any benefit attributed to evoting
can be obtained with less risk from lesser technology.
21. "Frequently Asked Questions, Why Do Informed Citizens Oppose Electronic Voting?"
22. "Electronic Voting - Why It's Bad For Democracy"
K. Computer security is impossible to control. When major financial institutions with
sophisticated computer security departments experience massive losses, how will Boards
of Elections prevent electronic tampering with computerized elections?
23. USA Today, "40 Million credit card holders may be at risk"
L. More information about PBOS.
24. “Precinct Based Optical Scan Voting Systems”