Nina Reznick
November 21, 2006
How did we get to this
day? We’ve all watched the machine malfunctions; uncounted votes; contested
elections of the last 10 years or so. Computer experts tell us that one thing
(and maybe there are others) computers are NOT good for is elections. And yet
we are now about to pay tens of millions of dollars to install computer
machines that have barely been manufactured and are totally untested.
New
York State has been criticized by many for being the last to install computer
voting machines, but I think it’s a sign of GREAT good sense.
If
we must use computers to count the vote then lets’ just limit it to that. DRE’s
computerize recording of the votes, the casting of
ballots, storing the vote, retrieving and counting it. Optiscans only
computerize the counting, and we have a directly marked paper ballot as
evidence of the intent of the voter.
If we want to benefit from others’ experience and not start from
scratch, here
are some election problems with DRE’s others have had:
1.
Maryland was an early computer voting state and has held investigations into
its machines. More than two months before this past election Governor Ehrlich
publicly announced that he lacked confidence in the state's new $106 million
electronic voting system and urged the return to paper ballots.
2.
On this November 7th, at least seven
states—Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and South
Carolina—extended polling hours as a result of computer system glitches.
3. In Florida over 18,000 touch-screen votes in one county weren’t
recorded. This is an error of huge magnitude and even if the FLA DRE’s had a VVPT, how do we know how many
voters even checked to see if that vote had been recorded?
4. In Quebec Province, where computer voting machines were used
last year in 140 municipalities, the Chief Electoral Officer reported machine
blackouts and transmission errors, resulting in unreliable results. He also
reported that the electronic voting machines weren't any faster or more
economical than manual counting. There
is now an indefinite moratorium on the use of these machines in Quebec
Province.
Using more wisdom, the New York State Legislature (along with 21
other states -- AK,
AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, HI, ID, IL, ME, MO, MT, NV, NJ, NC, OH, OR, UT, WA, WV, WI)
requires a Voter Verified Paper Trail. This was to provide a paper audit
record so that an election can be
“recounted”.
But touch screen machines with a paper trail will create doubt
because we
don’t know if each voter has verified it, and we don’t know if voters are all
capable of comparing the printout on the paper trail to their votes on the
touch screen.
A DRE paper trail is a very poor second best.
Only real recounts (i.e. cross-checking the paper records that
Optiscan voting provides against official tabulations), not just rereading
machine totals, will resolve close elections. Recounts that actually use the
direct voters’ intent (the directly-marked paper ballot) can resolve contested
elections to everyone’s satisfaction. When voters mark their choices directly
on a paper ballot, we can have confidence that the paper shows the voters’ real
intent.
I urge you, our election
commissioners, NOT to purchase the far more expensive, more complicated, less
efficient and almost impossible to audit electronic voting machines.
I believe it’s the job of all election officials to do
everything in their power to provide voting that’s simple and, most important,
that can be TRUSTED.
Since we are required to
have computers involved in our voting in New York State, I urge you to
·
Select
Optiscan Scanner machines and NOT TOUCH SCREEN VOTING MACHINES;
·
NOT TO spend millions more dollars than
necessary; and,
·
NOT TO start us down the path of
investigations, lawsuits and mistrust of the vote that the DREs engender.
It seems from all the testimony here today and from all the
Hearings so far held that when ordinary people learn the facts about voting
machines they invariably choose Optiscans. I can’t help feeling that, if DRE’s
are chosen for NYC it will be the lobbyists, and not the people, who are being
heard.
Thank you.