.jpg)
Glamour's Women of the Year
UD vs. Northern Kentucky
Magic visits with area students
voting in ohio
Election officials have mixed reaction to Brunner plan
Secretary of State has called for a voting machine switch, but some are worried about the cost.
> Do you agree with Brunner?
Friday, January 04, 2008
DAYTON — Offering voters paper ballots as an alternative to electronic voting machines in the March primary would be fairly easy, but the counting of those ballots may create election night logjams, area elections officials said.
But what has county officials even more worried is the other part of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's proposal to eliminate electronic voting by November's General Election because of what she believes are unsolvable problems with the machines used in 57 Ohio counties.
Extras
Photos
County officials look at her plan and see mounting bills and wasted taxpayer money on machines that are typically less than three years old.
"Who's going to pay for all this? The taxpayers," said Tracy Smith, director of the Greene County Board of Elections. The federal government provided most of the money for the voting machines, but officials aren't confident they'll get that kind of help again if they're forced to switch to another system.
"Funding of elections is a mandate of county government. It is not an option," said Montgomery County Administrator Deborah Feldman. "It's one of those unfunded mandates that I talk about so much."
Montgomery County's 2,500 machines cost about $6.2 million, with the county picking up $2 million not covered by federal funds. Miami and Greene counties also use the machines. Thirty-one Ohio counties, including Warren and Preble, use paper ballots read by optical scan machines.
Federal and state mandates forced the counties to switch to touch screen or optical scan voting systems in the wake of problems with punch card voting during the 2000 presidential election.
But a study released by Brunner last month said the electronic machines don't meet minimum industry standards for computer security and the flaws could compromise an accurate vote count.
Instead of electronic voting, Brunner's plan would require fill-in-the-dot paper ballots read by optical scan machines. She'd cope with anticipated scan machine shortages by expanding early voting hours at centralized voting places.
Brunner wants Ohio and the federal government to cover the $31 million estimated cost of her plan.
"I don't intend to make (counties) scrap their entire systems if they don't have the money to pay for it," she said.
But Brunner also didn't rule out decertifying flawed machines, which would force counties to find an alternative.
Matthew Damschroder, president of the Ohio Association of Elections Officials, said Brunner is rushing things and not giving counties time to "do it right."
Damschroder, also director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said there is no voter crisis of confidence and the machines have generally worked well. While the problems identified in the study are real, Damschroder said they can be mitigated by putting in place controls recommended by manufacturers.
The federal government is working to strengthen security standards on future machines and Brunner should "let the process play out," he said.
But Brunner said it makes no sense to wait for better machines, which she doubts would be available until some time after 2010.
"My response to that is if the floodwaters are rising and the boat has a hole in it, you're probably better off to move to higher ground than to wait in the boat for another boat without a leak in it," she said.
On Jan. 16 Brunner will meet with Gov. Ted Strickland and legislative leaders to discuss the study and specific legislative proposals, which she wants passed by mid-April. Strickland wants to make sure voters have confidence in the election system, said Keith Dailey, his spokesman.
Nobody is promising to act by Brunner's deadline, but spokeswomen for Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, R-Kettering, and Senate President Bill Harris, R-Ashland, said they are talking with local officials about the issue. Husted said it's possible the state could use money from its rainy day fund.
Whatever is decided, county officials said they'll do their best to make it work.
"If elections officials are given the resources to implement this decision there doesn't need to be a train wreck," Damschroder said. "We are professionals at avoiding train wrecks."
Comments
By Teresa Blakely
January 8, 2008 10:41 PM | Link to this
Thanks to Stephen Hansen for the great explanation of the unique problems in auditing the voting. I posted your comment to the CASE Ohio mailing list. I hope citizens who want fair and transparent elections will consider writing their representatives and state senators to support Brunner’s correct move in the direction of more accountable elections. Optical scanners can be compromised as well. Demand random surprise audits its our election.
By WonderwhatIcouldsellyou
January 8, 2008 7:43 PM | Link to this
well looks like most of you are spoon feed by the media. I also read that some lady was on the recount team. and no legal action just words on a forum?? Funny we can trust our ATM’s but not the E-Voting machines. and why you ask? becuase the majority of the OHIO person are ignorant. I have seen the people trying to vot on these machine and it is funny that some black guy up in cleveland did not know how to vote so he broke the machine. Yup normal action from the black person again violence
By Stephen Hansen
January 6, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
I am a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and have more than 25 years experience in software engineering of secure and reliable systems.
The basic problem with voting machines is the lack of auditing. Banks use “dual control” to keep track of cash, “double entry” bookkeeping to detect errors, and “audits” to detect fraud and theft. The key concept is that everything that anyone does can be double checked by someone else.
Computerized voting machines don’t have auditing or double checking. Indeed, they cannot. If the voter cannot prove how he/she voted to a third person, and a vote cannot be attributed to a particular voter, then no checking or auditing is possible. So, the only way to achieve double checking is dual-control of the votes (the ballots) from the time they are cast until the second time they are counted. Computers can’t do that, because the software has single control of the vote from the time it is cast until the time it is recorded. Even “verifiable paper trails” don’t work, because the vast majority of people do not read them, and those that do generally do not notice errors.
I know enough about how computers work to know that I do not trust them. A computer does exactly what it is programmed to do. If the program contains an error, or if any one of the programmers is less than honest, then the computer may not behave as expected. Further, the differences between the behavior and the expectation are difficult to observe and easily overlooked.
The correct solution is “paper ballots”, with multiple counters.
Security of pieces of paper is a well-understood problem, and the solution is highly reliable. That solution is called “multiple control”. The procedures that banks use to keep track of large amounts of cash also work for other kinds of paper. Representatives of each “party” watch the ballot box from the time it is verified to be empty before the election until it is opened to count the ballots. And then, they watch the ballots until they are all counted and the counts are verified.
The counters may be human, or they may be machines produced by independent groups of people. If the paper ballots have a standard format, and that format is published, then multiple parties can develop scanning machines. If multiple independent counters each count a stack of ballots, and they come up with different numbers, a manual count can determine which of the counters is wrong. That makes mis-counting easily discovered, and eliminates the incentive to mis-count.
Now here’s a thought: Fraud-proof voting procedures are simple enough that there is no plausible possibility of design error. Hence, any voting procedure design that allows any fraud must actually be intended to enable fraud.
By Louis Nardozi
January 5, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this
Quotes from Bloomberg Economic News
Since 1949 the unemployment rate has never risen by this magnitude without the economy being in recession,'' John Ryding, chief U.S. economist at Bear Stearns Cos. in New York, said in a note to clients.We now put ourselves on recession watch.”
Factories have already slowed. ISM’s manufacturing index for last month fell to 47.7, the lowest since April 2003, the purchasers group said this week.
Factory payrolls decreased by 31,000 after falling 13,000 a month earlier. Economists had forecast a drop of 15,000 in manufacturing employment. Builders reduced payrolls by 49,000 after cutting 37,000 jobs in November.
Government payrolls increased by 31,000 during the month, indicating private payrolls declined by 13,000.
Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve will increase the size of two scheduled auctions of emergency loans by 50 percent to $30 billion as part of a global attempt by central bankers to restore faith in the money markets.
NYT
Of 1,000 owners surveyed nationwide, only 28 percent said they felt economic conditions for their businesses were improving, while 65 percent said conditions were getting worse.
After inching down in recent weeks, average gas prices across the nation rose by 7.3 cents last week to $3.053 per gallon, 71.9 cents higher than the same period last year, the Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday.
Business Week
“Staying at [the $100] level will mean inflation and economic hardship,” says Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst for Oppenheimer Holdings (OPY). “The price has nothing to do with fundamentals, but it has a broad impact.”
Here’s a question for you. How many books on economics has your candidate read? How many has he WRITTEN? The best economist in the world can’t convince someone to whom he can’t explain the problem. It looks very like we are headed for a recession or a depression. Before you cast your all-important primary vote, shouldn’t you find out who has the most education on economics? This is not one of those times when you basically get bragging rights. This time, it may make the difference between you keeping your job and house or living on the streets. Remember, if we ALL sink there will be no one to give you welfare. Even people who OWN their house could be dispossessed by incredibly high real estate taxes. I know everyone says he is a long shot, but PLEASE do yourself (and me) a favor and research Dr. Ron Paul. The house you save may be your own.
By DONT TRUST E Voting Machines
January 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
J. Alexander is right. Paper, hand counted ballots is the best way to protect votes. E-voting machines can’t be compared to ATMs(Jan 4 1:34pm post). Banking software is protected at all times, real time, 24/7, by highly skilled computer techs, not to mention the custom layers of security software installed, authentication and authorization protocols used in the code, encryption, etc. to protect all data. This will not exist for e-voting machines. They should not be used!!!
By Jennifer Alexander
January 4, 2008 11:46 PM | Link to this
Why does everyone seem most concerned with the $$$…as if the lives of those lost to secure our democracy, our right to free open honest elections shouldn’t be enough reason. Why not hold the vendors liable for faulty products and get our money back? If it was a lead painted toy from China, we’d be sending them back, and asking for money.
By Jennifer Alexander
January 4, 2008 11:22 PM | Link to this
cont-…so now we still have the problem of those “serving” us in the county BOE’s…some that have been poorly trained, some that have given too much access to vendors such as Triad, some that destroy records that are under Federal Court Order to be saved, they each have their own way of doing business, they are not being held accountable for their crimes or repeated mistakes. FURTHER RESOURCES FOR ELECTION ISSUES
BOOKS 1) What Happened in Ohio? A Documentary Record of the Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election by Robert J. Fitrakis, Steven Rosenfeld, and Harvey Wasserman 2) Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election? Essential Documents historical documentation of Ohio’s stolen 2004 election by Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis 3) Black Box Voting by Bev Harris 4) What Went Wrong in Ohio by John Conyers 5) Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count by Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss Forward by U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr.
By Jennifer Alexander
January 4, 2008 11:14 PM | Link to this
cont. from above))) more than a handful of Montgomery’s DRE’s couldn’t even be fixed by Diebold and had to be replaced, there isn’t even an offical count of voters in Montgomery County that voted on these “faulty” machines in Nov.06, maybe it was your vote that wasn’t counted? Paper, hand counted ballots, counted in the precinct, is the only way to go forward, and be certain that every vote is COUNTED AS CAST. So once you get past how we vote, then we still have the huge problems of those …
By Jennifer Alexander
January 4, 2008 11:07 PM | Link to this
I’ve worked as a poll worker for over 15 years, have seen first hand a huge difference between the punch card ballots and the DRE’s…there were never problems with the old punch cards until Florida 2000,when they were trying to sell the idea of DRE’s to make more money, and made faulty ballots. Watch the Dan Rather Reports video http://www.hd.net/drr227.html. Do you all know Montgomery County also tested these machines in March 07, and had a huge % of calibration problems, and more than…
By DONT TRUST E Voting Machines
January 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Link to this
Google to read article, Florida Report Spurs Growing Distrust of E-Voting Machines, from TechNewsWorld, posted 8-1-07, by Erika Morphy. Regarding Florida and CA studies of evoting machines, notice a technical expert states, “we have to continue to do what we can to make these systems as secure as possible…But in the end they will never be completely secure”. Also, law experts recommend a count of paper ballots to verify e-voting machines — optical scan or otherwise.
By Janice
January 4, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this
Concerned Taxpayer
How do you type so many characters in this box? I’m impressed with that!
I don’t mind the touch screens but it was really aggravating last time I voted that people were SO SLOW to use them, it took them forever to vote! I just wanted to scream “TOUCH THE #@*% SCREEN!!!”
Support Ron Paul www.ronpaul2008.com
By hakko
January 4, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
YABrian: Your comments about open software/hardware only ring true in a perfect world. While it is true that open source and open hardware would allow for thorough and free testing resulting in a better product, it would also allow for unhindered tampering with the software/hardware to look for flaws that could be exploited by those wishing to manipulate the vote. You must admit that the knife will cut both ways on this. The risk of open source allowing hackers to “practice” isn’t worth it.
By North
January 4, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
I don’t agree with anything the State of Ohio does!
The State can deal with electronic voting issues only after the government has figured out how to avoid the loss of personal information (i.e. social security numbers) in government computers, adversely affecting millions of citizens.
By politicsgirl
January 4, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
I’ve worked as a precinct judge — I had no problem with the punch cards before. As far as I am concerned, forcing the electronic machines on us was an overreaction by Congress to the 2000 elections, problems caused by Florida having no consistent state-wide standards for counting partially punched holes in their ballot cards, and too many people who came in to vote that had little or no experience or instruction on how to follow the voting process.
By Concerned Taxpayer
January 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
Here are some things Brunner doesn’t want you to know. A quote taken from the Everest report. “The Academic researchers concluded that the central server and software and the precinct-based components, both DRE and optical scan voting machines (i.e., the ES&S Unity Election Management System (EMS), iVotronic DRE and M100 optical scan systems) “lack the fundamental technical controls necessary to guarantee a trustworthy election under operational conditions.” And “The memory cards for the precinct optical scan machine are completely “unprotected,” and the memory cards for the DRE, the AV-TSX, while superficially protected by a “Data Key,” are not “adequately protected.” (Id.)” — There is no such thing as a perfect system, make due with what we already have and apply some critical, rational thinking to solving the problems identified. Read the report & supporting reports on the SOS website for the exact details of the security problems – some are trivial, some are series, but it is acknowledged that some have little to no chance of ever happening. (Is someone really going to use the ‘secret’ pin of 1111 to shut down each of the 12+ voting machines at the polling location early to deny people the ability to vote?)
By Sue
January 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
Does it make sense to spend $82M for glorified printers? If we really are inane enough to place the integrity of the entire process on the shoulders of a single programmer then we are stupid enough to get what we deserve. My mother tells me that many years ago (early 20th century) my grandfather was a leader of one of the 2 prominent parties in one of the poor counties of southeastern OH. Illiteracy was rampant. He “kindly” offered to help those “poor” non readers with their ballots and fixed every one of those to support his party. Many years have passed. There is reason to believe we are smarter now. There are checks and balances (& mandatory education) so that we don’t have to lead lives of paranoia. Information on the security features or the gaps would be most helpful.
By Concerned Taxpayer
January 4, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
Either the DDN or Brunner have their facts wrong or are intentionally trying to mislead the public. DDN Quote “Brunner said the electronic machines now used in 57 of Ohio’s 88 counties have security and performance problems that can’t be fixed.” The quote below is taken directly from the Independent expert analysis (available on the Ohio SOS website) of the 4 types of electronic voting machines in use in OH. : “During the course of our study, Compuware has identified several significant security issues, which left unmitigated would provide an opportunity for an attacker to disrupt the election process or throw the election results into question. These are documented above. Following careful consideration of each of these security issues, we have developed mitigation recommendations for the Secretary of State to implement which we believe will limit the likelihood of a successful attack on the election process. Provided each of these mitigation recommendations can be enacted, Compuware has concluded the Diebold AccuVote-TS (this is said for each of the other 3 systems) can be securely deployed by the Secretary of State.” The study Brunner herself commissioned is clearly contradicting what she has been spreading to the news media. This report has found the problems – some as simple as PCMIA card slot access locks to others like encrypting the data – now heed the recommendations of THIS report and implement them INSTEAD of making your own recommendations to replacing them with opticals. What recommendations would you want followed? Ones made by Brunner or ones made by the experts who conducted the testing?
By MrsH97
January 4, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
(Cont’d from previous post) … glorified printers with no communication with the tabulation machines, which count the votes based solely on what’s on the printed ballot. You’d be able to overcome the jam issue with two buttons on the screen: press one when your ballot has printed successfully, press the other if you need to reprint. The poll worker would verify that you are only turning in one ballot to ensure that you can’t just print 10 and turn them in.
By MrsH97
January 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
Concerned - I know that we have printed verifications, but the votes are still tabulated based on the screen touches, not on the print outs. Which, as someone else pointed out, leaves a big space for a programmer to fiddle around. Say you touch Jones, it displays Jones, it prints Jones, but the programmer has told the software to tabulate every fourth Jones vote for Smith in addition to all of Smith’s votes. You’d never know. My idea would be to have the voting machines to be glorified…
By DONT TRUST E Voting Machines
January 4, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Computer programmers are paid well for being rational, logical thinkers. I know because I am one, who happens to consult for banks. Does anyone have any idea how much money and security is used to protect software running banks? I do. Considering this Nov election is going to determine who fills the most powerful position in the world, I don’t think it is irrational to make sure that voting machines require the same amount of security as ATM machines.
By Concerned Taxpayer
January 4, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
MrsH97 - The voting machines already do this to a degree. Read my post below (9:44?) It seems like a good idea to make it standard practice to double check the printed ballots to be sure they correspond to the e machine voting counts. One problem with the printed ballots is that just like any other printer, these do occasionally jam and something would need to be put in place to mitigate that issue. (voters already as asked to verify the printed ballot before casting it though)
By YABrian
January 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
Hey Jim, I would rather take a system that I know is secure than trust someone to tell me that it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securitythroughobscurity
A public domain hardware and software system design allows flaws to be identified and fixed faster and cheaper. Also more companies can manufacture the machines, as long as them machines are then throughly tested, thus making it cheaper for everybody. With open software we can make sure our secret ballot system is working.
By MrsH97
January 4, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
(Continuted from previous post) In the board of elections office, the paper ballots are scanned and tabulated. The ballots can then be retained for recounts and verification. If there is a misprint, it will be clear on your ballot, and you just reprint. If Meijer can print your checks for you, surely we can create a computer that can fill out a ballot depending on on-screen selections.
By MrsH97
January 4, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this
How about a machine that splits the difference: An electronic voting booth that prints out your selections on a ballot that is optically scanned. The machines are loaded with pre-printed paper ballots that have the candidates names and corresponding “bubbles” to be filled in (think of your standardized test pages). You make your selection, the computer fills in your bubbles and spits it out, then you take your ballot to the poll worker. In the board of elections office…
By Concerned Taxpayer
January 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
Sue - very well said & spoken like a truely rational thinking citizen!It amazes me how many people buy into the conspiracy theories about stolen elections & the amount of distrust in evoting machines.The same machines that are based in part & built on ATM techno. by the co. that makes ATM’s. The billion $ bank industry & countless millions of ATM users put their trust in this tech., but for whatever reasons a vocal minority try to use scare tactics instead of truthful & honest problem solving.
By DONT TRUST E Voting Machines
January 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
I am a computer programmer. E voting machines can be compromised! The software program controls the machine. Software dictates the text displayed on screen, keeps a running count for each candidate’s votes, and dictates what is printed for paper trail (virus is software too). Voter selects Obama’s name on touch screen. The software program could give the vote to Huckabee’s total count, and still print out Obama’s name for the paper trail. Voter sees paper receipt, unaware his vote was robbed!!!
By Sue
January 4, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Nothing is more important than the integrity of the electoral process. The many variables in that process include but are not limited to the honesty of the candidates, lack of discrepancy in the actual voting system, the ethics and morals of each person that may have control over the process. Each voter must decide as to the honesty of the candidates. Based upon the information presented above about the voting system, it is unclear exactly what the “Critical security failures” may be, & as ConcernedTaxpayer (9:44) & Auto2u suggested there is every reason to believe the systems are valid and reliable. While I am wary to throw stones at individuals, previous articles written about Ms. Brunner & decisions she has made about various issues makes me wonder if she is fair, impartial, always thinking clearly & rationally or if her actions are driven because she is “in bed” with someone or some entity that drives her past impartiality and toward irrational behavior that is not in the best interest of the voters. I am inclined to think the latter. To clarify, it seems that she is kept by more than one interest group affecting her partiality. Keep the electronic system, honestly identify the failures, correct the code driving them, audit the process. Save taxpayer dollars instead of spending them like Monopoly money. Ms Brunner, if your Democratic pals are worthy candidates, they will win without your help.
By Nikki
January 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
You better believe I agree with Brunner…this is one of the main reasons I voted for her. Let’s all think back to Blackwell and Diebold and the stolen election in 2000 and 2004- this happened in Ohio!! I was on the Warren County Recount Team and you better believe that the machines were manipulated to make sure Shrub got “elected”. I know many people who did not vote because of the electronic machines and not trusting the outcome. Of course every system has issues, but paper has the least!
By Max Phillips
January 4, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
I agree with Thomas Atkins. Electronic voting is full of problems and the republicans, who traditionally have a difficult time getting elected by the working class because they primarily represent moneyed interests, know it and George Bush reaped the benefits. The machine has to produce a “voter-checkable paper document” as Atkins said that is then placed in a locked box: then you have two records of the vote. If the two votes are equal, you know there wasn’t any fraud.
By Publicus
January 4, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this
So we’ve got all these “voter-verified” paper reciepts in a locked canister somewhere. Do they ever get counted?
By Jim 5
January 4, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
I feel more secure about the e-voting machines knowing that the manufacturer keeps the hardware and software designs a secret. I will take Ohio over New Jersey anyday when it comes to election integrity.
By Bud Norton
January 4, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
I agree 100% with Brunner. More complicated technology is not what’s needed here. Paper ballots are an impediment to fraud, because each fraudulent ballot has to be marked separately and if it’s one person or a limited number of person involved in the fraud the paper trail helps confirm that. Electronic ballot systems are not secure, despite all the hype from the industry.
By YABrian
January 4, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
The whole voting system in this country is broken. Voting in Ohio is a bigger joke than voting in Florida (search www.slashdot.org and find out). All the e-voting machines are crap because the companies that do make them keep the hardware and software design closely guarded so you and I can’t verify that they do work. What we need is a federal law that standardizes voting systems across the whole country, puts out solid hardware and software (source code included) in the public domain
By will
January 4, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
people should see by now that elections and for that matter computers can be fixed. how else could a retard become president. next we will have a religous freak if things are not fixed by then.
By Concerned Taxpayer
January 4, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Replacing machines with fed tax $ is no less a burden to anyone. Where do fed tax $ come from? Ohio would be the real loser. If vulnerabilities are substantiated, fix them - don’t junk them. If we switch to optical scan, how soon will it be before other fraud claims? The bubbles weren’t dark enough, completely filled in or went outside the line, used a blue instead of black pen, pencil, etc & weren’t properly counted. Systems can be made more secure, but you can’t fix stupid.
By Ralf
January 4, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
How about counting heads? Saves paper, energy, and you don’t have to worry about these faulty machines. Tee-hee!
By Concerned Taxpayer
January 4, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
I don’t believe that Thomas adkins has voted in MC lately. His great ideas (execept voting holiday & ink) are already in place. These e voting machines DO have a secure paper trail and are NOT networked or wireless! (need firewall?) Voters are instructed to confirm their ballots on screen and then on the printed receipt to the lower right. If they are wrong, they can correct them as needed. These ballot receipts are stored in a serialized & sealed canister that is locked in the machine.
By dirk sniggler
January 4, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
This totally stinks. Our Republican friends will never be able to steal an election in order to start a phony war based upon a false flag operation in order to keep people fat, happy and dumb as kidney stones, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis so that we can keep shopping in order to bring our vacuous lives meaning by filling it up with stuff.
By Auto2u
January 4, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
It has been proven that there are more errors in counting by hand than with electronic voting. If there was voter fraud how do you explain the Democrats gaining back the congress in the last election used by these so called flawed voter machines? The same technology is used in commerce every second of the day nobody seems to have a problem with that.
By Wayne Osborne
January 4, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
I am so thankful that Jennifer Brunner is scrapping the electronic voting machines. Both times that I have had to use the machines to vote, they did not work. In 2004, the machine I was on would not give an explanation for issue 2, it only asked for a “yes” or “no” vote. But, I was suspect that the machine did not tally vote correctly. In 2006, the machine that I tried to use would not work at all. I was moved to another machine. I have no faith in these machines, nor that they ever will work.
By Jim 5
January 4, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
How many more millions will be wasted on “fraud prevention” when the real issue is establishment discontent with election outcomes. Young voters want nothing to do with the slate of aging Liberals that the Democrats pony out every election cycle. No amount of money will change that. But just to be sure, we will spend it anyway - bad money after good.
By Greg
January 4, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
The new touch electronic machines are the best thing since sliced bread. They are easy to use, easy to read and light years ahead of the old punch card system with the hanging cads. Ohio made a good investment when they bought the new machines. People who don’t like them are free to vote absentee.
By Neocon
January 4, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
I do know a thing or two about computers, and the problem is not un-fixable, and would cost millions less than scrapping the electronic voting machines and replacing them with optical scanning devices the optical scanners— are they produced locally, the punchcard machines were, and Ohio never had a problem until the Dems in Power in Maimi Dade county FL tried to claim voter fraud, when it was their own incompetence in the polling places that led to dimpled, pregnant and hanging chads
By Bill Rowe
January 4, 2008 7:18 AM | Link to this
Ohio spends too much money on potential problems that don’t need to be fixed. Ohio & Ohioans need to stop thinking in the past & get on with the future. The money has been spent for the voting machines. Now we need to make these machines work & stop spending money that the state & it’s citizens don’t have.
By AnonEMouse
January 4, 2008 7:15 AM | Link to this
I say paper ballots all the say. Has anyone NOT done a “Fill the circle in completely” test or questionnaire? You can still count them by computer, but still have the voters’ actual evidence in hand should you need to verify or recount. After all, didn’t they have to resort to paper provisional ballots during the HH recount recently?
I am also in favor of a news blackout as Mr Farrell states. I’d also like to see a start date for announcing candidacy to 1 year before the election date.
By Gary Kirkpatrick
January 4, 2008 6:40 AM | Link to this
I agree with Thomas Atkins above. Local election officials have no clue as to whether or not there are security risks in the machines as they are presently constituted. They are not computer professionals. The flaws that have been pointed out are only the tip of the iceberg. The long term storage issue is the real problem as I see it, and paper stored using secure physical storage monitored by folks from both sides makes the most sense.
By Ron
January 4, 2008 5:35 AM | Link to this
Brunner is wrong! Too many chances for voter fraud if you use paper ballots and count them in one site. Can you say Florida again? My wife and I like the new machines! I think she is trying to plant the vote fraud seed for the next election if the Dems lose in the next election.
By Ron
January 4, 2008 5:34 AM | Link to this
Brunner is wrong! Too many chances for voter fraud if you use paper ballots and count them in one site. Can you say Florida again? My wife and I like the new machines! I think she is trying to plant the vote fraud seed for the next election if the Dems lose in the next election.
By Johnny Springfield
January 4, 2008 3:09 AM | Link to this
Ohio thought they were getting an election chief who wasn’t as self-righteous, stubborn and politically partisan as Ken Blackwell, but they were proven wrong when they elected Jennifer Brunner. She has produced as much controversy in one year as Blackwell did in eight. For the sake of Ohio taxpayers, let’s pray Big Sister comes to her senses before she bleeds the treasury dry.
By Peter Nevins
January 4, 2008 2:12 AM | Link to this
Thomas Adkins has a point there with the holiday idea. How is it in this country that we take a day off to celebrate the presidents’ birthdays, but not the vote? I am convinced the old boys would much rather combine the holidays, if we can’t take an “extra” day off…
By bruce sims
January 4, 2008 1:25 AM | Link to this
As a Californian, it is absolutely amazing to me that Ohio is still debating the usage of touchscreen voting machines given all the factual knowledge of the problems/issues with them. And when officials talk about change being at the taxpayer’s expense, I have to laugh, especially when doubt is expressed about Federal funding to change out the machines. Like Federal funds aren’t ‘taxpayer expense’? What employer wants employees -election officials- that whine about doing their job?
By Thomas S Atkins
January 4, 2008 1:10 AM | Link to this
Funding electronic voting machines with out a bullet proof paper trail and bullet proof firewalls and electronic checks and balances are just asking for fraud! Election changes…. 1. Two days each year are associated with existing national holidays, voting days. 2. Dip voter’s finger into staining ink, each citizen votes only once! 3. Electronic voting machines, produce a voter checkable paper document, which is checked for accuracy by the voter and then deposited in a locked box. +more……
By Kevin G. Farrell
January 4, 2008 12:37 AM | Link to this
Absolutely. Get rid of all the electronic voting machines. Go back to total paper counted by hand. We do not need same day results for election results. What we need are elections that are not stolen from us through electronic fraud. I just wish we could do like they do in Britain. From 24 hours before the polls open to 24 hours after the last poll closes no election news is allowed at all. That has a lot of merit to me. But probably not for self involved instant gratification Americans. Which I