Re: Campaign Letter

From: Lori Dechert <lori_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Mon Jan 26 2004 - 18:53:31 CST

Hi Alan, This is my suggested second revision(minor changes). Tnank you.
lfd
>
> -------------
> A little less than four years ago, the voting system in the United States
> was front-page news for weeks and weeks. The public learned the painful
> truth: instead of "every vote counted," the voting system was rife with
> inaccuracy, mismanagement, and inequity.
>
> It was widely acknowledged that while great advances in technology have
been
> made over the past 40 years, the voting system has not kept up. Can
voters
> be told that the problem has been resolved for the 2004 election?
>
> The Open Voting Consortium is drawing on the expertise of many of the top
> scientists and engineers interested in the field of voting technology.
The
> Open Voting Consortium team of academics and world leaders in voting
methods
> and technology know how we can have election results that can be fully
> audited with paper ballots. And it will be far less expensive than the
> proprietary blackbox systems. We are fighting entrenched interests, but
with
> your help, we can succeed in providing a secure, accurate, and cost
> efficient system of voting in the United States.
>
> A strong case can be made that the current voting system is actually less
> secure than ever, ever. Past efforts have been in the wrong direction.
> Open Voting Consortium is a path in the right direction. Scientists have,
> for years, warned that while purely electronic voting may appear
attractive
> in many ways, security concerns should rule out paperless Direct Record
> Electronic (DRE) voting machines as an option. Election officials and
other
> decision makers - even the ones that are fairly astute technically - have
> little knowledge of the types of tricks that can be played with computers.
> An election result with DRE voting machines is virtually impossible to
> audit. Recounts would become meaningless, since there is no conclusive
> evidence that the electronic record of a vote matches what the voter cast.
>
> The bipartisan Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) allocates billions of
> dollars for new voting equipment. A small percentage of this money (less
> than one percent) is to be spent on the development of new voting
> technology. However, the R&D effort was given little attention while
> jurisdictions plowed ahead purchasing the new and very expensive paperless
> electronic systems. Government entities are moving toward a voting system
> exactly like what the scientists have said we should not have. If they
> continue on this path, voters could wind up with a system where some
highly
> motivated and clever inside conspiracy might be able to alter enough of
the
> electronic votes to swing an election, and get away without a trace.
>
> Many scientists and engineers are working to bring this issue to the
> attention of the public. What election year issue could be more important
> than ensuring that the voting system works correctly? There are solutions,
> but we need your support. And we need your help to make this election
issue
> one that the candidates have to address.
>
> We need ... [insert call to action]
> ---------
> Lori D.
>
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Jan 10 00:48:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 10 2005 - 00:48:15 CST