Re: Fwd: Trusting Voting System Vendors

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon Jun 05 2006 - 02:04:35 CDT

Fwd: Trusting Voting System Vendorsgood article (sounds ominous) and great response, Arthur.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Arthur Keller
  To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
  Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 11:55 PM
  Subject: [OVC-discuss] Fwd: Trusting Voting System Vendors

  Letter to the Editor of BusinessWeek based on the article below.

    Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 23:40:36 -0700

    (Re: One Man, One Vote, One Conspiracy Theory, p. 34, June 5, 2006)

    We cannot ensure that employees and leaders of voting system vendors will not favor one candidate over another. Therefore we must ensure that the voting systems themselves are designed to be beyond reproach. HAVA spent billions of dollars on new voting systems, but the required new federal voting systems standards have still not been created. Unfortunately, the principle that votes are cast in secret and tallied in public is incompatible with voting systems being protected as trade secrets. Besides paper trails, or even better paper ballots, voting systems should be open to public inspection, including source codes and design specifications. Public scrutiny helps Linux be secure. It is secrecy that invites errors or fraud.

    Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D.
    Board Secretary and Founder, Open Voting Consortium

    Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
    tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424

  JUNE 5, 2006


  One Man, One Vote, One Conspiracy Theory
  Critics of electronic balloting are raising questions about a voting machine supplier

  After the controversial 2000 Presidential election, the U.S. embarked on a campaign to replace paper ballots and their infamous hanging chads with electronic voting. But the new systems, many based on touch screens similar to bank ATMs, have become the bane of computer experts and some political activists on the Left.

  Critics say the systems are riddled with security leaks that could allow corrupt companies or polling officials to steal elections. Now the complicated ownership of one of the nation's top three voting-equipment companies has attracted a new cadre of doubters.

  The company, Sequoia Voting Systems Inc., sells machines in California, Illinois, and 18 other states. It has come under fire because its majority shareholders are Venezuelan. In the colorful imaginations of some, the Sequoia story is a tale that ends with Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chávez, a foe of the Bush Administration, in a position to manipulate American elections.

  In Washington, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) has asked the Treasury Dept. to explain Sequoia's sale to the Venezuelans last year. "It doesn't seem like the deal...was vetted by our government, and I want to know why," she said in a May 5 letter.

  Following a contentious Apr. 7 hearing on Sequoia's role in a recent Chicago primary, city Alderman Edward M. Burke, a relatively conservative Democrat, said: "We've stumbled on what we think could be an international conspiracy to subvert the electoral process in the United States." Burke offered no proof, and despite similar concerns expressed by other Chicago pols, the city and Cook County will continue to use Sequoia equipment.

  Sequoia officials insist that neither Chávez nor the Venezuelan government has had any link to the company. "There is absolutely, unequivocally no connection," insists Sequoia Vice-President Michelle M. Shafer. But Sequoia's ownership is elaborate. The Oakland (Calif.) business was acquired for $16 million in March, 2005, by Boca Raton (Fla.)-based Smartmatic Corp. Smartmatic is owned by a Netherlands holding company, which in turn is owned by Smartmatic International Group, based in Curaçao.

  Sequoia says the Curaçao company's principal shareholders are its Venezuelan chief executive, Antonio Mugica, and his family. A large minority stake is owned by other Venezuelans. "We were trying to make a fluid company that could operate internationally," says Shafer.

  The Venezuelan connection has fueled speculation among bloggers and others in the anti-electronic-voting world about Smartmatic's role in a controversial 2004 election to recall Chávez. The company received a $91 million contract from Venezuela's national electoral council to conduct that vote, which Chávez eventually won. While Chávez opponents claimed fraud, no U.S. critics have linked Smartmatic to corruption, and the company strongly denies it engaged in any.

  The U.S. criticism of Sequoia and its owners is just the latest spat in a nasty battle over electronic voting. Most of the conflict concerns security problems. "These major security holes have been there for a long time, and they are not going away," says Holly Jacobson, co-director of Voter Action. Her group has challenged electronic voting around the country in races won by both Republicans and Democrats.

  Still, the new machines are catching on, thanks in part to more than $2 billion in federal funds. The number of counties using electronic systems has more than tripled since 2000, to 1,050. And public opinion surveys suggest that most voters like them.

  By Howard Gleckman
  Copyright 2000- 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
  All rights reserved.


  Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
  tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
  OVC-discuss mailing list

OVC-discuss mailing list

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Jun 30 23:17:03 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 23:17:12 CDT