From: Charlie Strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Wed May 25 2005 - 00:48:10 CDT

The automark is a wondeful concept but at the present time somewhat
roughly implemented. I have high hopes for the second generation.

One of the reasons that it has not been pushed I think is not a major
conspiracy but because the first units had major problems anc coul
dnot pass the ITA and FCC requirements. It was only approved by
NASED about a month ago despite being sumbitted long long ago.

The first one flunked (according to the ES&S reps I spoke to) flunked
it's FCC emmissions test. In my encounter with one I found the
interface is clumsy, balky and slow to move from page to page. The
text can overfill the screen and in my experience if prone to
crashing. On the other hand the concept is among the best ways of
rescuing optical scan and I think the next generation of these will
likely be quite good. However I dont see how they justify the price
and I suspect they could be undercut by a simple ballot on demand
type system that printed the ballots directly. It does have audio
capability, high contrast, brail, sip-puff and jacks for different
size headphone plugs.

In New Mexico ES&S reps said they recomended it highly as an adjuct
to their QNIX based model 100 optical scan system. I think they
would rather sell ivotronics but are hedging their bets because at
this time the ivotronic is the only major system without paper trail

On May 24, 2005, at 2:05 PM, David Webber ((XML)) wrote:

> The snip from the article below pertains to the possiblity
> of NY State adopting the AutoMark system.
> I'm afraid AutoMark is in a deep hole. If I were them
> I'd terminate my agreement with ES&S immediately.
> Here's how this works -
> 1) small company develops exciting new solution
> 2) big company with market share see it and coverts it.
> 3) approaches small company for 'exclusive' deal. Pay's
> small company an enticing "come on" fee up front,
> with promises of revenues from sales. Agreement
> includes escrow of source code and hardware
> rights to "protect" big company.
> 4) big company throttles sales and otherwise taxes
> the small company with change requests, marketing
> controls, sales training requests and general
> 'run around' that burns resources and time.
> 5) big company can afford to ride this out - small
> company will quickly run out of cash flow and
> crash and burn.
> 6) big company exercises its option to escrowed
> source code and hardware rights and then
> markets the solution as its own.
> This predidatory behaviour is all too common.
> DW
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Elections Systems and Software (ES&S) has a marketing agreement with
>> AutoMARK Technical Services (ATS) to be the sole purveyor of the
>> AutoMARK
>> voting machine. ATS can market the system, but pricing and
>> contracts are
>> all handled by ES&S. In March of 2004, when ES&S announced the
>> agreement,
>> Aldo Tesi, ES&S president and CEO said, "we recognize the incredible
>> responsibility we have in supporting the democratic process and
>> ensuring
> it
>> is open and accessible to all voters."[1]
>> A few months later, when ES&S representative Mike Devereaux
>> praised the
>> AutoMARK over touch screens, it appeared that ES&S had partnered
>> with ATS
>> in order to take advantage of the growing demand for paper ballots.
>> [2] The
>> company's subsequent business decisions seem to say otherwise.
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:48 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:53 CDT