Re: Why I am a Poll Worker

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Tue May 23 2006 - 12:44:28 CDT

Alan Dechert wrote:

>>Voting by mail is vastly superior to voting on a
>>Diebold TsX. It routinely and successfully done in
>>both Oregon and Washington State. Besides, any minor
>>fraud falls under the 'retail' fraud classification.
>>I believe that OVC has decided generally to address
>>'wholesale' voting fraud and ignore trivial matters
>>until later.
>>
>>
>>
>Another thing about that ...
>
>If you went for the google search I suggested earlier, you may have run
>across this one:
>http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004702.html
>... which, btw, is a case in Washington State.
>

Let's add something else.

In the Diebold environment, the absentee ballot scanners are the least
relible product that company makes.

The Global/Diebold absentee ballot scanners used to keep their own
record of votes cast on it, to memory card and paper tape (just like the
precinct optical scanners).

Granted, Harri Hursti/BBV proved that this audit trail mechanism can be
hacked. But it's not simple - see the "Hursti 1" report, upper right
corner of http://blackboxvoting.org

Let's assume that form of hacking doesn't happen too often. With
absentee ballots, Diebold's absentee ("central count") scanner NO LONGER
keeps any local record of vote totals, as of about late 2002 or early
2003 and the introduction of the current 2.0.12 firmware.

As of 2.0.12, the absentee scanners are hooked straight into the GEMS
server via RS232C and upload results straight in. No other paper or
electronic record exists other than the laughably editable MS-Access
GEMS database. A crooked elections official or staffer (or Diebold, or
the janitor...) can tweak the absentee ballot data all they want. About
the only thing setting a limit on it is that if the absentees are too
radically different from the precinct data, somebody might smell a rat
and order handcounts...and the way a lot of counties handle the
absentees, the costs of doing so are prohibitive because the absentees
are deliberately NOT sorted by precinct so you have to pay a big
"sorting cost" to get anywhere. A $17k sorting cost in Marin County
fr'instance.

They COULD sort the absentees by precinct. They COULD include them in
the 1% spot-checks per Calif law, but they don't. One of the Bowen
bills tries to clean that up, force 'em to include absentees in
recounts/audits, but the fact that that's even necessary is beyond just
"suspicious".

Jim
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed May 31 23:17:06 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 31 2006 - 23:17:07 CDT