|

 
|
| | Name : | Timothy Willhard | Organization : | N/A | Post Date : | 9/9/2005 |
| Comment : | 5. There is no verification of the individual votes counted by the
machines. If there is a question about the reliability of an individual
machine, the vote tabulator can produce another total, but not review any
individual ballot.
6. One manufacturer was even sued by a state for using machines that had
not been sealed and certified in an actual election.
7. Machines have had software patches (proprietary again) applied to them
with unknown code after being certified and used shortly thereafter in
an
official election.
8. The public has no method to recount votes, even if state law requires
it in close elections.
9. There have been cases where vote totals for candidates have actually
decreased instead of increased as an election progressed. There has even
been at least one election where a vote total has been higher than the
number of registered voters in a county.
10. There have been cases where voting totals have been wildly different
in a clinching county from every other county in a state and far removed
from polling projections and traditional results. The polling projections
were only divergent in the clinching county.
11. There have been scores of cases where people have used touch screen
machines and chosen one candidate, only to see the vote indicate another
candidate was selected, even if they tried over and over to select the
first candidate.
12. The few national computing research experts that have been allowed
to
test current models say that even though some improvements have been made,
voting machines are still not properly secure for elections. | |
|
|