Make your own free website on
Useful Items
Vote Fix Links
Paper Ballots, Emergency Ballots, All-Mail Voting
Investigation-less election
Voter Registration Rolls Online?
Illegal This But Not That?
Solution or Problem: Federalize Voter Registration for Federal Elections
PA Power Insight
Myth or Fact
Question Them All
"little" Fraud?
Assorted Items
PA Watch
Populism vs PA Constitution
2007 Watch: PA Constitutional Convention
Move toward PA Con-Con
Guidelines for Variety election issues and observing at the Polls
Initiatives and Referendums: Gutting Republicanism
No Voter ID = Passport to Fraud
Illegal Immigrants Voting in U.S. Elections Facts
Goals of HAVA:
Paper Ballot Make It A Voter Choice
PA SB 977 and HB 2000
Both Sides: Electronic Paperless (Selker) vs Paper (Mercuri)
Know It: Second Chance Voting
Holding Breath Will Fayette Purchase Paper Ballot eScan and Electronic eSlate?
Discussion Sites
All laws repugnant void
Activists Absent
Board Discussion
Opinion None of the Above
To Show or Not to Show State Rep. Roberts Phone Calls
Discussion PA Politics 101.2 Media Woke Up to 1 Man Agenda?
Discussion PA Politics 1000.2 PA Clean Sweep's Reform Agenda
Discussion PA Politics 102
Voter Registration Lists
PA Law Changes First Time Voter
Discussion PA Politics 101
Discussion PA Politics 1000.1 Candidates
Lawmakers Arrogance
Blogging Net the Truth Online
Voting Technology 2006
e-Voting Truth
Should taxpayers fund WW2 memorial with religious engravings?
Net the Truth Online About Election Fraud
Issue File Voting by Mail
Powerful Information
Citizen Advisory Group Proposed
Demand PA SURE used
Inspector/s of Voter Registration
Interviews of Note
Motor Voter Law and Deceased
Back to the Future?
John Fund's Political Diary
Year 2000 Highlights Palast Update
Buchanan Vote 2000 Hoax
Fraud 2000: The Confusion
Fraud 2000: Holes
Fraud 2000: The Machines Background
Fraud 2000: Quote of the Millennium
Fraud 2000: Spotlight
Fraud 2000: Undervotes Trail-less
Fraud 2000: Built on the Past
Fraud 2000: Solution in search of Problems
Fraud 2000: Recounting the Ways
Fraud 2000: Dimples
Alert: Fraud 2000
Fraud 2000 Proof
Fraud 2000: Flaws
Fraud 2000: Courts
Fraud 2000: Count and Recount
Fraud 2000: Count and Recount 2
Fraud 2000: Analysis Debate
Fraud 2000: Past to Future
Ballot Fraud of Old
1984 Florida Ballot Problems
Local, State, National Election News
Daily Developments
Voting Fraud Tale Spin
Discussion Internet Free Speech on Trial?
STOP tax reform plan Guts PA Constitution
PA Constitution Doesn't Need Makeover
About Vote Fix
Why Vote Fix Is Up
Security concerns electronic voting
Paper/Opti-scan vs Touch-screen
Voter Confidence/Increased Accessibility Act 2003
Vote Fix Guestbook
PA election reform status
Fayette County Watch
Election 2007 Watch Fayette Politics
United States a republic, not a democracy
Voter Identification (ID) Proof
Citizens Demand Security
Solutions Here
Federal Legislation Update
Testimony HAVA
Net Voting
So Little time
Useful Items
Comments on voting machines
Public Comment on voting machines
Supporting material
Link resources submitted to commishes
Vote Fix Research
Contact/Voice a View
Motor Voter Happenings
Trail of Treachery Chad-Fraud
Fraud 2000: How it went
Fraud 2000: How it Went Then
Trail of Treachery: Varied News & Opinions
Track Vote Fraud

all for your information and informed decision

Provisional ballot PA user documentation link

Be aware of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.  Many states are moving to state-wide implementation of replacement machines, while other states are basically leaving the decision up to local county elected officials.
FYI: the concern over security of electronic voting systems has not diminished during the two years I've tracked this issue. However, after attending demonstrations by voting systems vendors in January, 2006 in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, it does appear the vendors have attempted to address the concern for "paper" trails. Many states, such as Pennsylvania, have laws that pertain to the anonymous and private guarantee for ballots to be cast. Currently, Pennsylvania legislators have not authorized the use of a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail. Be aware, the voting systems do have the capability for the VVPAT, but are prevented by PA law from installing this feature.
The computer science experts WARN OF TOUCH-SCREEN VOTING
Election debacle highlights debate on new voting systems
Earl Lane.
In the aftermath of the electoral train wreck in Florida, localities around the country are taking a hard look at alternatives to punch-card balloting, with its potential for ambiguous chads, both dimpled and hanging.

But some computer specialists caution that electronic voting machines, widely discussed as an up-to-date alternative to paper ballot systems, have drawbacks of their own and are unlikely to become the dominant voting system in the United States any time soon.

 The machines can cost as much as $7,000 each, a substantial up-front investment that many counties and municipalities had been reluctant to consider

Those warnings have been since 2000.

Recently, Rep. Rush Holt introduced federal legislation:

Bill requiring a voter-verified paper trail introduced in Congress

Yesterday Congressman Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) introduced HR 2239, the "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003".

More... so much more... at

Rep. Holt's press release

Since these are recent developments, the local Fayette County board of commissioners, for instance, may not be aware of the legislation at this time, let alone other developments:  a few voting machine companies have taken the criticisms of the touch-screen voting machines (from computer science experts) seriously.  See Vote Integrity.

Reviewing Kim Alexander California Voter Foundation website, excellent, worth a daily visit.
Do not miss any of these informative up-to-date links, wow...
article as recent as June 3, 2003 Is it Safe yet?
Look at these new finds:
By Judy Kroeger
Friday, June 6, 2003

STAR JUNCTION -- An error in reading a poll result means that the current president of the Frazier School Board of Directors will not be on the November ballot.

Poll workers at the Perry Township District 3 polling location reported that John Lowery III received 40 more Democratic votes than Bill Vargo in May's primary.

A spokeswoman from the Fayette County Election Bureau said that someone read Vargo's vote count as 49 instead of the correct 89 votes on one of two machines at the location. When the paper record from the machine was matched with the general return during this week's count, the error was discovered.

The official results of the May 20 primary will be available in about 10 days, she said.

Voting errors suggest no fraud

Sunday, June 17, 2001

By James O'Toole, Politics Editor, Post-Gazette

Most of the controversy in the Florida presidential election saga focused on the recording and counting of votes, although there also was concern that some eligible Florida voters were barred from voting. The problems alleged by the O'Connor campaign by contrast generally involved not the counting of votes but the potential for errors made before the voters entered the voting booth -- most importantly, questions of whether the poll workers allowed only eligible voters to participate in the Democratic primary.

A new, computerized voting system would not prevent such errors from being repeated, Wolosik said. New voting machines, using ATM-like technology, would cost up to $15 million.

"Even if you had a new system, people would still make clerical errors. It's possible [the elections department] will make errors too and send wrong information to the voting districts," he said.

"Whether it's a mechanical lever or a touch-screen [system], you still have to make adjustments to the machine and the possibility for error exists."

We have news for these guys:  we don't accept the avoidable "human" errors, and we don't accept any voting machines which are not guaranteed protected from potential fraud and manipulation!
There can be potential fraud with any voting system, that isn't under dispute, however, the problem is the possibility of replacing one voting machine system with another system that doesn't have a citizen - voter audited paper trail.
At our local polls, we have what are called poll watchers from all parties.  These are the people who are supposed to watch the goings on during and after the election.
We need more such people and trained to watch for potential errors at the polls.
However, if the registration of qualified voters is not clean, if that is not "watched" the possibility of fraud exists in the registration process as well.
In 1999, I presented the board of Fayette County commissioners with the Election Code wherein:
Under PA VOTER REGISTRATION ACT (Section 304 (b)(3) pertaining specifically to second through eighth class counties) other staff of the Registration Commission SHALL be as follows:

(Subsection ii) Inspectors of registration who have authority to investigate all matters regarding voter registration and to make recommendations to the commission.
Note:  this is my old site, my new site is
Our board of commissioners, all these years later, have yet to consider appointing such person or persons to go out and function per the law.

Lost and Found:
Just found this item on a search June 6, 2003!  Who knew?  so the mechanical lever machines are also considered to be direct recording machines.  That's very interesting - that's exactly the kind of machines Fayette County has had for the past how many years?
Maybe somebody should have conducted a study of our machines, and possibly an investigation long ago?
Vote of No Confidence, from Conspire.Com:  Department of Retroactive Prognostication
the trend in the computer elections business is toward "direct recording" machines -- basically, automatic teller machines for voters. These machines increase the convenience of voting and the speed with which votes can be tabulated on election night. But since there are no ballots,, there is no way to manually verify the machine's counts. Some direct recording devices are capable of transmitting counts immediately over phone lines or even via satellite.

Consultant Naegle recommended to the Federal Elections Commission that direct recording machines should have some way of recording votes independent of its own internal memory. Again, the FEC rejected what seems like a sensible, even crucial, suggestion. 

One of the most widely used direct recording machines is called the "Shouptronic" named for its company, R.F. Shoup. The president of that company, Ransom Shoup II,  was convicted in 1979 of conspiracy and obstruction of justice related to an FBI inquiry into a lever machine-counted election in Philadelphia. 

New York City is now prepared to spend up to $50 million to convert its elections to direct recording machines or another electronic system known as "optical mark." the Shouptronic is among the candidates in a furious campaign to win the Big Apple contract.

Found June 6, 2003

Millersville University, Pennsylvania Election Reform:  The Failed Experiment

November 27, 2001


Pennsylvania counties currently employ six different types of voting systems, including the now infamous punch cards used in Florida. Even more dubious are the mechanical lever machines still used in 25 counties. These machines are relics of the past. Not only are they old; they're not even made any longer. They are a nightmare to use. The names of candidates are difficult to read, the levers stick, the ballot is often presented in a confusing manner, and they are capable of undercounting votes actually cast.


Beware of the following site

New Demos Report Dispels "Voting Fraud" Myth. Demos has released a new report that will be useful for any advocate of election reform who has ever grappled with the issue of voting fraud. "Securing the Vote: An Analysis of Election Fraud" finds that fraud is a negligible problem in American democracy that does not affect election outcomes in any of the 50 states. The report also finds that election reforms such as the National Voter Registration Act, mail-in voting, and election day registration can broaden voter participation without risking increased fraud. Click here for a copy of the report or email Tate Hausman at for more information.

Voting fraud is "negligible" - right.  Most importantly, our nation is a republic, with a rule of law, not rule of the mob.

Should many states move to same day registration, there absolutely must be some way to verify the individual is a citizen of the United States, and there must be some way to guarantee this individual doesn't go and vote in another state either by absentee ballot, mail in, or provisional ballot.

Pennsylvania has also fallen for the "provisional" ballot - that is, somebody who appears at the local polling place, but does not show up as registered on our local precinct or county voter registration list can cast a provisional ballot, and be checked out as a valid voter later.

For the 2004 Presidential election (federal election), Fayette County had some 666 Provisional Ballots cast, however, more than have of these ballots were disqualified for a variety of reasons, including the individual was not registered as a valid voter in the state, the county of Fayette, or the precinct in the county of Fayette.

The SURE system was used for the first time during 2004, for both the Primary and General elections.