Make your own free website on
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

top priority should be clean voter registration rolls
voter verifiable paper trail offered by AccuPoll

Check out Accupoll
Status:     For Immediate Release
Date:     February 3, 2003 10:40 AM EST
Attn:     All Media
Contact:     Frank Wiebe
(949) 200-4000 x102

IRVINE, Calif. -- (BUSINESSWIRE) February 3, 2003 -- Voters have made their intent clear -- voters prefer to review their votes when the votes have been recorded on paper.

The approval of a voter verifiable printed paper record produced simultaneously with casting an electronic ballot won by a landslide, in separate surveys conducted in California and Pennsylvania.

In a recent California telephone survey, 80% of active voters randomly polled said they would have more trust in an election if they could see their vote recorded on paper as part of the process of casting a ballot on an electronic voting station.

Pennsylvania voters who participated in shadow voting with AccuPoll (OCT BB:ACUP) during the November 5th general election agreed after using the AccuPoll equipment. The AccuPoll voting station has a touch screen but prints a paper record of the voter's cast ballot (a "Proof of Vote") for the voter to review.

This voter verified paper record can be audited against the cast electronic ballots to insure the integrity and accuracy of the election and hand counted in the event of a recount. Voters who tested AccuPoll were asked to complete a survey on their experience for the County Commissioners. More than 80% of the voters who tested the new AccuPoll equipment voiced their approval of the voter verified paper record and the ease of the overall voting experience.

Such survey results are a vote of confidence for the future of election reform, because first generation touch screen systems currently being adopted have not won public confidence. Everyone agrees, it's time for a change, but pure touch screen systems are not being embraced by the public. Voters report confusion with the touch screens and express little confidence that their choices were actually recorded properly in invisible electronic files.

Professional studies, such as those of Dr. Rebecca Mercuri (Bryn Mawr College) have demonstrated that touch screens can fail in ways that cause them to improperly record votes. Experience in live elections in 2002 in Florida and Texas revealed numerous incidents of failures to record or tally votes from pure touch screen systems.

AccuPoll is proud to offer a new generation of voting equipment that combines the latest touch screen usability and the conclusive voter verified paper records preferred by voters and required for auditable results.



The top priority of all local election bureaus across the country should be to have bi-annual check of the local voter-registration rolls.
The Motor Voter legislation of 1993 merely created a category of voter called inactive.  However, many state laws enable local election officials to "monitor" the registration rolls, and should an elector be shown to have moved to another county, state, or local voting district, the elector can be notified of potential removal from the voter registration listing.
After the elector is notified via a mailing, there is another process to remove the elector if a return form is not received.
If a "mistake" is made, and a qualified and legitimate elector is removed from the voter registration rolls, the elector has the obligation to go and seek reinstatement by simply going and re-registering to vote.  This shouldn't be difficult, now many states have mail-in registration.
An important part of the election process is at the front-end:  mail-ins and walk-ins, and same day voter registrants, all must be checked out to ensure a clean voter registration list.  We must be guaranteed to have a system that has  a resigistration roll that is fraud and tamper proof, just as we must be guaranteed to have a voting machine system that is unrigged.
After reviewing much of the information from several websites, I've come to consider that what we need is a two-pronged verification process if touch-screen machines are used.
We should have a voter-verified paper ballot, and we should have a way for the voter to see a printout of his-her vote as will be recorded by the machine.
Possibly there could also be a way for a voter to receive a pin number which will still retain the secrecy of the voter's ballot.
In this way, the voter would have confirmation that the machine has recorded a vote for the voter's number accurately.
More suggestions found across the internet.
Phyllis Schlafly
September 25, 2002

Some voters complained that the touch-screen machines selected the wrong candidates. In August, national voting machine expert Rebecca Mercuri demonstrated how it's possible that a voter using these new voting machines could touch two candidates' names at once and register a vote for a third candidate.

Some claim the South Florida problems were the result of operator error, not mechanical malfunction. There were too few poll workers, inadequate training of poll workers, and failure to provide checklists for the operation. Some poll workers quit because they were intimidated and frustrated by the new machines.

The problem in 2000 wasn't the punch card ballots anyway. I voted a punch card ballot in November 2000 and didn't have any problem with it, and the sign on the ballot box in my precinct clearly told voters to "Remove your hanging chads."

We should not use any voting machine unless it prints out a receipt confirming that the machine registered your votes for the candidates you chose. If the machine doesn't do that, the technology is subject to all kinds of fraud and we should junk the voting machines altogether to go back to paper ballots.