Make your own free website on
Supporting material
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

Material submitted in written form to board

Peter Neumann, (principle research scientist at Stanford Research Institute's Computer Science Laboratory ) (Wired News, A Vote For, Nov. 19, 2002), quoted as a sharp critic of computerized touch-screen machines.

A well-regarded report recommends a paper ballot system counted by optical scanners. (CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project) In November, 2002, Peter Neumann, (principle research scientist at Stanford Research Institute's Computer Science Laboratory ) (Wired News, A Vote For, Nov. 19, 2002) is quoted as an advocate of the paper ballot and a sharp critic of computerized touch-screen voting machines.

Review Mercuri's testimony here:

Her website - the section entitled Election Update, Welcome to the Nightmare. Excerpt:

In the rush to correct problems exposed by the 2000 Presidential election debacle in Florida, many municipalities were pressured or required to procure new voting systems. The most vulnerable of these systems are the fully electronic touch-screen or kiosk (DRE) devices because of their lack of an independent, voter-verified audit trail. The vendors and certifying authorities have taken a "trust us" stance, claiming that the machines are "fail safe" and that the internal record and tally constitutes an accurate reflection of the ballots cast on the machine. In fact, machines have failed in actual use - choices have been displayed that were not selected by the voters, and votes have been mis-recorded (in cases losing them entirely, or shifting them to other ballot positions). Some of the machines enter a lock-down mode when the polls are closed, rendering it impossible to later check that votes could have been cast properly for each candidate or issue."

See May 6, 2002 legal declaration of Kim Alexander including link to "Ten Things I Want People To Know About Voting Technology", Alexander's website contains details about the case of "Susan Marie Weber, who sued the Secretary of State, claiming that the paperless, touchscreen voting systems deployed in Riverside county are not safe from fraud and manipulation due to the use of proprietary software and the absence of a voter-verified paper trail." Weber's filing is here:

The Risks of Touch-Screen Balloting San Francisco Chronicleon Monday, December 4, 2000 cited here:

Faulty voting equipment -- mainly touchscreen computers, but also the more traditional punchcard and lever voting machines -- lost up to 6 million of the ballots cast by more than 100 million Americans on Election Day 2000, says the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project.

That organization, a non-partisan study funded by the Carnegie Corp., calls for those methods to be replaced by paper ballots counted by optical scanners. That method is most efficient, and it leaves the paper trail essential for meaningful recounts, the project says.

In contrast, computers reduce votes to electrons on some data-storage medium, which can be recounted in the aggregate but not examined ballot-by-ballot, said Dan Seligson, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C., based non-partisan research firm

"The new touch-screen voting machines, aggressively marketed by a number of companies, carry risks that go to the heart of whether we can even trust election results," wrote Lauren Weinstein recently in Wired magazine.

The paper ballot is endorsed by Pat Buchanan and Network America's Citizens for a Fair Vote Count. November 10, 2000 NA (Network America) e-wire "Buchanan to National Press Club: Supporters Want Paper Ballots, Not Computerized Voting