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: http://www.house.gov/science/full/may22/mercuri.htm.
Her website notablesoftware.com - 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",
http://www.calvoter.org/votingtech/riversidestatement.html 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: http://www.electionguardians.org/memo_against_SJ.htm
The Risks of Touch-Screen Balloting San Francisco Chronicleon Monday, December 4, 2000 cited here: http://www.whoseflorida.com/voting_machines.htm
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 electionline.org.
"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
