BBV: CS Monitor picks up debate!

[Bushfire]

Caught in the crossfire, Maryland put on hold a $55.6 million contract with Diebold to outfit the entire state, and asked Scientific Applications International Corp., an independent research firm, to investigate. Though the firm's report cautiously confirmed some of the Rubin team's findings, it said many flaws could be corrected, and Maryland decided to go ahead with the purchase. Last month, two lawmakers requested a further review of the matter by an independent state agency.

Meanwhile, states are in limbo - awaiting word on the security of DRE machines before spending more on them, as well as late-arriving HAVA funding. The 2002 act mandates numerous state and county reforms, such as establishing reliable voter rolls (many African-Americans were mistakenly cut from Florida's 2000 eligible-voter lists, and in Denver last month, nearly 200 deceased voters were invited to cast absentee ballots).

The law does not require states to install electronic systems, but the technology holds appeal because of its flexibility, says Roy Saltman, a private election- technology consultant. DREs can give instructions in many languages, and can be adapted for visually impaired voters. HAVA requires that all new systems and safeguards be in place by January 2006, a deadline many states expect to miss.

Critics and some proponents of DREs agree on one thing: the need for a paper audit trail so votes can be recounted. A bill now before Congress would add that requirement (HR 2239).

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1103/p11s02-uspo.html

Must be real X-File stuff for the CS Monitor to pick up the story. I hope my reps are reading this...

[leftchick]

1. here is more from the article....

<snip> Two big flaws, Rubin says, could give rise to any number of nightmare scenarios. The first: The machines' software is encrypted in only the most basic ways, so people with access to a machine before Election Day could easily get into it and, for instance, change the program so that all votes for one candidate go to an opponent. The second: Diebold machines, like comparable machines sold by Sequoia Voting Systems and Election Systems & Software, produce no paper record of a vote, making recounts impossible. A computer science professor, Rubin says he's all in favor of computerizing needless paperwork - but sometimes, in the interest of democracy, you need to kill a few trees.

:bounce: Great Article!

[RC]

2. Use Hemp paper

and save the trees.

[Spazito]

3. There are more and more mainstream articles on the issue of BBV!

This is great, it is picking up steam!

[dusty64]

4. Finally some light

in an otherwise gloomy day. This will still be a VERY uphill struggle. Why are the Presidential candidates NOT talking about this?