Will the mods allow me to tell you to bite me if they are aware that we know (and actually like) each other in real life? 
Sam, it sure is fun when you and I completely agree on something. I’m thinking that any issue that we both agree on should probably make it into law by default. There wouldn’t be a lot of laws, but they’d sure be widely agreed upon.
By the way, while I’m not going to link to it without mod permission, even though the DCMA won’t protect against hyperlinks (Kucinich actually directly links to some of these on the house website 
), anyone who wants to get a nice education in this mess would be well served to google the phrase diebold memos, and do some reading. It’s entertaining, in a very very frightening way.
This, most assuredly, was not the case in Ohio. There were three electronic voting systems certified by the Ohio Sec State; Diebold makes only one of those three. In order to even qualify to supply a system for certification testing, the candidates had to survive a competitive bid process. The certification tests were designed by a third party (Compuware) and approved by the Ohio Sec State. The certification tests run in Ohio actually uncovered flaws that went unnoticed in some other states - like California. Again, I have no idea how other states have certified machines for electronic voting, but here in Ohio, the process has been very thorough. I posted a lot more detail about this in a November '05 thread.
That stuff may be found here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343131
I agree with you completely, Sam.
Gotcha. Looking back at my post where I first spoke of HAVA, it does indeed look like I implied VVPAT was required at the federal level by HAVA. This, as you note, is not true. My apologies for the confusion. I had meant only to state that in Ohio, as part of their plan for implementing HAVA, VVPAT was made a requirement. VVPAT is not part of HAVA; it was merely implemented concurrently here.
I’ll do that - next week. Thanks for the lead, DMC.
And with that, I gotta bow out for the weekend. I’m off to Chicago to see [url=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php?username=porcupine”. Y’all have a good weekend, too.
This brings up a funny little story. While I don’t question for a minute Compuware’s diligence in attempting to find problems with the software of the various bidding vendors, the reason I don’t question it is that they are developing software for a competitor to those who made bids. Not only is there a potential conflict of interest (which in this case happened to end up positively, by forcing a vendor to fix things), it sort of punches big gaping holes in the whole “trade secrets” arguments.
Tell her I said ‘Hi!’.
Hmm . . . First hit I got was from Indymedia – http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1649419_comment.php:
But the embedded link doesn’t work. Very interesting . . .
I bet it would be one HELL of a lot easier if our elections were run by an independent voting commission instead of the party that holds power in state government. Fix that central fuckup, and a lot of other “insurmountable” fuckups will go away very quickly and easily.
How would the commissioners be chosen?
Hell, set up a politically neutral board to choose them. I realize that “Politically Neutral” as an ideal is gonna be tough, but apparently it works in other countries. I find it hard, very hard, indeed, ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to believe that any halfway honest attempt at political neutrality won’t beat our corruption-enabling system all to hell.
In Florida, the Committee for Fair Elections – http://www.committeeforfairelections.com/ – is trying to pass a constitutional amendment to take the redistricting power away from the state legislature and give it to an independent commission. The commission would not run the elections, it would only redraw the legislative (including U.S. House of Representatives) district boundaries; but it could be a model for what you’re thinking of. The commission would have 15 members:
3 nominated by the majority party in the state Senate
3 nominated by the minority party in the state Senate
3 nominated by the majority party in the state House of Representatives
3 nominated by the minority party in the state House of Representatives
3 nominated by the state Supreme Court, from a list of names provided by the judges of the five appellate District Courts; each District would provide a list of five names, all of whom must have been registered voters, but not with either major party, for the previous two years.
So, in sum, the commission would have 6 Dems, 6 Pubs, 3 independents; none would be office-holders; 10 of the 15 would have to agree on any redistricting plan. Elaborate, but balanced. The commission would be created at redistricting time (decennially), then dissolved when its work is done.
The argument in California for electronic machines is that they allow the disabled to vote. They are easier to use than the old chad-friendly ones, but not as easy as paper ballots.
Since Diebold machines seem to have failed California’s screening, there is a move afoot to use 100% absentee ballots. In the last election I think my county was up to 50%. Seems to solve the problem nicely.
BTW, I think a lot of people in this thread are mixing up two meanings of proprietary. A proprietary format, like that used by Microsoft Office, is owned by one company, and is proprietary in that sense even if it is published. Proprietary information is stuff not revealed outside a company, except under special license or agreement. Proprietary information does not have to be innovative or patentable. The ordering of the fields of Diebold’s records would be proprietary. Thus, I think they are right that the formats are proprietary. The issue is whether the public good should require them to publish it, and what harm would they suffer if they did. Mr. Bricker might tell us the factors involved in making that decision.