Not to say we told ya so, but… Rachel Barnhart of Rochester’s WROC-TV just tweeted this: “Wow, state assembly intro's bill to allow NYC to bring back lever machines for primary.”
…And then there was this, last night, from NY1…
A source tells NY1 a deal has been made in the New York State legislature that will allow the old machines to be used for the September 10 primary.
New York City Board of Elections officials say the new optical scanners are too slow to allow them to plan for a likely runoff in the crowded Democratic primary race.
A runoff is necessary if no candidate wins at least 40 percent of the vote.
It’s unclear if the old machines will also be used for the November 5 general election.
The city spent more than $95 million on the new optical scanning machines, which were first used in 2010.
For much more on all of this, why NY is doing what it’s doing, and what’s really wrong with its new, oft-failed, easily-manipulated optical-scan computer tabulation system, please see our detailed report on all of this from March: “New York City Considers Move Back to Lever Voting Machines For September Elections”.
You’re welcome.
UPDATE 6/6/13: New York’s Amsterdam News reports the bill to restore lever machine voting in NYC “has passed the Senate, and the Assembly is seriously considering returning to lever machines”…
“The new scanner machines were intended to move us forward, but unfortunately were a huge step back for many,” said Martins.
Back to the future …
It would be nice if the government could sue to get that $95 million back, and subsequently put the electronic vote fraudsters out of business.
Please stay away from butterfly ballots.
Comment deleted – commercial spam! EAC
it was time...
Steve Snyder aka WingnutSteve wrote @3:
One can always depend upon our resident “Wingnut” to furnish a red herring.
The butterfly ballots do not explain the negative 16,022 votes registered for Al Gore by a Volusia County, Florida optical-scan system during the contested 2000 Presidential Election. Inaccurate ballot design might explain why votes are sometimes counted for the wrong candidate, but they don’t explain how any voting system can subtract votes from a candidate.
Vote counts are supposed to entail simple addition.
The butterfly ballot design had nothing to do with the thousands of hanging chads, either.
As Dan Rather later documented, the source of the fiasco that was Florida 2000 can be found in the decision by upper management of Sequoia Voting Systems to deliberately sabotage the punch card stock that was utilized in South Florida — an action that provided a critical prerequisite to the eventual right wing judicial coup (Bush v. Gore) that permitted the losing candidate to be selected as the President of these United States.
… missed one at #4, Ernest…
…waitaminute…
… what’s going on here?!
HIS INITIALS ARE EAC!
The jig is up, von Spakovsky!
ZapKitty @ 7 said:
Oh, man! Never noticed that! Shit, between that and DESI Doyen, a guy could start getting paranoid!