Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
According to reporter Ian Hoffman there will be a delay in the California voting machine inspections and tests. Los Angeles County is regarded as a vendor by the state because its voting system is unique and custom-made. The county and several vendors are concerned about the extent of the review that will be accomplished. According to the article the vendors are concerned about the scope of testing on security. Only Sequoia has turned over their system to the state but the rest are sure to follow suit. It would look bad for them if they just walked away from this project and the state….
NAtional: ACM Applauds Committee Vote on E-Voting Reform Legislation LINK
AR: Sebastian County – Election Panel Joins Polling Sites LINK
CA: E-vote machine test delayed by talks with L.A., vendors LINK
CA: Riverside County – Electronic voting system whistleblower to talk LINK
FL: Elections chief opposes new bill LINK
FL: Voters face touch-screen primary
Half of state’s voters will have paperless primary in January LINK
MA: Haverhill – City may have to count votes by hand; Old machines break down, new ones to arrive late LINK
MD: Montgomery County – Local Governments Conduct All Elections in US LINK
MS: Jackson Co. Election Commission To Help In Primaries LINK
MS: Jackson County – Vote favors pay for primary help LINK
NY: Troy Township – Citizen Poll Watching Effort Banned by Troy City School Board LINK
NY: York County – Convicts deliver voting booths
Officials said it’s a practice that has gone on for more than a decade with no problems. LINK
OH: Cuyahoga County – You’re out, Judge (New ruling on county election workers case) LINK
OH: Tuscarawas County – Elections board discusses money issues LINK
PA: Officials: Electronic voting may be more costly LINK
PA: Blair County – Early machine problems plague Blair Twp. voters; early turnout light LINK
PA: Centre County – County reports few problems at polls; paper ballots used for time at Foxdale LINK
PA: Luzerne County – Chronicling the past and present of the Election Day voting system LINK
PA: Philadelphia – Voters Hit the Polls
Some Machines Causing Problems LINK
PA: Westmoreland County – Paper ballots return to polls, but only as a backup LINK
SC: St. George – Judge orders town council not to meet
Mayoral candidate sought injunction; hearing Tuesday LINK
TX: Denton County – Flower Mound voting results delayed by hours
County’s electronic machines didn’t give totals for town races LINK
UT: November Election Will Be Costly for Cities, Counties LINK
**”Daily Voting News” is meant as a comprehensive listing of reports each day concerning issues related to election and voting news around the country regardless of quality or political slant. Therefore, items listed in “Daily Voting News” may not reflect the opinions of VotersUnite.Org or BradBlog.Com**
Hmmmm … when an athlete fails to turn up for drug testing that athlete can’t play.
One reason they may not want to be tested is that they have steroids in their system.
The Senate Bill S 559 has language that makes the source code subject to public scrutiny.
The steroids will show up if they take the test, under that Bill, so expect a no show.
Only the honest need apply for election duty if that Bill becomes law.
H.R. 811 got a lot better in committee; almost all of the loopholes were taken out. That is so cool.
While it’s still theoretically possible for DREs to be used under the H.R.811 regime, they will be *so* much more expensive that hopefully very few places will consider them. Notably, the requirement that paper ballots be available for all voters who ask for them will destroy the “don’t need to print ballots therefore cheaper” claim. The absolute requirement that the machine allow voters to correct any errors made by the machine should prevent all current systems (“behind glass” paper trails) from qualifying.
The only hole I see is that 80% number: no audits if the machines say 80% victory. No serious election has been won by that much in a long time (the biggest blowouts I’ve ever seen, such as Hillary’s Senate primary, were less than that); hopefully if someone steals an election that way, it will be obvious enough to force recounts *politically*.
Actually, no.
While source code disclosure is needed, source code disclosure will not fix the problems with e-voting, nor will it prevent the systems from being gamed to the max. That’s because current e-voting systems were not designed with security in mind.
And even Open Source cannot solve the fatal flaws in e-voting.
And just as source code disclosure has already been deliberately thrown out of the campanion bill, hr 811, so it will also be thrown out of s 559… thus making this particular argument moot.
“Holt II” = No Meaningful Disclosure Allowed.
… Nathanael Nerode said hopefully…
“H.R. 811 got a lot better in committee; almost all of the loopholes were taken out. That is so cool.”
That’s funny… the text of the bill passed out of committee is still strangely unavailable to the public…
And even the text of the Lofgren amendment alone has serious issues.
The original HR 811 is better than the revised, because it is in sink with S 559.