Numbers on E-Vote Machines Cannot Be Checked or Verified!
By Brad Friedman on 5/13/2005, 12:07pm PT  

Just one of several stories from the past week that we're only now getting time to link up (having been furiously driving across country over the past week).

This one from Miami-Herald:

Discrepancies found in votes, signatures

A study on the November general election shows thousands of discrepancies between the number of votes cast and signatures collected by poll workers at the end of the day.

A study by a member of the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition found frequent discrepancies between the number of votes cast and signatures collected by poll workers in the November general election.

The study, expected to be released next week, found that workers at dozens of polling places submitted counts of signatures to elections officials that did not match the number of votes recorded on the touch-screen machines.
[b]ecause the iVotronic touch-screen machines do not use paper ballots, elections officials may never know for sure --- highlighting a continuing issue with the machines.

''I think it's significant that we can't be sure that things can't be counted, compared and investigated all the time,'' said the study's author and University fo Miami Professor Martha Mahoney, who also is a member of the coalition.

The news comes weeks after Elections Supervisor Constance Kaplan resigned amid revelations that human error led to the county's iVotronic touch-screen machines tossing out hundreds of votes. The $24.5 million machines have become such an issue that the county manager has asked the elections department to advise him on whether to keep them.

The study's findings were a surprise for the elections department, which had considered the November election a success.
The study found that there were 5,917 cases where there were more votes than signatures.
In at least one case, the problem appears to have been the machine. At precinct 816, the Church of the Ascension, the number of signatures was 945, a figure verified on the machine. But the number of reported votes that day was 1,116.

After testing the machine, its maker, Election Systems & Software, told the state Division of Elections that an internal memory bank failed but the votes were recorded.

ES&S and their "computer glitches" strike again.

Any of you political and MSM ostriches out there realize this is a story yet?