Slashdot Mirror

Yes, parts of the system are relics of the days of poor communication, but parts are quite important.

Diebold didn't create the GEMS election system themselves. They bought the company Global Election Systems in 2002 in hopes to make money Congress was throwing around with the Help America Vote Act of 2001

Since they didn't have a voting system of their own at the time, they needed to purchase an existing company or product to get into the market quickly. Once they've made the first sale, they can offer bugfixes or upgrades to their current customers. If they didn't get to the contract, they are going to be purchasing those upgrades from someone else.

Ion Sancho, a Democrat, noted that Florida law allows political party operatives inside polling stations to stop voters from obtaining a ballot.

They may then only vote "provisionally" after signing an affidavit attesting to their legal voting status.

Mass challenges have never occurred in Florida. Indeed, says Mr Sancho, not one challenge has been made to a voter "in the 16 years I've been supervisor of elections."

Florida polls were open until 8 P.M. on election night. The problem was that Florida's ten heavily Republican western-panhandle counties are on Central, not Eastern, time. When polls closed at 8 P.M. EST in most of the state, the western-panhandle polling places were still open for another hour. Yet, at 8 Eastern, all the networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and NBC) incorrectly announced many times over the next hour that the polls were closed in the entire state. CBS national news made 18 direct statements that the polls had closed.

[...]

Democratic strategist Bob Beckel concluded Mr. Bush suffered a net loss of up to 8,000 votes in the panhandle after Florida was called early for Gore. Another survey of western-panhandle voters conducted by John McLaughlin & Associates, a Republican polling company, immediately after the election estimated that the early call cost Bush approximately 10,000 votes.

Congress lacks any authority over state-level elections.

However, it would appear they have some sort of authority over federal elections-- senators, house reps, president. The 2002 Help America Vote Act placed a range of rules and restrictions on how a state may conduct its federal elections. None of these took direct effect, and all of these took the form of requiring the states to each independently pass some sort of legislation implementing the rules HAVA dictates. In many states this local legislation applies only to elections for federal offices, saying for example that you may cast a provisional ballot for president but not governor. This appears to satisfy HAVA.

I do not know on exactly what constitutional basis HAVA exists.

The ITAA will be telling us that we're all too stupid to vote and can't make our own decisions. We'll need special representatives to vote for us, because we're too dumb to know what's good for us. Wouldn't that suck.........

This has entirly to do with campaign finance, and whether Internet ads are included (or excluded) from campaign finance. It has nothing to do with free speech

Campaign finance law is all about free speech. Another poster commented that political speech by private parties is still protected; but that speech by candidates for office is in a position to be regulated. Accepting that statement as true, if you have actually read any campaign finance law (specifically the McCain - Feingold Act passed recently), it specifically restricts the speech of private citizens, basically prohibitting them from mentioning a specific candidate in an ad, among other things.

(Not sure if the "Gun Shows Elect ..." ad is airing anywhere other than Ohio, but the ad makes a definite point of mentioning this restriction on their freedom of speech.)

To reiterate, campaign finance reform specifically restricts the freedom of speech of private citizens, and their ability to make statements through the use of public broadcasts.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, specifically the section on Electioneering Communications.

how is this worse than the FEC site? i can go to http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.sh tml spend 30 seconds and generate a list of every person who contributed to a political party in my city.

Can't you do both ( step one, step two) like the late Earl Warren ?

...at least according to a press release dated tomorrow :-). The Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips got 98,000 votes in 2000, behind the Green (Nader), Reform (Buchanan), and Libertarian (Browne) parties, but ahead of the Natural Law Party (Hagelin).

Or would you care to deny that in the current system, a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah?

In Illinois (2003 population 12.6 million), there is 1 electoral vote for every 600,000. In Utah (Pop. 2.3 million), there is 1 electoral vote for every 460,000.

Therefore, since your vote corresponds to 1/460,000 of an electoral vote in Utah and only 1/600,000 in Illinois, I would like to deny that a citizen of Illinois has more Presidential voting power than one from Utah.

Sources:
Electoral Votes
PDF of population estimates for 2003

You are correct. States do decide how their votes go, but most (if not all) states have laws that regulate how the electorate must vote. Currently, all but two states operate in a "Winner takes all" manner. Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions.

For more information:
U.S Electoral College entry in wikipedia
How the Electoral College works

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but there is a great article on the electoral college right on the Federal Election Commission's website. I believe it gives a pretty fair look at the electoral college, taking into account its strengths and weaknesses. You can find a link to the PDF file (among other things) on this page. Look for "A Brief History of the Electoral College."

SharkJumper

*Sigh* I was just saying that one shouldn't be lazy when making statements such as "maybe Bush would also have won in a popular vote."

Now you do the same kind of thing. You don't trust the numbers? Well go check them then! Here for example: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm. The numbers are right.

I agree that a nationwide recount is a nightmare, but my argument is this: quite probably the majority of American voters have voted for the other guy. That is not very democratic. The American voting system is well known to be one of the worst possible from a theoretical viewpoint.

104,338,854 votes recorded

Country: Kerry, Bush, neither

Kerry
Germany: 74%, 10%, 16%
Norway: 74%, 7%, 19%
France: 64%, 5%, 31%
Canada: 61%, 16%, 23%
Italy: 58%, 14%, 28%
Brazil: 57%, 14%, 29%
Indonesia: 57%, 34%, 9%
China: 52%, 12%, 36%

Kerry, no mandate
UK: 47%, 16%, 37%
Japan: 43%, 32%, 25%

Too close to call, no mandate
India: 34%, 33%, 33%

Bush
Philippines: 32%, 57%, 11%

Neither, no mandate
Spain: 45%, 7%, 48%
Mexico: 38%, 18%, 44%
Nigeria: 33%, 27%, 40%
Thailand: 30%, 33%, 37%
Poland: 26%, 31%, 43%

2000: Gore, Bush, other, none of the candidates

None of the candidates
USA: 22.0%**, 21.8%**, 1.7%, 54.5%*

* Eligible voters
** Gore, Bush, and other's percentage support of eligible (I hope)

My comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line, my comment had too few characters per line.

In the current system, a single fraudulent vote cast in the following states would have the corresponding introduced error:

I meant to say could have the corresponding introduced error.

Also, a third proposal to electoral reform which I have read elsewhere goes a little further to rewarding the "popularity contest" winner of a statewide election, by awarding the 2 "senatorial" electoral votes to the outright winner, and dividing the remaining "representative" electoral votes proportionally.

Still other proposals advocate awarding electoral votes on a district-by-district basis, but I believe this defrauds "political minority" members of those districts of their presidential vote, much as the "political minorities" in nearly every state are currently defrauded today. Ask the 35% of Californians who voted for Bush if they feel their vote was counted.

Some interesting maps:
Map: 2000 Popular Vote: Bush
Map: 2000 Popular Vote: Gore

In the current system, a single fraudulent vote cast in the following states would have the corresponding introduced error:

I meant to say could have the corresponding introduced error.

Also, a third proposal to electoral reform which I have read elsewhere goes a little further to rewarding the "popularity contest" winner of a statewide election, by awarding the 2 "senatorial" electoral votes to the outright winner, and dividing the remaining "representative" electoral votes proportionally.

Still other proposals advocate awarding electoral votes on a district-by-district basis, but I believe this defrauds "political minority" members of those districts of their presidential vote, much as the "political minorities" in nearly every state are currently defrauded today. Ask the 35% of Californians who voted for Bush if they feel their vote was counted.

Some interesting maps:
Map: 2000 Popular Vote: Bush
Map: 2000 Popular Vote: Gore

2000 Presidential General Election Results

Bush
50,456,002 votes
47.87%

Gore
50,999,897 votes
48.38%

Closed source does stifle innovation, but would you want to live in a nation where a company's lobbies were not allowed to speak because a vocal minority opposed them.

Ultimately, it is our responsibility to vote into office representatives that respond to our wishes rather than lobbies. If you aren't registered to vote and you are over 18 years old in the US, PLEASE register to vote before the November election. I don't care who you vote for; just VOTE!!!

If you are registered to vote and you don't, you suck.

If you are registered and know people who either aren't registered or don't vote, get them to. A democracy only works when people exercise their ability to effect a change.

Chris

In every presidential election covered by television, the candidate with the most campaign money has become President.

Care to back up that assertion? I must have missed Bob Dole's narrow victory in 1996, then...

In every presidential election covered by television, the candidate with the most campaign money has become President.

Care to back up that assertion? I must have missed Bob Dole's narrow victory in 1996, then...

I've done the math on this.

Even if every registered voter[1] who did not vote in the 2000 election voted for Nader, the leading third party candidate, he couldn't win.

Of the 51 states (including D.C.), Nader could not win 24 of them even if every registered voter who didn't vote, voted for him. Of the remaining 27, he would need to win 26 of them to win, and he wasn't even on the ballot in 3 of them.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was (if those people were going to vote for him he would likely be on the ballot). In the 26 states (the one he doesn't win necessarily being one of the eight that only has 3 electoral votes), there were 35 million registered voters who didn't vote. He would need 27 million of those votes (ideally proportioned among the states to give him just enough to win each state) to win the election. He only got 3 million total in the whole country. That's 9 times more than he actually got and assuming that these 27 million people would have voted only for him and no other third party candidate.

More realistically, of the 56 million[2] registered voters who did not vote, evenly proportioning them across the country percentage wise, he would have needed roughly 53 million votes in order to win. In other words, close to 18 times as many votes as he actually got with none of them going to any other candidate. Bush and Gore only got 50 million each.

So, even if you could convince those 56 million people to vote and to vote for a third party candidate, the vast majority would have to agree on a single third party candidate to even have a shot at getting one elected. This just isn't going to happen. If a third party candidate could get that many votes, he would most likely be running for one of the two majors.

[1] The reason I'm not counting unregistered voters is that the data includes a "significant number" of people above voting age but aren't eligible to vote. If you want to count non-registered voters too, it's possible, but extremely unlikely.

[2] North Dakota has no voter registration and Wisconsin has registration at the polls. In those cases I am using the number of people above voting age as the registered voters for that state.

Sources:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00. htm

I've done the math on this.

Even if every registered voter[1] who did not vote in the 2000 election voted for Nader, the leading third party candidate, he couldn't win.

Of the 51 states (including D.C.), Nader could not win 24 of them even if every registered voter who didn't vote, voted for him. Of the remaining 27, he would need to win 26 of them to win, and he wasn't even on the ballot in 3 of them.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say he was (if those people were going to vote for him he would likely be on the ballot). In the 26 states (the one he doesn't win necessarily being one of the eight that only has 3 electoral votes), there were 35 million registered voters who didn't vote. He would need 27 million of those votes (ideally proportioned among the states to give him just enough to win each state) to win the election. He only got 3 million total in the whole country. That's 9 times more than he actually got and assuming that these 27 million people would have voted only for him and no other third party candidate.

More realistically, of the 56 million[2] registered voters who did not vote, evenly proportioning them across the country percentage wise, he would have needed roughly 53 million votes in order to win. In other words, close to 18 times as many votes as he actually got with none of them going to any other candidate. Bush and Gore only got 50 million each.

So, even if you could convince those 56 million people to vote and to vote for a third party candidate, the vast majority would have to agree on a single third party candidate to even have a shot at getting one elected. This just isn't going to happen. If a third party candidate could get that many votes, he would most likely be running for one of the two majors.

[1] The reason I'm not counting unregistered voters is that the data includes a "significant number" of people above voting age but aren't eligible to vote. If you want to count non-registered voters too, it's possible, but extremely unlikely.

[2] North Dakota has no voter registration and Wisconsin has registration at the polls. In those cases I am using the number of people above voting age as the registered voters for that state.

Sources:
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00. htm

http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/preturn.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm
http://www.multied.com/elections/

Look at some of the figures on that last link. The last time the turnout went above even 70% was 1900 - and that was a 2 party election. Hell the turnout 1896 was almost 80%, and that was a 2 party election too. So I'm legitimately curious about this, guys - if what I'm saying is a bunch of crap then why in the last century have voter turnouts held around the 50%-60% range? Are we waiting for something? The right issue, or set of issues? The right guy? The right scandal? I'd honestly like to know.

From the article: Reform legislation, the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), may actually facilitate Republican intimidation of minority voters and reduce Democratic turnout.

I was reading the article and I came across this. Searching for it leads to here and here amongst the millions google returns. I don't understand how Republicans can use this to intimidate minorities. I could see point #3 from the second link "Develop a statewide, centralized, electronic list of all eligible voters" could be viewed upon as an attempt to exclude but then the next bullet point states "Ensure that ID requirements are fair and nondiscriminatory."

I know nothing about HAVA. Could someone comment on this?

I think Godwin's Law may be applicable here. :-)

Seriously though, since I've never been entirely clear exactly how electors are chosen, I just became interested enough to look it up. Interesting that we as common voters are not casting our votes for president and vice president. We are casting them for electors. And the ballot has choices between "Electors for X" and "Electors for Y", whose names have been submitted by the various political parties.

It is the electors' prerogative to vote their consciences. At the same time, if Mayor Robb was chosen as a Bush elector by the Republican Party, I assume it was with the understanding that he would vote for Bush. Either he's changed his mind since becoming an elector, or else he became a Bush elector without ever intending to vote for Bush. Either way, I'm not sure I agree with his decision to go back on the "understood" agreement that he would vote for Bush. But it is his decision.

Actually, I like the way Maine and Nebraska choose their electors. Instead of each party choosing a slate of electors that everyone in the state votes for, there are two statewide electors plus one elector chosen from each Congressional district. I think the electors would be much more representative of the overall will of the people if they were chosen this way, instead of on a statewide basis.

Good thing that this is a Republic because it will be the electoral college to get things straight this time. Second runner ups will be the blood sucking lawyers.

Me thinks you better read the Constitution and the Amendments.

Nowhere does it say that the part about electing the president via an electoral process was added later. In fact, Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 lay out how the President is elected.

The 12th Amendment to the Constituion does modify the third paragraph of Article 2 to include voting for a Vice-President as well but it does not change the fact that the electoral college has been around since day one.

Read the third link (.pdf file) from this site about the reason behind the electoral college.

" US are very too dumb, they will elect Bush and they stress, it's very funny!"

" US are very too dumb . . ."
This part of your sentence does not translate well. The flaw in your grammar could, with a little allusion, be extended so that YOU (plural) are ignorant also.

" . . .they will elect Bush and they stress , , ,"
The 'each and several states' send delegates to the appropriate state capitols in the second week of December. These electors will cast their votes for President and Vice President. http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Individual citizens will vote of course, but the popular vote in a presidential election is only a barometer for the electors to gauge the political atmosphere. Additionally, many/most of us will not vote for Bush.

" . . .it's very funny!" The word you're looking for is "ironic", perhaps "sardonic". George W. Bush being president has been anything but funny.

Maybe you'd like us to vote for isolationist Pat Buchanan?
See: https://www.cato.org/dailys/12-22-99a.html

Absentee Ballot Forms for ANY US State are available here: http://www.fec.gov/votregis/pdf/nvra.pdf (Single PDF file that includes every state.) See: http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm

Absentee Ballot Forms for ANY US State are available here: http://www.fec.gov/votregis/pdf/nvra.pdf (Single PDF file that includes every state.) See: http://www.fec.gov/votregis/vr.htm

The president penalized hundreds of millions of Americans for not being rich enough, siphoning off billions to hand back to his rich donors. Reinvesting in faith corporations (churches) that merely sap productivity was his cover for derelicting his duty to protecting the infrastructure and markets. Those WTC/Pentagon attacks followed up the USS Cole bombing, during which his defense/intelligence staff dropped intelligence in favor of drugs and pornography.

The worst damage to our economy has been the doubling of oil prices, obviously another perk for Bush's natural constituency of Saudis and American oil companies. Lesser damage has been done by refocusing from communications to warfare, while feeding foreign nations, like China, more export business. The most serious damage has been to the "magic" US reputation, abroad and at home, for stability and justice. People would rather do business with someone else, or not at all, and that's starving our spirit and our economy.

Oklahoma is a welfare state: handed $1.32 in 1992, and $1.52 in 2002, for every dollar invested in the Federal wealth redistribution; the #10 & #11 welfare states in those years, respectively. My state, NY, only got back $0.86 & $0.85 in those years (#40), so we're paying your way. If you cross-reference those data with the 2000 election data, you'll find that only 4 Red States haven't been rewareded with Federal handouts by Bush: Texas (he can't lose their support, and his people there don't pay taxes), Colorado (winning as of 6/8/04 by only 48:43%, much tighter than his other rightwing policies would suggest), Nevada (currently a tie at about 45% each) and New Hampshire (currently Kerry's at 49:42%). So that welfare has been well spent by Bush, to protect his base.

At least you and I agree that the best way to keep the government doing its least damage is to keep it doing its least. And one way is through "divided government", or the traditional American electorate behavior of "balancing the ticket". The apathy to which I refer is the acceptance of Bush's malfeasance in a job for which he's not qualified, except as the spokesmodel for the corporations that are sucking America dry. Enron... The American spirit to which we both refer is the distrust of government, institutionalized in our separation of powers, united to work by checks and balances. Since Congress will likely remain a Republican Party asset next year, it's that much more important to get rid of Bush, and his central Republican committe at the White House.

No, Anonymous mendacious Coward, Bush's $10T loss has already sucked all the corporate welfare out of the foreseeable American future. There's no welfare left for Kerry to hand out. Typically, it's Bush who's promising the handouts, and there's reason to believe him: Compare his 2000 Presidential election Red States with his 2002 Federal tax/spend ratios. You'll see that all his Red States got paid off in welfare sucked from Blue States, with 4 notable exceptions. Texas is already his oil fiefdom, while Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire are now likely Kerry victories. Again, corporate lies steal America from its people - this time, uttered by your anonymous, cowardly mouth.

While it's pathetic that 50,456,002 Americans (47.87% of 2000 voters) apparently voted for Bush, 50,999,897 (48.38%) Americans voted for Gore (the 105M Americans voting are a little more than 1/3 of all 300M Americans, including children). Bush lost, Gore won. It's more pathetic that the Bush family rules certain disproportionately powerful groups of Americans: Republicans, the media, and the Supreme Court. We'll see whether this "hereditary mediacracy" survives the democratic institution of the 2004 election.

...their political system is based on populism...

Oh, you mean like the Popular Vote?

A "7 ounce cup" is like a "15 ounce pound", a "90 cent dollar", a "47.87% majority" or a "63-bit G5": a contradiction in terms. It is... not logical.

How much was he voted in by, and what's his competition like? What would it take to get somebody in who would be acceptable to the church, but not as anti-citizen as Hatch is?

Even if it fails, It might still be worth making an attack on this guy. The people of Utah may be blindly following their religious leaders, but they may start to be shaken if their ability to do their own stuff is seen to be at risk.

OK: According to The Federal Election Comittee, Hatch won in Utah by 66% - 32%. Getting him out would require both pulling out the interested non-voters and getting current Utah voters to change their mind about him.
This isn't impossible, but it would take a lot of work. Nontheless, it may be worthwhile taking on -- Even if a campaign makes a significant dent in his majority, it could gain the notice of the rest of the senate.

I think, however, that It'd be best for a national campaign to go after a few of his less entrenched RIIA teammates, with UTah people still trying to make a noticable dent in Hatch's electoral bunker.

... to actually vote your candidate of choice, especially if they are not projected to "win" per se, and that is to contribute to the furtherence of theo\ir party, election after election. This is because of federal matching funds, which are voluntary check offs of three dollars on everyones income tax. According to the site, candidates are eligible for matching funds once they have crossed a threshold of receiving 5,000$ from individial contributions of 250$ a head in at least 20 states. This helps those candidates and parties to continue to grow, should the candidate/party choose to apply for the funds. I see nothing wrong with it, as it's the only voluntary tax we really have, and it can go to your alternative candidate, if they can cross that threshold. Frankly I think it should go to anyone who makes it to the ballot, but that's for another time. Believe it, the R andD guys always take these funds, so there's no reason to deny your third party alternative candidate the same opportunity, who knows, as the kitty builds up maybe they can become a very credible force. Continually voting for the same old tired party combo that you KNOW will always give you the same exact crap we have had for multiple generations now is a sure fire way to keep getting the same exact crap for the next several generations.

Of course, who knows with blackbox voting any more, but at least the alternative candidates can keep getting additional funding.

Now then, given the fact that Bush won by an extremely small fraction of votes

Yup. it was 5 to 4.

In fact, Al Gore won 500,000 more popular votes, and half a percentage point.

Despite howls of scorn from the Right to the tune of "get over it," there is ample evidence that Gore won the popular vote in Florida, too. Of course, the idiotic Gore campaign was so lame it couldn't even win Tennessee. However, the Bush administration should wear a scarlett A for its voting adultery in Florida in 2000.

But Gore, as Vice President, wasn't part to starting any world wars.

Bush, while not being Vice President, nor starting any wars before getting into office, played (and won) on name value. Well, not really won. More people voted for the other guy

Actual Votes:
Bush: 50,456,002(47.87%)
Gore: 50,999,897 (48.38%)

Electorial Votes:
Bush: 271
Gore: 266

This time around, maybe people will look at the record.

Bush: started two wars, killed lots of people
Kerry: didn't start any wars, wasn't responsible for thousands of deaths.

I spoke with one lady, who said "Bush isn't that bad, I'd vote for him again", who a few weeks later told me "I'm not voting for him again", because her son, a Staff Sergeant in the US Army Reserve with 6 years in, due to end his tour in August, is now being sent to Afghanistan in July for at least a year. This isn't abnormal, it's now policy. Just because you're not in the military now, and have no plans for joining doesn't mean much

From what I've read, Hitler wasn't that bad of a guy, til he started his ethnic cleansing campaigns across Europe, and conquering other countries just because they were there. That became fairly well known after a while. Maybe you heard about it? World War II?

You know what this country really needs? Another presidential election where nobody gets the majority of electoal votes.

You'll probably get it too -- the country is so evenly divided that the winner of the 2004 presidential election will very likely not have a majority. I don't see how it would help, though... two of the last three Presidential elections were won that way (2000 and 1992), and people pretty much shrugged it off each time.

Those were non-majorities of the popular vote, not the electoral vote--there haven't been any elections recently in which an independent candidate has gotten any electoral votes (which would require a majority in a state), as far as I can recall.

Not that it would make much difference anyway--if nobody gets a majority of electoral votes, the House (and Senate, if necessary) vote instead, and it's not hard to predict how such a vote would turn out. (See here for the gory details.)

Point taken on voters over citizens, although your numbers exaggerate things somewhat. 67% of registered voters actually voted in 2000, representing just over 51% of the entire estimated voting-age population. That doesn't quite make "substantially less than half"... (Reference)

In the main, however, I disagree that it's pointless, even if it could also have been applied to Gore.

The point was that it is incorrect to assume that, just because America elects it's leaders, the majority of voters support the current leader (or that it's likely that any particular individual does). That's regardless of the current White House inhabitant.

The secondary point was that, in this case, it's even more relevant because usually the President who is elected at least receives more popular votes than their closest adversary, while the 2000 election was one of those rare cases where this did not occur. Thus the likelihood of any particular individual having voted for Bush is even lower than for almost any other president to date.

Which hacked system are you referring to: Diebold or the electoral college?

The latest version of Diebold's GEMS software that was certified in California is 117.17; the audit revealed that counties were using other versions, such as 117.20, 117.22, 117.23, 118.18, and 118.18.02. The audit also revealed that three counties -- Los Angeles, Trinity and Lassen -- were using software versions that had not been approved for use at the federal level.

• Company: Diebold
• Voting System/System Component: GEMS 1-18-18
• Software: GEMS 1-18-18
• Hardware/Firmware: AccuVote-OS Precinct Counter (formerly ES-2000) Firmware version 1.94W
  
  AccuVote-OS Precinct Counter Firmware version 1.96.4
  
  AcuVote TS Precinct Counter Rev 6 version 1.0.2 (Touch)
• System ID # / Qualified to '90 or '02 VSS: N03060011818
• Final Report Date: 7/8/2003

The latest version of Diebold's GEMS software that was certified in California is 117.17; the audit revealed that counties were using other versions, such as 117.20, 117.22, 117.23, 118.18, and 118.18.02. The audit also revealed that three counties -- Los Angeles, Trinity and Lassen -- were using software versions that had not been approved for use at the federal level.

• Company: Diebold
• Voting System/System Component: GEMS 1-18-18
• Software: GEMS 1-18-18
• Hardware/Firmware: AccuVote-OS Precinct Counter (formerly ES-2000) Firmware version 1.94W
  
  AccuVote-OS Precinct Counter Firmware version 1.96.4
  
  AcuVote TS Precinct Counter Rev 6 version 1.0.2 (Touch)
• System ID # / Qualified to '90 or '02 VSS: N03060011818
• Final Report Date: 7/8/2003

The latest version of Diebold's GEMS software that was certified in California is 117.17; the audit revealed that counties were using other versions, such as 117.20, 117.22, 117.23, 118.18, and 118.18.02. The audit also revealed that three counties -- Los Angeles, Trinity and Lassen -- were using software versions that had not been approved for use at the federal level.

• Company: Diebold
• Voting System/System Component: GEMS 1-18-18
• Software: GEMS 1-18-18
• Hardware/Firmware: AccuVote-OS Precinct Counter (formerly ES-2000) Firmware version 1.94W
  
  AccuVote-OS Precinct Counter Firmware version 1.96.4
  
  AcuVote TS Precinct Counter Rev 6 version 1.0.2 (Touch)
• System ID # / Qualified to '90 or '02 VSS: N03060011818
• Final Report Date: 7/8/2003

The latest version of Diebold's GEMS software that was certified in California is 117.17; the audit revealed that counties were using other versions, such as 117.20, 117.22, 117.23, 118.18, and 118.18.02. The audit also revealed that three counties -- Los Angeles, Trinity and Lassen -- were using software versions that had not been approved for use at the federal level.

• Company: Diebold
• Voting System/System Component: GEMS 1-18-18
• Software: GEMS 1-18-18
• Hardware/Firmware: AccuVote-OS Precinct Counter (formerly ES-2000) Firmware version 1.94W
  
  AccuVote-OS Precinct Counter Firmware version 1.96.4
  
  AcuVote TS Precinct Counter Rev 6 version 1.0.2 (Touch)
• System ID # / Qualified to '90 or '02 VSS: N03060011818
• Final Report Date: 7/8/2003

The Federal Election Commission has a FAQ About The National Voluntary Voting System Standards. The FAQ indicates that to meet the standards, an election system must satisfy either "FEC's voting system standards" or pass tests "by independent testing authorities (ITAs) designated by the National Association of State Election Directors."

The National Association of State Election Directors has, among other things:

(1) a List of NASED Certified Systems;

(2) an Updated List of NASED Certified Systems; and, most importantly,

(3) an Overview of the Certification Process.

Has the Open Voting Consortium made any attempt to get their software certified?

The Federal Election Commission has a FAQ About The National Voluntary Voting System Standards. The FAQ indicates that to meet the standards, an election system must satisfy either "FEC's voting system standards" or pass tests "by independent testing authorities (ITAs) designated by the National Association of State Election Directors."

The National Association of State Election Directors has, among other things:

(1) a List of NASED Certified Systems;

(2) an Updated List of NASED Certified Systems; and, most importantly,

(3) an Overview of the Certification Process.

Has the Open Voting Consortium made any attempt to get their software certified?

The Federal Election Commission has a FAQ About The National Voluntary Voting System Standards. The FAQ indicates that to meet the standards, an election system must satisfy either "FEC's voting system standards" or pass tests "by independent testing authorities (ITAs) designated by the National Association of State Election Directors."

The National Association of State Election Directors has, among other things:

(1) a List of NASED Certified Systems;

(2) an Updated List of NASED Certified Systems; and, most importantly,

(3) an Overview of the Certification Process.

Has the Open Voting Consortium made any attempt to get their software certified?