Slashdot Mirror
NY Rejects E-Voting, DOJ Trying to Force the Issue
CompaniaHill writes "Hastily passed in the wake of the 2000 election mess, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) supposedly offered funding to help states update their voting systems. In reality, the short deadlines have been used to push the sale of untested and uncertified new e-voting systems. Many states continue to demonstrate that the new e-voting machines are not reliable. The New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) took the time to pass their own voting legislation with additional testing and certification standards which far exceed the HAVA standards. As a result, they missed the HAVA deadlines. In March 2006, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued New York to comply with HAVA. Now, the DOJ is serving a motion to try to take away New York's right to select and acquire their own voting machine systems — in effect, to force e-voting machines on New York anyway. At the moment it's too soon to say how the NYSBOE will respond."
A voter can, however, understand the system in place with paper ballots. What happens when you push the button on the electronic screen? Can you tell me?
With the upcoming primaries and presidential election, this will go rapidly to SCOTUS. And they will stick it up DOJ's ass and break it off - one thing this court is known for is pushing federalism, and telling the states the exact means by which they will hold their elections is a HUGE violation of that.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
It seems to me that unless Congress mandates e-voting the DOJ has no power to force it upon a state. The HAVA appears to provide funds for but does not mandate electronic voting. Even if it did, a state could mandate voting for Senators at a place with no electrical outlets and Congress could not change that; alternatively, is a voting both a "place?"
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The New York voting machines are the nice, reliable, sturdy, and easy to count mechanical things. I've used them many times, from local elections to using old machines for school votes (Wasn't 18 at the time of the last presidential election). They mechanically count each vote based on lever pulls, and have a nice number on the back to read out at the end of the day, all the election worker has to do is read the number and report it. The only error in the system is human error.
In short, They Work.
Tell me why we need to change from a tested, reliable, working system to a new-fangled system with huge concerns as to the accuracy and security?
Not to nitpick (don't you love how people say not to _____ when they're just about to _____) but the feds don't have ANY rights.
They have powers, which are based on the rights of the people. So, the better way to say this is "the feds are empowered to protect the rights of citizens by ensuring fair voting".
Please be careful, because the distinction is not trivial, especially in the current political climate.
we should have nothing but paper ballots. not even mechanical voting machines, and definitely not electronic voting machines
the reason is trust. trust in your voting process is extremely important to the confidence and integriy of society. now of course you can fake paper ballots, lose them, etc. it is just that, for every method you find to "hack" paper ballots, there are 10 more ways to hack mechanical voting, and 100 times more ways to attack electronic voting. increased complexity leads to more attack vectors. simple as that
you can scan the paper ballots with optical machines, certainly, but anything more technophilic than that is not necessary, and perhaps dangerous. voting is not a process that needs to be improved. the poorest country in the world and the richest should all vote the simple way
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How is this related to interstate commerce? If not, the Feds shouldn't have squat to say in all this....if not, where am I mistaken?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I would love to see that in place everywhere. It would force people to actually think about who they're voting for instead of blindly voting down party lines.
In Canada, most of the people manning the polls are young. We pay a lot of money for poll staff; the spots go quickly once an election has been called.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?