Here in Washington state the fact is that the law would prevent this system
from ever being used in Washington before it was used for 2 years in another
state. Other states have similar laws.
If you look into the Help Amerca Vote Act (HAVA), the media presents the case
that HAVA requires upgrades. When in fact the bill states entirely different
requirments, many systems in place do not need to be upgrade to comply with
the act.
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the voting system (including
any lever voting system, optical scanning voting system, or direct recording
electronic system) shall--(i) permit the voter to verify (in a private and independent
manner) the votes selected by the voter on the ballot before the ballot is cast
and counted.
Then later it states:
Manual audit capacity.-- (i) The voting system shall produce a permanent
paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system.... (iii) The paper
record produced under subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official record
for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is
used.
So when the media says that Diebold machines are being purchased to comply
with the act, isn't that blatantly false? These machines do not comply with
the act, and to purchase and install them in fact violates these requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Washington state the fact is that the law would prevent this system from ever being used in Washington before it was used for 2 years in another state. Other states have similar laws.
If you look into the Help Amerca Vote Act (HAVA), the media presents the case that HAVA requires upgrades. When in fact the bill states entirely different requirments, many systems in place do not need to be upgrade to comply with the act.
Read TITLE III--UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS , of the act for a lot more info. But here's a few key excerpts:
HAVA states:
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the voting system (including any lever voting system, optical scanning voting system, or direct recording electronic system) shall--(i) permit the voter to verify (in a private and independent manner) the votes selected by the voter on the ballot before the ballot is cast and counted.
Then later it states:
Manual audit capacity.-- (i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system.... (iii) The paper record produced under subparagraph (A) shall be available as an official record for any recount conducted with respect to any election in which the system is used.
So when the media says that Diebold machines are being purchased to comply with the act, isn't that blatantly false? These machines do not comply with the act, and to purchase and install them in fact violates these requirements.