The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information! |
|
|
National Organizations |
|
:
mosShowVIMenu( $params );
break;
}
?>
|
|
|
Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
|
|
By Ellen Theisen, VotersUnite.org
|
|
June 02, 2005 |
Good for the Goose; Why Not for the Gander?
(pdf)
In
spite of the federal government's repeated failures to meet statutory
deadlines imposed by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), the U.S.
Department of Justice has declared that the States must meet their HAVA
deadlines, even without the HAVA-mandated research and guidance
intended to help the States comply with HAVA wisely.
HAVA
requires the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to develop
guidance on voting systems standards by January 1, 2004. The standards
were intended to guide the States as they upgraded their election
equipment to meet the HAVA Section 301 requirements by the January 1,
2006 deadline. |
|
Read more...
|
|
General Topics
|
|
By Ellen Theisen
|
|
June 02, 2005 |
Good for the Goose; Why Not for the Gander?
(pdf)
In spite of the federal government's repeated failures to meet statutory deadlines imposed by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), the U.S. Department of Justice has declared that the States must meet their HAVA deadlines, even without the HAVA-mandated research and guidance intended to help the States comply with HAVA wisely.
HAVA requires the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to develop guidance on voting systems standards by January 1, 2004. The standards were intended to guide the States as they upgraded their election equipment to meet the HAVA Section 301 requirements by the January 1, 2006 deadline. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Help America Vote Act (HAVA)
|
|
By John Gideon and Ellen Theisen, VotersUnite.org
|
|
June 02, 2005 |
|
The 1990 Voting System Standards are Certainly Outdated. Are They Illegal, Too?
Section
222(e) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) provides that the
2002 Voting System Standards adopted by the Federal Election Commission
are deemed to be adopted by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as
the first set of voluntary voting system guidelines adopted under HAVA.
[See the EAC website.] HAVA
was enacted on October 29, 2002. So why has the National Association of
State Election Directors (NASED) continued to use the 1990 standards as
the basis for qualifying some voting systems AFTER federal law declared
the 2002 standards to be the official guidelines? |
|
Read more...
|
|
General Topics
|
|
By John Gideon and Ellen Theisen
|
|
June 02, 2005 |
|
The 1990 Voting System Standards are Certainly Outdated. Are They Illegal, Too?
Section 222(e) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) provides that the 2002 Voting System Standards adopted by the Federal Election Commission are deemed to be adopted by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as the first set of voluntary voting system guidelines adopted under HAVA. [See the EAC website.] HAVA was enacted on October 29, 2002. So why has the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) continued to use the 1990 standards as the basis for qualifying some voting systems AFTER federal law declared the 2002 standards to be the official guidelines? |
|
Read more...
|
|
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
|
|
By John Gideon, VotersUnite.org
|
|
June 02, 2005 |
Voting Machine Rulemakers Poised to Violate Their Public Interest Mandate
Should the makers of voting machines set the standards that their voting machines must live up to in order to satisfy the public interest? Though the answer is obviously No, a recent meeting of a technical subcommittee of the Election Assistance Commission shows that this is happening, yet the EAC will likely reveal these new standards, on or about July 1, coupled with a claim that they adequately protect the heart of democracy. By way of background, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) was chartered by the Elections Assistance Commission to provide updated standards against which all voting machines will be tested in order to be qualified for use. Presently voting technology is qualified to standards that were written in 1990 or 2002. The charter instructs NIST to form a committee to be called the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC). This committee is to operate with guidance from the EAC charter and with funding coming from the EAC. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Carter Baker Commission
|
|
By Linda Schade and Kevin Zeese
|
|
May 01, 2005 |
|
The best news coming out of the first hearing of the Carter-Baker
Commission was that the co-chairs recognized that Americans are losing
faith in their democracy, that even in the 2004 presidential election -
among the most passionate elections in recent history - 40% didn't vote
and, more and more, people are not confident that their votes are
counted as they are cast. The bad news is that a corporate conflict of
interest of a member of the Commission raises doubts that they will
recommend the common sense solution – voter verified paper ballots.
With
regard to the counting of votes, people are concerned about paperless
electronic voting because it provides no independent record for audits
or recounts. The machines have been shown to be a high security risk by
insiders who can put undetectable malicious code in the software, by
election officials who have access to the machines and by outside
hackers – all of these people can change the outcome of an election.
And, of course, all Americans know computers make mistakes. For
example, computers freezing and crashing are experiences we have all
had – it is also an experience that election administrators have seen
with the use of computers in elections. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Proposed Legislation
|
|
By Warren Stewart and Ellen Theisen
|
|
April 21, 2005 |
This sample legislation for vvpb and machine-auditing was prepared for Vote Trust USA by Warren Stewart and Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite.Org. Please feel free to use any of the language that you find helpful. Summary:
Requires a voter-verifiable paper record of every vote, to be preserved
in accordance with laws governing the preservation of ballots; defines
the paper record as the true and correct record and the official record
for recounts and audits. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Carter Baker Commission
|
|
By Linda Schade and Kevin Zeese
|
|
April 21, 2005 |
|
The last two presidential elections revealed that American
democracy is in distress. A full public airing is much needed and
the stature of the Carter-Baker Commission promises to garner the
national attention and respect required to truly grapple with the scope
of the problem. That is, until people begin to look at the make-up of
the Commission and its agenda.
Perhaps the hottest issue in
election reform is making sure that votes are counted accurately. It is
now widely understood that paperless computer voting systems are
vulnerable to human error, computer failure and malicious tampering and
therefore verification of the vote is essential. Paperless electronic
voting vs. voting with a voter verified paper ballot (VVPB) is now an
issue under consideration in state legislatures across the country. So
far, 14 states have passed laws requiring a VVPB, many others are
considering bills and still others traditionally vote on voter verified
paper ballots.
Sadly, the Carter-Baker Commission has
compromised itself at the outset by including a figure with an
embarrassing corporate conflict of interest on the key question of vote
counts. Ralph Munro is the Chairman of VoteHere, a company with
millions invested in the ‘vote verification’ market. VoteHere is
literally banking on the successful marketing of their cryptographic
product as the verification method in spite of the fact that
voter-verified paper ballots are the solution most recommended by
independent computer security experts. Munro should recuse himself to
save the Commission from further awkwardness. |
|
Read more...
|
|
Accessibilty Issues
|
|
By Kelly Pierce, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office
|
|
March 23, 2005 |
This document reviews the four voting machines displayed on March 15,
2005 by the Office of the Cook County Clerk and the Chicago Board of
election Commissioners. The machines were chosen as finalists following
a joint request for proposal by the two entities. This reviewer spent
significant time with each vendor and attempted to cast a ballot using
each of the machines. This review also includes published articles,
reviews, and research on the machines in question.
Overall Impressions
Unfortunately, if any one of the four machines were to be deployed in
Chicago or suburban Cook County as exhibited on March 15, many voters
with disabilities, particularly blind voters, would not be able to cast
a ballot independently and privately. This analysis was confirmed in a
usability study conducted in the July 2004 issue of Access World, a
publication of the American Foundation for the Blind. In the survey, 13
blind and low vision users attempted to cast ballots using the
iVotronic from Election Systems and Software, the AVC Edge from Sequoia
Voting Systems, the eSlate from Hart InterCivic, the Vote-Trakker from
Avante International Technology, and the AccuVote TS from Global
Diebold. All of the machines demonstrated on March 15 were part of the
survey in Access World. The survey found that when the participants
tested the audio voting features,
"... almost all 13 users needed at least some assistance with each of
the voting machines; in fact, most users needed assistance many times.
The most assistance was required in tasks associated with scrolling
through the ballot hierarchies of the voting machines. The task that
was the most difficult on all the machines was changing voting
selections for one of the contests. The number of the 13 users who
required assistance on this task on each machine was as follows:
iVotronic: 7 users, Vote-Trakker: 11 users, eSlate: 8 users, AVC Edge:
10 users, AccuVote TS: 8 users. In addition, on each machine, certain
tasks were more difficult than others."
Most of the survey participants were well educated and all but one had
experience using a personal computer. A copy of the article is included
as an appendix to this report.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Electoral College
|
|
By Representative Lofgren Press Release
|
|
January 06, 2005 |
|
 Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) announced today that she plans to reintroduce a resolution to abolish the Electoral College and to provide for the direct election for President and Vice President of the United States. Rep Lofgren first introduced the resolution at the close of the 108th Congress.
“During the 2004 election, voters in nine or ten 'swing states' garnered all the attention of the Presidential candidates. The only reason for that is the Electoral College. This system may have made sense two hundred years ago, but today it is outdated and flawed. National campaigns should not be conducted solely in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania,” said Rep. Lofgren. "As the Electoral College meets today to cast their votes for President and Vice President, I urge the 109th Congress to begin an open debate about replacing the current system with a direct election."
Under the Electoral College system, each state is apportioned electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives from that state. As a result, every state, no matter how small, is guaranteed at least 3 electoral votes. This system favors sparsely populated states at the expense of voters in large states like California.
For example, Wyoming, with its 500,000 residents, has one elector for every 165,000 people; in contrast, California, with over 35 million residents, has one elector for every 635,000 people. A vote cast in Wyoming, therefore, has about four times the weight in the Electoral College as a vote cast in California.
"The elimination of the Electoral College should not be a large versus small state issue, rather this is about ensuring that voters in all states have their voices heard and their votes counted equally. In the most recent presidential election, states such as Connecticut and Montana were ignored just as much as California and Texas. It is important for all states to participate in the process, not just those considered "swing states" to ensure that the President truly represents the entire country," Rep. Lofgren continued.
If passed by a 2/3 margin in the House and Senate, the Lofgren amendment to the Constitution needs to be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures within seven years to become law.
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) plans to introduce a similar resolution in the Senate this week.
|
| | << Start < Prev 31 32 33 Next > End >>
| | Results 641 - 651 of 651 |
|
|
National Pages |
|
:
mosShowVIMenu( $params );
break;
}
?>
|
|
|
