Say, What?
Yesterday I came across a rather disturbing article in the Washington Post having to do with electronic voting machines.
A federal advisory group rejected a measure yesterday that would have discouraged states from using electronic voting systems that lack an independent means of verifying their results, according to a spokeswoman for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Members of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, a group created by Congress to advise the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, deadlocked 6 to 6 on the proposal at a meeting held at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg. Eight votes are needed to pass a measure on the 15-member committee. [Emphasis added]
While not binding, resolutions from this advisory group are generally adopted by the states, which is why the outcome was so disappointing. What was more disappointing was the reason given for the rejection:
Committee member Brit Williams, a computer scientist who has conducted certification evaluations of Georgia's paperless electronic voting system, opposed the measure. "You are talking about basically a reinstallation of the entire voting system hardware," he said.
Why, yes, it probably would involve such a drastic and expensive move. Given the endless reports from computer experts showing the total lack of security in most of the machines currently in use, such a response is necessary to protect the voting system in the nation.
This morning, the AP has a report up that at first seemed to indicate that the panel had reversed its decision.
A federal advisory panel approved a revised proposal that encourages states to use electronic voting machines that can be independently verified, a day after rejecting a similar recommendation.
The resolution, adopted unanimously Tuesday by the panel drafting voting guidelines for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, recommends that states use voting machines that produce a paper record or other means for voters and election officials to make sure ballots were properly cast and counted.
It suggests that when states buy new machines, they consider buying ones that include verification tools. [Emphasis added]
A close reading suggests no reversal, simply one of those compromises Washington is famous for: cutting the baby in half. Rather than fixing the problem now, states are encouraged to buy better, more secure and verifiable machines the next time around. In the mean time, the older, hackable versions can remain in place. That means more Ohios, Marylands, Floridas in the next election cycle.
Clearly the new Congress is going to have to step in and mandate the changes necessary for a fair and honest election system. Perhaps federal funding assistance will be required, but the money could be found if less were allotted to, say, the Pentagon for purchasing overpriced and untested weapons systems.
Just a thought.
A federal advisory group rejected a measure yesterday that would have discouraged states from using electronic voting systems that lack an independent means of verifying their results, according to a spokeswoman for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Members of the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, a group created by Congress to advise the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, deadlocked 6 to 6 on the proposal at a meeting held at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg. Eight votes are needed to pass a measure on the 15-member committee. [Emphasis added]
While not binding, resolutions from this advisory group are generally adopted by the states, which is why the outcome was so disappointing. What was more disappointing was the reason given for the rejection:
Committee member Brit Williams, a computer scientist who has conducted certification evaluations of Georgia's paperless electronic voting system, opposed the measure. "You are talking about basically a reinstallation of the entire voting system hardware," he said.
Why, yes, it probably would involve such a drastic and expensive move. Given the endless reports from computer experts showing the total lack of security in most of the machines currently in use, such a response is necessary to protect the voting system in the nation.
This morning, the AP has a report up that at first seemed to indicate that the panel had reversed its decision.
A federal advisory panel approved a revised proposal that encourages states to use electronic voting machines that can be independently verified, a day after rejecting a similar recommendation.
The resolution, adopted unanimously Tuesday by the panel drafting voting guidelines for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, recommends that states use voting machines that produce a paper record or other means for voters and election officials to make sure ballots were properly cast and counted.
It suggests that when states buy new machines, they consider buying ones that include verification tools. [Emphasis added]
A close reading suggests no reversal, simply one of those compromises Washington is famous for: cutting the baby in half. Rather than fixing the problem now, states are encouraged to buy better, more secure and verifiable machines the next time around. In the mean time, the older, hackable versions can remain in place. That means more Ohios, Marylands, Floridas in the next election cycle.
Clearly the new Congress is going to have to step in and mandate the changes necessary for a fair and honest election system. Perhaps federal funding assistance will be required, but the money could be found if less were allotted to, say, the Pentagon for purchasing overpriced and untested weapons systems.
Just a thought.
Labels: Voter Fraud, Voting Machines
posted by Diane at 3:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home