Advertisement
I want to thank Bob Fitrakis for putting the truth out there to the
American public about the agenda of the right to alter our elections
secretly via paperless electronic voting machines.
I am an activist that opposed evm's in Arkansas for almost a year, and was successful in persuading our Secretary of State to file the waiver under the HAVA Act, delaying the implementation of these machines until 2006. Secretary Blackwell's insistence to purchase Diebold machines despite the fact that he also requested the waiver is highly suspect to say the least.
I work with activists in other states, including Ohio, to stop the purchase of paperless electronic voting machines. I have never encountered anyone so headstrong to bring disaster on his election process as Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. This man is unyielding in his stance on Diebold, despite computer security reports, computer scientist's expert opinions on these machines and the general distrust of these machines by his constituency. I ask what's the rush and why the hurry? He filed the waiver which delays the machines until 2006.
There is absolutely no good reason to rush and purchase these faulty Diebold machines with no paper ballots. There is a bad reason, however, and that would be to have the machines in place by the November 2, 2004 election. Just as Mr. O'Dell would have wanted. Do a google search on Diebold problems during the primaries in CA, MA and GA. They were at least consistent, consistently bad anyway. In CA, 7000 voters in Orange Co. were given the incorrect electronic ballot, the electronic ballots loaded in sideways (unusable) and in GA some of the voters could only vote for the FLAG on their ballots. My question remains, why are these elections not nullified? The truth is, we will never know who really won the primaries. Too many Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and Hart machines were used. Every one of those machines are faulty and the software is corruptable.
In Arkansas, during a Sequoia demonstration to a county election commissioner last year, the Sequoia machine allowed the commissioner to vote TWICE with a smart card, and the machine broke down TWICE in a 15-30 minute demonstration. The Sequoia representatives apologized of course, promising to "fix" the problem. The problems have not been fixed. There are many consistent occurrences with these voting machines, however the one I notice frequently is that the machines are broken down at the polls. Signs are hung on the polling places reading "Machines broken down, come back later". This is outrageous. However, this is very real. If the machines break down in the demonstrations, then they will certainly break down at the polls. And they do, consistently in election after election.
Regarding Carlo LoParo's statement that the HAVA Act did not provide for a paper ballot audit trail, I would like to advise your publication that the Department of Justice DID conclude that paper ballots on electronic voting machines WERE in fact HAVA compliant and ADA compliant (for disabled persons). Kenneth Blackwell and Carlo LoParo's argument against paper ballots does not hold water. Mr. LoParo's statment is misleading, it leads readers to understand that no paper ballots are allowed, when in fact, the DOJ states the paper ballots are compliant.
We recently saw two Congressmen and two Senators sign a letter stating they are opposed to amending the HAVA Act to provide paper ballots on these machines. One of the writers included is the Democratic Whip, Stoney Hoyer. Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, and Representative Bob Ney are all opposed to our sacred right to vote being protected and verified. Where's the outrage? I will tell you where there is plenty of outrage, and that is with the American people.
Sincerely,
Lisa Burks
National Coordinator
National Coalition for Verified Voting
Arkansas Headquarters
AND now, US Senate candidate determined to repeal the HAVA ACT. www.burks4ussenate.com
I am an activist that opposed evm's in Arkansas for almost a year, and was successful in persuading our Secretary of State to file the waiver under the HAVA Act, delaying the implementation of these machines until 2006. Secretary Blackwell's insistence to purchase Diebold machines despite the fact that he also requested the waiver is highly suspect to say the least.
I work with activists in other states, including Ohio, to stop the purchase of paperless electronic voting machines. I have never encountered anyone so headstrong to bring disaster on his election process as Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. This man is unyielding in his stance on Diebold, despite computer security reports, computer scientist's expert opinions on these machines and the general distrust of these machines by his constituency. I ask what's the rush and why the hurry? He filed the waiver which delays the machines until 2006.
There is absolutely no good reason to rush and purchase these faulty Diebold machines with no paper ballots. There is a bad reason, however, and that would be to have the machines in place by the November 2, 2004 election. Just as Mr. O'Dell would have wanted. Do a google search on Diebold problems during the primaries in CA, MA and GA. They were at least consistent, consistently bad anyway. In CA, 7000 voters in Orange Co. were given the incorrect electronic ballot, the electronic ballots loaded in sideways (unusable) and in GA some of the voters could only vote for the FLAG on their ballots. My question remains, why are these elections not nullified? The truth is, we will never know who really won the primaries. Too many Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and Hart machines were used. Every one of those machines are faulty and the software is corruptable.
In Arkansas, during a Sequoia demonstration to a county election commissioner last year, the Sequoia machine allowed the commissioner to vote TWICE with a smart card, and the machine broke down TWICE in a 15-30 minute demonstration. The Sequoia representatives apologized of course, promising to "fix" the problem. The problems have not been fixed. There are many consistent occurrences with these voting machines, however the one I notice frequently is that the machines are broken down at the polls. Signs are hung on the polling places reading "Machines broken down, come back later". This is outrageous. However, this is very real. If the machines break down in the demonstrations, then they will certainly break down at the polls. And they do, consistently in election after election.
Regarding Carlo LoParo's statement that the HAVA Act did not provide for a paper ballot audit trail, I would like to advise your publication that the Department of Justice DID conclude that paper ballots on electronic voting machines WERE in fact HAVA compliant and ADA compliant (for disabled persons). Kenneth Blackwell and Carlo LoParo's argument against paper ballots does not hold water. Mr. LoParo's statment is misleading, it leads readers to understand that no paper ballots are allowed, when in fact, the DOJ states the paper ballots are compliant.
We recently saw two Congressmen and two Senators sign a letter stating they are opposed to amending the HAVA Act to provide paper ballots on these machines. One of the writers included is the Democratic Whip, Stoney Hoyer. Senator Mitch McConnell, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, and Representative Bob Ney are all opposed to our sacred right to vote being protected and verified. Where's the outrage? I will tell you where there is plenty of outrage, and that is with the American people.
Sincerely,
Lisa Burks
National Coordinator
National Coalition for Verified Voting
Arkansas Headquarters
AND now, US Senate candidate determined to repeal the HAVA ACT. www.burks4ussenate.com