Advertisement
Unless things have changed drastically since the June 13, 2004 NYT editorial "Gambling on Voting" was published, and all indications are that they haven't, I'll be voting by absentee ballot.
There needs to be a national regulatory standard for all electronic voting systems that is at least as robust as Nevada's regulatory standards for electronic gaming systems.
The Nevada State Gaming Commission has access to all gambling software, and this software is being contiuously spot-checked against copies of the software kept by the Commission. Incidentally, it is illegal for casinos to use any software not on file with the Commission. Gambling machines must be resistant to electrostatic shocks as high as 20,000 volts, and they must be physically tamper resistant. Any attempt to physically tamper with the machines locks the machine which must be manually reset after it has been shown to be operating properly. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that current electronic voting systems can be physically hacked, with no trace of the hack ever being made apparent.
The Nevada state facility which certifies gaming machines is taxpayer funded with fees charged by the facility going into the atates general fund. It also keeps manufacturers of electronic gaming equipmetn at arms length and is open to public inquiry. Contrast this with federal labs which certify voting machines. These facilities are profit making operations which get chosen by and paid for by the manufacturers of electronic voting systems. Can you say "Conflict of interest...", I knew you could. Neither we nor our elected officials have any way of knowing just what the proceedures for testing these voting machines are and the labs which do the testing are not open to inquiries into them.
In the event of a problem with an electronic gambling machine, Nevada casinos must immediately contact the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators available 7/24. THe machine is than opened and inspected. A voter has a problem with their vote, they can call their local board of elections, which may, or may not, investigate the matter.
Despite their protestations that their equipment is the best available, the claims of the manufacturers of electronic voting systems fall far short of those claims. The sad fact is that someone placing a bet at the sleaziest ganbling hell in Vegas has far greater protections and regulatory mechanisms in place than any voter in America. Don't we deserve better? Especially given our experiences with them, here in Ohio, in 2004.
Respectfully,
Mark Schrider
There needs to be a national regulatory standard for all electronic voting systems that is at least as robust as Nevada's regulatory standards for electronic gaming systems.
The Nevada State Gaming Commission has access to all gambling software, and this software is being contiuously spot-checked against copies of the software kept by the Commission. Incidentally, it is illegal for casinos to use any software not on file with the Commission. Gambling machines must be resistant to electrostatic shocks as high as 20,000 volts, and they must be physically tamper resistant. Any attempt to physically tamper with the machines locks the machine which must be manually reset after it has been shown to be operating properly. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that current electronic voting systems can be physically hacked, with no trace of the hack ever being made apparent.
The Nevada state facility which certifies gaming machines is taxpayer funded with fees charged by the facility going into the atates general fund. It also keeps manufacturers of electronic gaming equipmetn at arms length and is open to public inquiry. Contrast this with federal labs which certify voting machines. These facilities are profit making operations which get chosen by and paid for by the manufacturers of electronic voting systems. Can you say "Conflict of interest...", I knew you could. Neither we nor our elected officials have any way of knowing just what the proceedures for testing these voting machines are and the labs which do the testing are not open to inquiries into them.
In the event of a problem with an electronic gambling machine, Nevada casinos must immediately contact the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators available 7/24. THe machine is than opened and inspected. A voter has a problem with their vote, they can call their local board of elections, which may, or may not, investigate the matter.
Despite their protestations that their equipment is the best available, the claims of the manufacturers of electronic voting systems fall far short of those claims. The sad fact is that someone placing a bet at the sleaziest ganbling hell in Vegas has far greater protections and regulatory mechanisms in place than any voter in America. Don't we deserve better? Especially given our experiences with them, here in Ohio, in 2004.
Respectfully,
Mark Schrider