« On the ROADwomen | Main | Lamar H.S. Young Democrats Carwash »
March 22, 2006
Think Hart InterCivic Machines Give Accurate Results? Think again.
From the San Angelo Times
Ballot recount stoppedAlso reported at BradBlog.
Problems with voting machines delay results
By PAUL A. ANTHONY, panthony@sastandardtimes.com or 659-8237
March 22, 2006
A recount of ballots cast during the March 7 primary election ground to a halt Tuesday - midway through its second day - after workers could not resolve discrepancies that affected more than 1,400 ballots.
Tom Green County Republican Party Chairman Dennis McKerley suspended the recount of the County Court-at-Law No. 2 race about 1:30 p.m. after seeking advice from the Texas Secretary of State's Office, which suggested shutting down the recount until what appear to be problems with electronic voting machines could be fixed....
...Initial election results, certified by the county Saturday, showed Edwards finishing 12 votes behind Roberts for second place and the right to face Hughes in the April 11 runoff election.
The problem in the recount appears to be with new, federally mandated electronic voting machines, provided by vendor Hart InterCivic. During a hand recount, the machines are designed to print out paper ballots for each voter's choices, but Mc-Kerley said the machines that were used to register early votes printed out only 75 percent to 80 percent of the votes believed to have been cast.
more...
All the more reason to replace Beverly Kaufman with James G. Pierre who supports adding a voter verified paper trail to these machines.
Posted by Lyn Wall at March 22, 2006 10:31 AM | Permalink
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.houstondemocrats.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/829
Comments
The San Angelo case points out that not only are "accurate results" missing from the use of these machines, any result at all is missing in a recount situation without the paper trail/ballot component, as the stand-alone Hart System simply does not allow for a recount. It only allows for a repetition of the first and only count, over and over and over and over again. The paper trail will provide something to compare the machine count to....which of course it what a recount is all about. stan merriman
Posted by: stan merriman at March 22, 2006 02:51 PM
Actually Stan, a paper trail does NOT provide something to compare the machine count to. This is a common misunderstanding. The paper trails for all electronic voting machines simply print the initial vote. Comparing this after the fact to the computerized tally is meaningless, because you cannot certify the "paper trail" is correct or meaningful, or in some cases, even accurate even where provided to voters. It's a question of what comes first, the electronic vote or an actual paper ballot.
The Hart system actually does provide several methods of holding a recount, as do all electronic systems I am familiar with. These recounts are run by comparing the stored votes from multiple sources, not just the original card or disk used on election night. Different system components actually record ballots separately, and these can be used in a recount (though the law often does not require this, and then your point about repetition holds).
Posted by: William Singer at April 15, 2006 08:08 PM