Peter W. Deutsch – 6/30/05

This page was last updated on June 30, 2005.

Celebrate, learn from recount; Peter W. Deutsch; Beaver County Times; June 30, 2005.

I have no problem with a recount, though Mr. Deutsch tries to turn recounts into a memorial for paper ballots.

Mr. Deutsch wrote a letter advocating paper ballots earlier this year.

For more on this topic, see my critique of Catherine Gatian’s letter.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“We should celebrate the recent primary recount in Beaver County. We need not disparage it, squirm or otherwise agonize over the primary recount.

“We can thank paper ballots for this welcome opportunity. Paper ballots produce a permanent verifiable record. If there have been past problems, then we can improve matters.”

[RWC] Mr. Deutsch seems to ignore the fact that machines – probably evil proprietary machines – counted the paper ballots, even during the recount. Oops.

Mr. Deutsch also wrote, “If there have been past problems [with paper ballots], then we can improve matters.” In “We need paper ballots,” Mr. Deutsch showed no interest in “improving matters” with electronic voting machines, other than their elimination.

“Let’s contrast paper ballots with the touch screen voting machines (DREs) provided by Unilect. With paper ballots, we can verify and reproduce results. With DREs, we’re stonewalled by corporate propriety and privilege.”

[RWC] Regarding “With DREs, we’re stonewalled by corporate propriety and privilege,” what is Mr. Deutsch talking about?

“DRE hardware is proprietary with the place of manufacture far-flung and even unknown. For example, Diebold, a DRE provider for the 2004 election in Ohio, bought a Brazilian touch screen company in 1999. Diebold then used these machines in a national Brazilian election. Who knows where Unilect’s machines came from?”

[RWC] So what and who cares? All we should care about is that the machines accurately record legal votes and that is easy to test on a routine basis, including immediately before and after all elections.

“Further, the software is proprietary as are the testing procedures. What’s left to recount anyway after everything is entered into the data banks? Indeed, that’s what many argued in Ohio. Remember the recount there last December?”

[RWC] It should be no surprise DRE systems utilize proprietary components, especially the software. Nearly every piece of software in existence is proprietary. That said, vendors routinely allow “high profile” customers to perform code reviews to help ensure there are no security-related “bugs,” “backdoors,” et cetera. I speak from experience.

“The Kunselman-Tesla Democratic primary margin was less than 1 percent. Such closeness would automatically trigger a recount under some electoral contest laws, although not under ours.”

[RWC] This would seem to be the important issue, but Mr. Deutsch takes no position.

“Yes, let’s celebrate and learn from recounting. If the original vote is upheld, we can be even more proud. If things proceed differently, then let’s carefully take the facts into account and act wisely to preserve our newly regained paper ballots.”

[RWC] This is an interesting paragraph. Mr. Deutsch tells us that if a recount changes the results, “let’s carefully take the facts into account.” It appears, though, Mr. Deutsch’s mind is made up because the rest of the sentence tells us not to blame the original miscount – if there was one – on paper ballots. In “We need paper ballots,” Mr. Deutsch showed no interest in “carefully taking the facts into account.”

“Nothing can have higher priority in our county than the democratic will of our people.”

[RWC] What does this statement have to do with the intent of Mr. Deutsch’s letter?