Sheila Green – 11/7/05

This page was last updated on November 13, 2005.

Restore integrity to voting; Sheila Green; Beaver County Times; November 7, 2005.

It appears Ms. Green got tired being out of the spotlight. I wish I understood the true reason behind the crusade against electronic voting machines. Given the extreme positions taken by opponents of electronic voting machines, there has to be more to this than meets the eye. Decertifying electronic voting machines has become a liberal cause célèbre, but Democrats control Beaver County. The Beaver County Commissioners are all Democrats (two are current Democrats and one switched parties so he could get elected), so it doesn’t appear to be a Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative issues to these people.

For background, here are some previous critiques on this subject.

Paper trail is vital in elections

We need paper ballots

Celebrate, learn from recount

Local officials failed, too

For someone who wants us to believe she’s worried about voting integrity, why is there no mention of procedures to ensure that only legal voters vote? I could be wrong, but I suspect actual voter fraud is a much bigger problem than actual problems with electronic voting. I believe the best way to improve voting integrity is to improve the method we use to determine if a person is attempting to cast a legal vote. For example, requiring a state-issued photo ID (requiring solid proofs of identity to acquire) every time we vote. How many times have we heard about more registered voters in a precinct than there are residents? How many times has Mickey Mouse voted? How many times do we hear about absentee ballot abuse for incapacitated or mentally challenged voters? How many dead persons vote in each election?

To give you an idea of our lax voter registration procedures, I registered by mail in 2002. There’s no way you can have a credible registration when you don’t have to appear in person and present solid proofs of citizenship, identity, and precinct residency. Ms. Green and her fellow travelers don’t seem to have a problem with questionable registration, however. If they did, I would expect mention of the issue.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Each vote is an American’s choice. We deserve hand-counted paper ballots as the law allows, verified by each voter in the actual final official counted form, generated without assistance of unknown others.”

[RWC] I’ve stated before I think having voter verified paper ballots from electronic voting machines is a good idea. If you’ve paid attention to this debate, however, you noticed the anti-voting machine crowd couldn’t be satisfied. As soon as you meet all their “technical” requirements, they get into conspiracy theories about stealing votes, denying access to voting machines, et cetera.

“We deserve votes counted all out in the open so everyone can observe everything. We deserve vote counting by known local people in front of security cameras and observers in turn observed by the public.”

[RWC] Here’s where Ms. Green begins to go off the track. “Observers in turn observed by the public?” What’s this mean?

There’s something else to note. Based on this letter, Ms. Green apparently believes the only place we need security is in the vote counting room. I can only assume she believes every ballot that makes it into the counting room is valid. This is the “count every vote” mentality that never questions the legitimacy of cast ballots.

“There could be rapid preliminary tabulations based on opscans. There must be all possible accommodations for disabilities, with only voter-friendly ways to ensure that their ballots are identical to those created by other voters.”

[RWC] All ballots must be identical? Why? Other than making sure they have the same contests, why does the ballot cast by a person at a polling place need to be identical to one cast by an absentee voter? What about multiple languages (though I believe ballots should be only in English)? Should all ballots have Braille printing? This requirement is an attempt to throw another hurdle in front of electronic voting.

“Public funds should be conserved and only spent wisely in the management of elections. Publicly-approved local workers should be the primary recipients of the cash flow, not grossly-partisan election hackers of any other states, nations or affiliations.”

[RWC] What is Ms. Green writing about in the second sentence?

“The General Accounting Office reported that electronic voting is flawed. According to university studies and computer scientists, it’s more expensive and less reliable.”

[RWC] Earth to Ms. Green, all voting methods have flaws, especially paper voting. Ever hear of ballot box stuffing? Consider this quote from Michael Shamos, the person who conducted the tests that disqualified the UniLect: “[Paper ballots] get handled by people and are susceptible to manipulation.”¹ Based on the referenced article, Mr. Shamos believes electronic voting is more secure than paper ballots.

I don’t think we need “university studies and computer scientists” to tell us voting machines are more expensive than paper ballots. That said, the greater cost is supposed to pay for greater security and quicker and more accurate counts.

“The UniLect purchased was never actually federally-approved, thus never valid for use in this state. The officials have no right to enter into faulty contracts with public funds. Let them refund the taxpayers of this county the full price of their errors.”

[RWC] It’s too bad Ms. Green didn’t actually read the GAO report she mentioned. If she had, she would have learned federal standards are voluntary.

“The UniLect was purchased without letting the people vote on it as the election laws of this state require. There is no aspect of HAVA or other federal law that would take away the rights of Pennsylvania citizens to vote on the purchase of specific types of voting systems, or to choose the permanent, confirmed paper ballot.”

[RWC] If there is a law requiring voters to approve voting machines, it’s not in the PA Constitution. Does anybody want to bet on Ms. Green’s position even if voters had voted?

“It would set such a good example for us to work up some democracy around here, as well as get our money back on the UniLects and waste a lot less taxpayer money in the future.”

[RWC] Forgive me if I’m skeptical that Ms. Green and her followers care a whit about taxpayer spending. These folks tend to be the same people who claim we spend and tax too little.

Why should we get our money back for the UniLect voting machines? They met the requirements defined for them at the time of purchase.

1. Voters have pulled levers for last time; Jerome L. Sherman; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; November 13, 2005.