Sheila Green – 2/8/06

This page was last updated on February 12, 2006.

Paper ballots are still the best; Sheila Green; Beaver County Times; February 8, 2006.

As I’ve written before, 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 appointed everyone involved in the certification process. 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

Restore integrity to voting

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?

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The Times reported on Feb. 2 that the Beaver County Commissioners and director of elections wish to buy the overpriced and extremely poor quality ES&S iVotronic touchscreen system.”

[RWC] I don’t know anything about the pricing and quality of the systems, but remember that Ms. Green considers anything other than paper to be “overpriced and extremely poor quality.”

“That would involve buying 457 machines instead of only 125 for precinct scanners, which are less subject to easy undetectable manipulation than central scanners.”

[RWC] Why would distributed scanners be “less subject to easy undetectable manipulation than central scanners?” In fact, the exact opposite should be true because 1) there would be no handling of ballots by precinct workers, and 2) it would be easier to provide the required vote-counting oversight by election observers.

“The quickest, easiest, least expensive, most convenient, reliable, accurate and accountable way for the vast majority of the voters to vote is with a marker on a paper ballot.”

[RWC] Ms. Green apparently wants us to forget paper ballots are handled by election workers and are vulnerable to manipulation. Has Ms. Green never heard of ballot box stuffing?

“There are simple, low-cost non-electronic methods available to accommodate all voters, including the disabled, and comply with the federal Help America Vote Act, all other federal laws, and the laws of Pennsylvania.

“The iVotronic does not accommodate voters with manual impairment disabilities. The iVotronic has been shown to have vulnerabilities, including vote falsification and wireless connectivity.”

[RWC] Ms. Green doesn’t describe what she means by “manual impairment disabilities,” but wouldn’t such a person also have trouble “with a marker on a paper ballot?”

“It is among the systems found by the General Accounting Office to have insufficient security. The screen can be observed by others. The iVotronic is the subject of a petition for re-examination with the state, this time to include bona fide expertise in computer security and crack/hack tests.

[RWC] “The screen can be observed by others?” That’s true for any voting method if you don’t provide some privacy via voting booths, et cetera.

“The Pennsylvania Secretary of State belongs to the National Association of Secretaries of State, whose auxiliary supporters include ES&S, Diebold, and others with financial interests in perpetration of this racket.

“This conflict-of-interest is causing Pedro Cortes to misrepresent these systems and threaten the counties into wasting public funds.

[RWC] Ms. Green is back using the tactic in which she bashes anyone who disagrees with her. If you recall, she referred to the man (Michael Shamos of CMU) testing voting machines as a hack, until he decertified the UniLect system. When Mr. Cortes’ department decertified the UniLect system, Ms. Green didn’t see any alleged conflict of interest. Does Ms. Green not see how transparent her actions are?

“Pretending that a junker car would be the Starship Enterprise won’t really get you to warp speed if you drive it off the edge of the Grand Canyon.”

[RWC] Huh?