|
Here are two sample letters you can use when writing to the editors of your local papers about paper ballots and optical scanners in North Carolina. One is a little shorter than the other, and more suitable for a letter to the editor.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Copy the text below and paste it into any word processor to personalize the letter:
Many states have implemented the Help America to Vote Act (HAVA) with touch-screen voting machines that do not provide reliable voter verification, and that have proved much less trustworthy than simpler systems using paper ballots. But North Carolina can avoid this mistake.
Too many of our Election Officials do not understand what HAVA requires. HAVA does NOT require adoption of expensive electronic voting machines! If it did, the more reliable, secure and accessible system of paper-ballots counted by an optical scanner (with ballot marking devices for disabled voters) could not have been purchased with HAVA funds by at least six states, including most recently, Ohio.
The technology for electronic voting systems is still too new to provide the reliability that our democracy requires. We must resist the influence of lobbyists who push for expensive touch screen voting machines. Tell your representatives that we want paper ballots and optical scanners!
Sincerely,
__________________
Copy the text below and paste it into any word processor to personalize the letter:
I am a North Carolina citizen, and I do not want to vote on touch screen computers.
The widespread reports of voting irregularities have added to the concerns about the reliability of electronic voting machines. These concerns are of immediate interest to North Carolina. Over 55,000 votes were incorrectly tabulated by electronic voting machines. In the next few weeks, the state will likely choose the systems to replace our older voting machines in order to comply with state law and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).
Fortunately, the computerized touch-screen systems that proved to be so problematic in the last election are not our only choice. Counties have a choice, they can adopt paper-based optical scanning systems, a reliable, auditable, cost effective option.
Unlike computers, which can be intimidating to elderly, learning disabled, and other voters unused to computers, paper-based optical scan systems are user-friendly. Anyone who has ever taken a standardized test or filled out a form knows how to fill in the circles next to a candidate's name. The paper ballots can easily be adapted to accommodate disabled. They are also faster to use helping to avoid long lines far cheaper to buy and maintain, and require much less training of poll workers. These are all vital advantages, especially when considering North Carolina's current budget situation.
Most importantly, paper-based optical scan systems are far less vulnerable to error and fraud. By keeping the scanning equipment at the individual polling place, voters know instantly whether their vote is counted; if they made a mistake, they can correct it on the spot. Results are known and publicly posted at the precint as soon as the polls close; there is no central processing facility that can be hacked remotely.
By contrast, with computer touch screens, even those with voter-verified paper trails, auditing is a long, complex process. As we saw in the 2004 election, there is little patience for protracted audits and undecided outcomes.
For our elections to retain the confidence of voters, our voting system must be secure so that every vote does count. Please go to www.ncvoter.net for more information, and write a letter to your county board of elections and county commissioners expressing support for precint-based paper optical scan voting. This decision will be one of the most important affecting our right to vote, central to our democracy.
Sincerely;
________________
Protecting our votes at a reasonable cost
Please help protect our vote, and work toward voter verified ballots.
The issue is that the new state law, S223, which requires a paper trail of our ballots, also the federal law, the Help America Vote Act.
What funds are needed to protect the integrity of our votes?
Under the new law, S 223, Public Confidence in Elections Act - provides enough funding for each county to buy the optical scan style voting machines. Counties wishing to purchase the far more expensive touchscreen or direct record machines would have to pay the additional costs themselves.
Optical Scan ballots are successfully used in 48 counties already, including large counties such as Wake. The ballot resembles a multiple choice test similar to those students use in middle and high schools. The voter marks their choice with a pen, and then feeds the ballot into the scanner, which tallies up the vote. The scanner instantly alerts voters to errors, such as selecting too many candidates in a race
DRE (direct-record electronic) "mystery machines" like those in Carteret County are expensive to buy because you need one machine for every 250 voters. The average precinct will require $30,000 for 10 DREs. This is $135 million statewide. But optical scan machines with a voter-verified paper ballot, like those in Wake and Durham counties, meet standards outlined in the Help America Vote Act and cost only $10,000 per precinct, including a ballot-marking device. Total cost: only $45 million.
Last month, in California, a live test of touchscreen machines (with a paper ballot) had a 20% failure rate, with blue screens, computer crashes and printer jams. This is more proof that electronic systems (DREs) still are not reliable. Counties should choose the optical scan systems, a mature technology with a proven track record. Elections are no place for experiments.
Sincerely,
_______________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Actual Op/Eds already published -
08/24/2005 High Point Enterprise -
Guilford elections director misplaces financial blame
I am a computer scientist, a member of the National Committee for Voting Integrity and was an adviser to state lawmakers on issues surrounding electronic voting. In your Aug. 17 article, "Voting Machines Costly," Guilford County Elections Director George Gilbert claims that state law is forcing him to upgrade Guilford County voting equipment, and at a cost of $6 million.
He is wrong on both counts.
First, the electronic voting machines in Guilford County are old and do not meet the disabled-accessible standards as required by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. Even if the state did nothing, Guilford County would have to buy new voting equipment by January 2006.
Second, the financial analysis from state government - using data supplied by the State Board of Elections and reviewed by citizens and other election officials - indicates that Guilford County taxpayers will not have to spend a dime to meet federal and state requirements (Gilbert himself contributed to this analysis).
Guilford County could purchase optical scan units and "ballot marking" devices for the disabled for a little less than $2 million,
all from existing federal funds. These machines will meet all federal and state requirements.
Even if the state had done nothing, the paperless machines Gilbert prefers would have cost Guilford County taxpayers around $5 million.
The $6 million Gilbert requests will pay for expensive touch-screen voting machines not required by either federal or state law. This additional expense is one entirely of Gilbert's making, and will be borne by Guilford County taxpayers.
Security and integrity are a process, not a product. Simply claiming that these machines will fix a slew of election problems places a dangerous and unrealistic faith in even the most modern voting machines.
JUSTIN MOORE
Durham
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15085792&BRD=1332&PAG=461&dept_id=414363&rfi=6&xb=faluw
_________________________________________________________________________________________
08/23/2005 High Point Enterprise
Editorial: Voting machines can cost Guilford taxpayers less
We hear that in some quarters, a few folks have jokingly referred to Guilford County Elections Director
George Gilbert as the "Six million dollar man."
The moniker came about because of Gilbert's estimate that new touch-screen voting machines needed in time for the May 2006 primaries will cost the county about $6 million. New machines are needed in order to comply with a new state statute that requires the use during elections of paper ballots or electronic equipment that can produce a paper trail for possible audits after elections.
Gilbert had asked the Legislature to authorize him to create voting centers around the county to reduce the number of new machines needed in order to reduce the cost. No legislative action was taken on Gilbert's request, but there is an alternative route that Gilbert could have Guilford County take in order to save money - buy a different kind of voting system.
Gilbert is an ardent fan of the touch-screen, electronic voting machines that the county has used for several years. But an optical-scanner voting system - that many counties, including Randolph, already use - will far exceed the state statute's requirements and cost less, too. Some estimates say optical-scanner systems, which involve the use of paper ballots that are scanned and tabulated, cost about a third less than electronic systems.
An optical scan voting system provides the integrity of a paper ballot at a cost lower than a touch-screen. Good sense says buy it.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15079980&BRD=1332&PAG=461&dept_id=414363&rfi=6&xb=bahat
|
Advocates call for study of voting machine costs
|
|
|
| David Nivens, ENTERPRISE STAFF WRITER |
08/21/2005 | |
|
|
|
|
GUILFORD COUNTY - A group of voter advocates claims $6 million is too much to spend to upgrade county voting machines to meet new federal and state standards.
The advocates, most representing the N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting, have challenged the Guilford County Board of Commissioners to carefully study upgrade figures they will see later this year. Last week, Elections Director George Gilbert said it could cost as much as $6 million to replace 1,200 touch-screen electronic machines with new ones that will produce a "paper trail" as required by a new state law.
The new machines also must meet federal standards to serve the disabled.
"But state law does not require touch-screen machines," Joyce McCloy, coalition coordinator, told commissioners during a Thursday meeting in Greensboro. "You could choose an optical-scanning system with a ballot-marking device."
McCloy and her group first approached commissioners with their counter proposal in February. A $2 million state grant could pay for a scanner system, she said, "but would not pay for all the touch-screen machines that don't meet the disability requirements."
Electronic machines record an image of all votes in case of an audit.
Using electronic machines alone to count votes is dangerous, said High Point author and publisher David Allen, a member of the Joint Select Committee on Electronic Voting Systems, a state grass-roots organization.
"Electronic systems have been proven to lose votes, suffer failures, cost too much and be highly insecure." Allen said. He warned state officials of potential problems before the 2004 elections, when a machine lost 4,400 ballots in Carteret County.
dnivens@hpe.com | 888-3626
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15072528&BRD=1332&PAG=461&dept_id=414366&rfi=8
|
| 
