Skip to main content

View Diary: How to Repair the Voting System: Sec. Debra Bowen's Answer (302 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Instead of "Guessing" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elfling

    As verified voting has done, why not just go to the Secretary of State's website itself and see what the requirement actually is? (Note that this is Debra Bowen's website):

    All direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines used after January 1, 2006, must have an accessible voter-verified paper audit trail, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 19250. All voters voting on an electronic voting machine should review and verify their ballot choices on this printed paper record, prior to finalizing and casting their ballot. Once the ballot is cast, this paper record of the ballot is retained inside the voting machine as part of the election audit trail to verify the accuracy of the votes recorded. In accordance with California law, voters do not get a printed paper record of their vote choices.
    So you're just wrong about this being "counties lagging." Debra Bowen's office has authorized the use of these machines.  There is no dispute about that.  
    •  I know about that - that's a separate issue (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HudsonValleyMark, enhydra lutris

      That blurb from her site is about the paper trail.

      That doesn't resolve the question about why some counties have continued to use DREs at all (two counties it appears).  One person above said OC filed a lawsuit.  I don't know about San Mateo.

      contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

      by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 07:55:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  clarification on DRE use (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        barath, trumpeter

        Many California counties use DREs to satisfy the accessibility requirements. It appears that only two counties use them as the 'standard' equipment.

        Those two counties use Hart systems, which IIRC fared somewhat better in the TTBR than the others.

        Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:00:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't know why those counties are still using DREs as the standard equipment.  (Well the OC lawsuit may be why.)

          I think in her talk Bowen mentions that DREs for accessibility is okay, though that using a touchscreen to produce a physical ballot is better.

          contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

          by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:03:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Do Me a Favor (0+ / 0-)

          Click through any (or all) of the counties actually shown at the links on the California secretary of state website.  There are multiple types of DRE voting machines, including the Hart systems being used in San Mateo County.  Most counties use some form of them.  Whether for accessibility reasons or convenience, they are in use and people are offered the opportunity to use them in lieu of optical scan balloting.  It's truly the voters choice, at least if I believe the Secretary of State upon which this diary relies (and I am sure a lot more willing to believe her website than Verified Voting on this issue.)

          •  no idea why you are teeing off on Verified Voting (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            barath

            It's a very common practice to distinguish between standard and accessible voting equipment. I don't think anyone said that voters didn't get to choose which to use. Certainly Verified Voting didn't, nor did I.

            Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:17:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm Not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wu ming

              But the diarist says that's where he/she got his/her incorrect information about the current state of voting machines in California.  Frankly, it's outdated (for example, the speech from Secretary of State Bowen, who I adore and wish could be cloned and installed in every state) is from 2008.  It's not that hard to admit, but so far there is no admission, just a lot of "guessing" about the Secretary of State not having the power to mandate counties to use particular machines -- showing a really deep misunderstanding about exactly how much power California vests in the Secretary of State, by the way -- or just "a couple" of counties lagging.

              Verified Voting has done great work over the years and my head-shaking is not about the organization, it's about the overreliance on information that purportedly comes from VV in this diary when it comes to the current state of voting in California.

              •  what incorrect information? (0+ / 0-)

                If you're gonna tell people to click through, I think it would be fair to click through yourself, before accusing Verified Voting of "guessing" about anything.

                As for Kossacks' guesses about why DREs weren't banned, and why two counties use them as standard equipment, that's a whole 'nother topic, and fair game.

                And I did miss that barath wrote that the DREs are "for those with bad eyesight." They have lots of accessibility features, and some people prefer them for a variety of reasons.

                Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
                Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

                by HudsonValleyMark on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:31:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  OK This is Just You (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wu ming

        Not being willing to accept that her office has, contrary to what you read on verifiedvoting, authorized continued use of the machines as long as they meet the paper trail requirements for use. A voter always has the option of an optical scan paper ballot, but that's what it is, an option.

        The Orange County lawsuit is what led to this requirement, not followed it.  Spend some time clicking on the county by county links and youl will see that use of voting machines continues to be statewide, absent a few very small counties.

        I can't help you with your unwillingess to accept that on this, your source of information is just wrong/out of date.  I just hope that others aren't quite so unwilling to accept that the situation is not what you believe when it comes to the status of voting by machine here in California.

        •  Sigh... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nanorich

          I'm not sure there's anything contentious here...

          Listen to her talk.  She makes the case for going all optical scan, but what her ideal system is and what she had to implement in CA don't have to match.

          Yes, we still have DREs with paper trails in CA, and yes voters have the choice to use them, but only the DREs that passed the security review and only in that configuration.  In the several times I was a poll worker under her new system we probably had under 10 voters use the DRE machine at our precinct over the course of the entire day, and those were folks who had a hard time reading the small print on the paper ballot.

          contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

          by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:20:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You Do Know that the Talk (0+ / 0-)

            You have linked is from 2008, right?

            •  Um, yes... (0+ / 0-)

              I say that in the diary ("few years back").  Why does that matter?  Her talk is about the process by which she concluded that optical scan with random recount is the best approach, and also about all the issues to consider in elections in general.  It's just as informative of a talk now as it was a few years back.

              contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

              by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:27:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It Matters Because (0+ / 0-)

                Despite her stated opinion 4 years ago, the system that she has actually implemented in California does not eschew DRE technology - it improves upon it by requiring a paper trail, and always includes the option of an optical scan ballot. Thus, a diary relying upon her words from 4 years ago to advocate for use nationwide of an exclusively optical scan system system that she herself, when she has the power to do so, didn't implement for her own state is misleading.  If Ms. Bowen found a way to merge the best of both worlds, it's shown that her thinking has evolved over the years.  That's the type of thing that should be clearly disclosed if you are going to rely upon her words from 4 years ago to make your arguments.

                •  Ugh. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  nanorich

                  Ok, I don't really know where you're going with this, but it seems you like arguing, and I have to get to work.

                  I think it's pretty straightforward.  Listen to her talk and the Q&A that follows.  She argues for optical scan with random recount.  She acknowledges accessibility is an issue (which is why there are DREs (only the semi-secure ones) in some counties, but usually limited in number and limited in use; why a couple counties use them primarily was my only question mark).  What she did in CA follows from her talk, and it also seems clear from what she says that if there were a way of getting rid of DREs altogether she'd be for it.

                  As for legal matters of what authority she has and what the counties have, and how or why she can or can't compel them to change - I'm not a lawyer, and this diary isn't about that anyway.  It's about the ideas.

                  contraposition.org - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

                  by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:39:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I Am a Lawyer (0+ / 0-)

                    In California.  So I'm not speaking lightly about the power of the Office of Secretary of State.  But I agree it's irrelevant except for one thing:  I mentioned the law only because YOU first speculated about what power she does, or does not have, to implement her (now no longer existing if you go by what she's done when she has the power) vision from 4 years ago.  Had you not done that, the law would have never been discussed at all.

                    We are obviously not going to see eye to eye, but since I've made my point and you've made yours, it's all good.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site