While the hot issues of the day continue to garner much of our attention (and deservedly so,) it is very important that we continue to pay attention to and fight for fair and verifiable election procedures across the country if we are truly serious about protecting our democracy. There are many reasons to be concerned, and here's a new one, once again brought to light by Bev Harris and crew at
Black Box Voting. If you're not rolling your eyes, there's more on the flip (and I apologize...my HTML skills suck, so please be kind):
Reprinted with permission from an email from blackboxvoting.org:
Black Box Voting Exclusive:
NEW UNCERTIFIED DIEBOLD "VOTE REMOTE" PROGRAM -- REMOVING HUMANS FROM ABSENTEE VOTE AUTHENTICATION
System allows election officials to set acceptance for the ballots high, low, or anywhere they want.
This system is not certified. It interacts with the voter registration system, which also contains party affiliation of voters. It may never be tested or certified, since it slips through a loophole in the certification language. Financial documents obtained by BLACK BOX VOTING show completed billings for Vote Remote, indicating that it is already in use.
Here is a link to documents obtained by Black Box Voting:
http://www.bbvdocs.org/diebold/voteremote.pdf
VOTE REMOTE, for the most part, uses old technology like automated envelope stuffing and bar coding. What is new, though, is the use of automated signature comparison.
When you vote by mail, the signature on the envelope is matched with the signature on your voter registration card. Vote Remote automates this process. A thermometer- like acceptance level can be set wherever the election official wants to put it.
WE HAVE FOUND NO PROCEDURES, NO STANDARDS, NO AUDITING TOOL FOR HOW ACCEPTANCE IS SET, BY WHOM, OR EVEN WHETHER THE SYSTEM IS ACCURATE OR CONSISTENT.
A quick Google on "Vote by mail" will reveal that cookie- cutter legislation has made its way into many states, switching many counties to an all vote-by mail system.
Many of these mail-in voting bills have already passed.
(Just in time for Diebold.)
Removing human input from absentee voter authentication, particularly when it can be automatically linked to party affiliation, and there is no audit procedure involved, opens up every election using this tool to any local election official who wishes to set the a different acceptance standard for the opposing party. This is wrong, if it is true, but is just another in a long string of questionable events concerning Diebold and our election process.