Diebold and Blackwell to control Ohio Elections?

This just in . . . Blackwell, the far right secretary of state of Ohio just announced a deal with Diebold to replace optical scan voting systems with touch screen systems.

SECRETARY OF STATE GIVES COUNTIES GREEN LIGHT TO BUY TOUCH SCREEN VOTING MACHINES WITH PAPER AUDIT TRAILS

Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell today lifted an order that would have required all county election boards to replace their current voting systems with precinct-count optical scan devices. He announced an agreement under which boards now have the option of switching to touch-screen voting machines with voter verified paper audit trails (VVPAT). Diebold Election Systems is the first Ohio-approved vendor to meet federal and state requirements for VVPATs. Negotiations with the company brought the price of touch screens to within the state's available federal funding. Counties have until May 24th to either reconfirm their selection of optical scan machines or choose the Direct Recording Electronic devices.

So now the elections are to be in the hands of the Diebold Corporation.

One of the things that I think is needed in Ohio right now is a constitutional amendment which places supervision of elections in the hands of a non-partisans.  My understanding is that Democrats are thinking about putting out a petition next year to get an initiative like this on the ballot.  Seems to me that this is something that should be done right now.  There are many Ohio Republicans that are against Blackwell for Governor, yet who will vote for him next November if he defeats the other two more moderate Republican candidates in the race.  

By introducing this amendment now, Democrats have a fighting chance of having a fair election in 2006, and in addition, have a pretty fair chance of handing Blackwell a nasty rebuke.

Anyone have any links to any comparable constitutional amendments at the State level?  

•  At least it has a paper trail

  But why people think touch screens are better than optical scanners, i dont know.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:20:08 AM PDT

  •  Where's your link?

    I'm not finding this anywhere.   ? ?

    [I'm coming across contrary info actually, but it's a few days old.]

    by joan reports on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:26:18 AM PDT

  •  "Paper trails"

    Let's not get too excited about these printers.  This article highlights some of the potential problems with the new Diebold AccuView system (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/10809627.htm).

    "The Diebold prototype seeks to reassure voters by displaying their selections under a piece of glass or plastic alongside the touch-screen machine. If they spot a problem, they can cancel the ballot and start over. And while voters can't touch the paper records, elections officials will be able to use them to verify close elections."

    "Critics of North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold say the AccuView Printer Module is a step in the right direction but doesn't address the potential for buggy software or malfunctioning hardware that could misrecord votes or expose voting systems to hackers, deletions or other disasters.

    The printers are only valuable to the extent that counties use them, and critics worry that county elections officials with tight budgets may not opt for them."

    "Even with the printer, breakdowns and paper jams are possible, said Stanford University computer scientist David Dill, a leading touch-screen critic.

    Others say printers only compound the complexity of the nation's patchwork of voting systems. Counties must pick from hundreds of models of voting equipment, maintenance contracts, software and hardware upgrades, consulting services and other add-ons."

    I'll add another concern:  say you accidentally push the wrong candidate's name, it shows up on the paper under the glass, so you press "cancel," vote correctly, and confirm it under the glass.  Now, what exactly happens to the paper next is unknown.  Diebold keeps this is a secret.  So, what if inside the machine, the incorrect paper is "counted" and the correct version of your vote is discarded?

    No one knows.

    You do not get a copy of your vote "receipt."  The printed votes are all anonymous.  How can we assume that the printed record pulled out of the back of the machine is accurate?  There's still no way to verify it.

    A much simpler system that would take care of these problems would make the voting machines more like an ATM (which Diebold is a major manufacturer of).  You make your vote, get a paper receipt (in your hand!) which you check, then press confirm.  You fold it in half and place it in a plastic box.  If there are any challenges/concerns, the papers in the box are compared to the machine tally.

    Simple.

    But, Diebold has chosen not to do this.  Someone needs to ask "why?"

    by LITBMueller on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:50:34 AM PDT

•  Where's your link? (reposting in the right place)

  I'm not finding this anywhere.   ? ?
  [I'm coming across contrary info actually, but it's a few days old.]

  by joan reports on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:27:49 AM PDT

  •  Don't have a link

    Came over the email from gongwer's news service. It's a subscription service.

    http://www.gongwer-oh.com

    by klw1963 on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:34:36 AM PDT

•  I thought they already did... n/t

  by spiderleaf on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:38:50 AM PDT

•  How can BlackNotWell keep changing his mind?

  We had that loony in City Govt here (Cincinnati) & he wasn't any better back then. I was really pleased about his Optical Scan decision...the first thing he's ever done that makes sense to me. How can he keep changing the rules in midstream?

  (PS as an aside-- Blackwell is in favor of school vouchers for private schools...Guess who just became superintendent of Cincinnati's PUBLIC School System? Rosa Blackwell. Yep. His wife. Now what do you think her position is on Vouchers?)
  

  by Lynwaz on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 09:53:42 AM PDT

•  Thanks for letting us know

  I'm sure we wouldn't have heard about it otherwise.  Maybe Blackwell can win the governorship now, whether the Ohioans vote for him or not.

  by november3rd on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:10:40 AM PDT

•  Paper trail .. means doodley-squat

  
  Just because a computer prints out a result, does not mean that it records that same result in a separate database.

  Hence, paper trails are meaningless here, because, unlike your ATM machine or your Visa Card swipe at the supermarket - there is way for the consumer ( that's all of us ) to actually verify that what was recorded in the database matches what was printed out on disposable paper for your to hold in your hand.

  You know that the ATM machine is "honest" because you can verify the print-outs with your own bank account transactions and balances.

  With voting, there is no such consumer based verification involved ... none ... nada ... zip!

  Furthermore, what we have seen, is that even with the Optical Scan readers, is that there are centralized tabulation computers in use that compile the results.

  So even if the local results are correct (match the print outs) the centralized tabulation systems can be easily hacked and tampered with without public knowledge, and, thus the vote changed.

  Just what do you all think happened with the Warren Country Lockdown in Ohio at 9:30pm - 10pm  (or whatever)?

  So the point is, paper trail is the wrong place to focus.  The place to focus is forceful and direct opposition to the whole concept of the privatization of our nation elections.

  We must return to paper ballot where tabulation is done in an open, publically monitered fashion and can be easily audited (at any point).

  That is the only way to have democratic elections again in this sick dictatorship that most people are too blind to see through which we live in.

  by NewAmerica on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 10:29:09 AM PDT

  •  paper trails are not meaningless -- they do

    provide some accountability, with the possibility -- or threat? -- of a physical recount.

    It may be the "wrong place to focus" philosophically, but in my opinion, there's No Way we're going back to hand-counted paper ballots -- like in Germany -- or even open source software systems -- for the next big election(s).  Although those solutions both sound good to me.

    In the real world, we'll be lucky to get any focus on any accountability issues at all, and in my opinion, preserving California's "paper trail by 2006" rule is a worthwhile endeavor.

    earlier diary:

    CA's elections chief fired; paper trail rule at risk?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/14/121029/468
     

    by jennifer poole on Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 11:01:18 AM PDT