VOTE PAD CRISIS: PRESS CONFERENCE AT 9!
[What's this about? Scroll down for the what McPherson's crew has, and has NOT, provided to California taxpayers]
Let your views be known, please attend the hearing & press conference:
Date : Wednesday, August 9, 2006
Time : 9:00 a.m. sharp
Place : Secretary of State's Office at 1500 - 11th Street, Sacramento, CA
[More below the fold]
Subject : This hearing is the public's opportunity to speak about the recommendation against certifying Vote-PAD, the first low-tech, low-cost, transparent voting method that allows people with disabilities to vote on the same paper ballot as others at the voting site. (See,
http://www.wired.com/... )
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bad News : McPherson's Testing Crew Has Advised Against Certifying Vote Pad.
Good News : YET McPherson has not yet rendered his final verdict, and so we need to let him know at the hearing what was wrong with his Testing Team's advice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
MUST VOTE PAD WALK McPHERSON'S PLANK?
1) Higher Standards than Competitors : Is it ok with voters that McPherson's office is demanding that Vote Pad meet a HIGHER standard than that which is required of its competition--from AutoMARK to Diebold? (See, * at end)
2) Unqualified Experts : Is it ok that a low-tech, non-computerized, voting device must be examined by COMPUTER experts. And worse, they have to pay to fly them in from out of the state?
The state staff and the consultants had NO experience in usability testing for people with disabilities. Their report provides sufficient evidence that they had NOT familiarized themselves with the use and features of the Vote Pad.
But the report DOES provide evidence that the testers had:
a) No knowledge of how to design/administer a test that involves user-interface testing on real people.
b) No expertise dealing with the special needs of people with disabilities.
c) No qualifications to draw conclusions from the data they gathered.
3) E-voting Shills/Disability Group Advocates : Is it ok that McPherson's office may be stacking the examination of Vote Pad with disability advocates that have been hostile to non-computerized voting systems? The questions is, who gets to choose who participates in the testing and examination? Are they the same types of absurd disability access advocates that are now suing five California counties, because they DO have paper trails, and if they can't read them nobody should?
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/... and
http://www.thedailystar.com/...
5) Are the Standards Arbitrary ? Were the established benchmarks Vote Pad was to aspire? Because none exist. Vote Pad is the first of its kind, because no other voting-system interface for disabled voters has ever been tested this way. Did they compare the results to the results of voting-system usability testing done on able-bodied voters, such as the reports submitted at the Aug 1, 2006 ACCURATE conference in BC, Canada? No.
6) What the Competition Has on File on the SoS website :
- The ES&S Inka-Vote provides no features for people with physical impairments.
- The Sequoia Edge provides a sip-puff feature, but the instructions are "inappropriate and unusable" and, since the feature is part of the Audio Box, the screen blanks when the feature is enabled -- a common complaint of people with low vision.
- The Diebold TSx does not provide a sip-puff feature or curb-side voting, and people with limited dexterity will have difficulty inserting the voter access card.
- Finally, while the Hart Intercivic eSlate does provide features for people with physical disabilities, the audio ballot gives incorrect Ballot Summary instructions and an inaccurate description of the "Cast Ballot" button.Consultants said this inaccurate description deserves further study to see if it confusing to voters. Didn't they have any voters with visual impairments test it so they could find out?
-------------------------------------------------------------
HERE'S VOTE PAD'S rebuttal to the two day mock [emphasis added] election testing
http://www.vote-pad.us/...
----------------------------------------------------------
SO, WHERE'S THE REPORT BY McPHERSON'S CREW?
http://www.ss.ca.gov/...
----------------------------------------------------------
WHAT ARE ACTIVISTS SAYING ABOUT THIS?
A.J. Devies, Disabilities Consultant to the Florida Fair Elections Coalition and a person with disabilities, says, "For the first time, California recruited people with a wide range of disabilities to participate in the certification testing. While this may be a logical approach, why just for the Vote-PAD? Why aren't other systems being tested this way? Is the Secretary of State discriminating against this non-electronic system by holding it to a different standard?"
Sherry Healy of the California Election Protection Network points out, "The recent lawsuit against five California counties < http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/... > shows that disability organizations are dismayed that electronic systems only allow sighted voters to verify their paper ballot. The Vote-PAD deserves their support, since it provides a direct method of vote verification to everyone."
Stu Schy of Santa Rosa, a long-time disabilities advocate with over 20 years experience working with the disability community, is outraged. He recently referenced the enormous expense of e-voting machines, saying, "reportedly, Sonoma County paid $4.7 million for the equipment used in the June 6 primary, and only $1.4 million was covered by HAVA. The number of votes cast on the machines was 165. That's over $28,000 per vote! We need and want a low-cost alternative."
Ann West, a longtime California grassroots election activist and educator, says, "Citizens shouldn't let corporations that sell electronic voting machines monopolize this field. There must be a diversity of choices to provide real competition."
Casey Hanson of the Oregon Voter Rights Coalition sums it up: "The nation looks to California for its leadership role. We're all watching and we hope that the public will show up to show their support for having Vote-PAD as an alternative to computerized voting systems."