Re: Athan Gibbs
Published on March 21, 2004 By Wahkonta Anathema In Politics
Here is a voting machine that prints a paper receipt. I won't give you all the details of the article except to say it has a surprise to it you'll see by clicking on the link. Here is some of it to tantalize:

“I’ve been an accountant, an auditor, for more than 30 years. Electronic voting machines that don’t supply a paper trail go against every principle of accounting and auditing that’s being taught in American business schools,” he insisted.

“These machines are set up to provide paper trails. No business in America would buy a machine that didn’t provide a paper trail to audit and verify its transaction. Now, they want the people to purchase machines that you can’t audit? It’s absurd.”

Gibbs was in Columbus, Ohio, proudly displaying his TruVote machine that offered a “VVPAT, that’s a voter verified paper audit trail” he noted.

Gibbs also suggested that I look into the “people behind the other machines.” He offered that “Diebold and ES&S are real interesting and all Republicans. If you’re an investigative reporter go ahead and investigate. You’ll find some interesting material.”
Gibbs’ TruVote machine is a marvel. After voters touch the screen, a paper ballot prints out under plexiglass and once the voter compares it to his actual vote and approves it, the ballot drops into a lockbox and is issued a numbered receipt. The voter’s receipt allows the tracking of his particular vote to make sure that it was transferred from the polling place to the election tabulation center."
Excerpt ends. Click link for the surprise of what the story is about. It's not a trick or made-up, just go and learn "The rest of the Story".

Comments
on Mar 21, 2004
Unless there's a maximum security prison surrounding these electronic voting booths, they'll never work. You just know that someone is going to be stupid and break the screen, smudge it up, or hack the program it uses.
on Mar 22, 2004
Surely in Florida a paper trail would be desirable; I'm not so sure, though, the expense of a printer for each is called for; why not simply a back up[or mirror] hard drive in each machine? Unless there's a razor thin margin such as Fla. and NM had last time, most tallies would never be recounted anyway.  
on Mar 22, 2004
Thank you for the replies. DoctorNick: I think the article is pointing out that there is an alternative to the 'Diebold' voting machines being used in America and passed out in Iraq also. These machines also use screens and are presently in use. The 'smudging' problem is not shown to be an issue as of now to my knowledge. The 'hacking' is a problem and the Dieblod machines deliberately are not using it. Using this system no hacking would work as it is verified by each voter prior to be sent and so is verified as sent by each individual.

stevendedalus: Agreed the machines are of little use in a electoral system where 99% majorities result in the same number of elector votes as a 50.1% majority. Still the use of a receipt system is being denied by Diebold and this shows it can be done. It leads one to ask WHY? If you go on and read the article you'd find the inventor and marketer of the machines was just killed under unusual circumstances, within two weeks of his entry into major media market to discuss them.
on Mar 28, 2004
Actually, that is precisely the reason to have the Voter Verifiable Paper Ballot (Audit Trail). Even if the machine is damaged, the sealed ballot box contains the voters intent. Based on the federal specifications, vendors are required to provide at least one level of redundant storage on a different media form (so the hard drive and a solid state disk or something like that). Regardless, even if a system is hacked, that external paper ballot contains the voters intent. What we are suggesting is a mandatory 5% or so hand count on a machine basis at the close of the polls. Each machine prints out a machine summary report when the polls close. The paper ballots from those machine can be hand counted and compared to the summary report for that machine. In that case, you would be dealing with 200-300 ballots for that isolated machine rather than several million.

Regarding the smudging, these machines are using Elo 5-wire resistive touchscreens and have had no problems with smudging (unless the voter just ate a peanut butter sandwich - then the screen is just nasty but will still work fine). The Elo screens are used in many different industries and have proven to be effective and reliable.

David Sterling
Chief Technical Officer
Truvote International, Inc
on Mar 29, 2004
Mr. Sterling; Thanks for the reply. I have followed the 'Diebold' scam for years along with 'vote scam'.

I wish the very best for your company and am very sorry for the death of the visionary who was trying to inform the Americans of this alternative machine to save democracy in America, and other countries( Diebold machines are being passed out in Iraq and Afghanstan now).

I wish I could put up the whole article and let people know the nature of what occured. Those who know the masses are un-informed, not bothering to read, use such revelations such as his death, and say anyone who would believe such could ever happen is a whacko. So few are willing to so much as 'click' on an article in these 'dumbed-down' times, and this is an issue that will only grow as the scandal of Diebold counting continues.

I know Kerry is creating a legal oversight team anticipating the stealing of votes again, and hope you let President Bush and he (don't be Republican donors and campaign supporters for one Candidate as Diebold is) know of your machine as well.
Meta
Views
» 521
Comments
» 5
Category
Sponsored Links