VotersUnite! presents the following compilation of problems reported in the media about the 2004 general election. Starting with early voting, we are seeing a wide array of problems, some of which appear in multiple states. This page allows you to see how widespread the problems are as they accumulate.
E-Voting News and Analysis, from the Experts
Nader requests N.H. vote recount By KEVIN LANDRIGAN, Telegraph Staff
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader requested a hand recount of ballots in New Hampshire after getting seven-tenths of 1 percent of the vote.
“We have received reports of irregularities in the vote reported on the AccuVote Diebold Machines in comparison to exit polls and trends in voting in New Hampshire,’’ Nader wrote.
“These irregularities favor President George W. Bush by 5 percent to 15 percent over what was expected. Problems in these electronic voting machines and optical scanners are being reported in machines in a variety of states.’’
Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.
The seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. This does not pass the smell test. Voters should report immediately any suspected malfunctions and deficiencies at voting precincts around the country to their Board of Elections. And voters should urge their legislators to require a voter verified paper ballot trail for random audits and independent recounts.
While differing in implementation, these systems share a crucial feature: all information about the votes is stored exclusively in digital format. The crucial difference from more traditional voting systems (e.g., punch card and optical scan machines) is that those systems keep the original vote in a physical form (usually paper) that can be directly verified by the voter. This “paper trail” can later be used during a recount, if the need were to arise.
A recount is generally possible with Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines, but what is recounted is simply what the machine recorded in the first place and this can be quite different from the intended vote.
Discrepancies arise through a number of factors, ranging from machine malfunction to malicious tampering with its software. Without the hard-copy redundancy offered by traditional voting systems, performing an independent audit is virtually impossible.
AxisofLogic/ The 2004 Elections
[I]t’s critical that we keep the largest issue at the forefront at all time: Why are We The People allowing private, for-profit corporations, answerable only to their officers and boards of directors, and loyal only to agendas and politicians that will enhance their profitability, to handle our votes?
Black Box Voting: Ballot – Tampering in the 21st Century
Diebold Election Systems – AccuVote-TS Product Information
AccuVote TS
The AccuVote-TS™ system is a robust voter-activated interactive touch-screen system that is hailed as the future of voting systems. Featuring an easy-to-operate touch-screen interface, it offers voters enhanced visibility and brightness.
Using an intelligent Voter Card as the voter interface, the AccuVote-TS permits voters to view and cast their votes by touching target areas on an electronically generated ballot. Each unit provides a direct-entry computerized voting application that automatically records and stores appropriate ballot information and results. At the end of the voting period, the system can print precinct totals to be included as part of the permanent record and modem the results to a host computer via TeleResults.
While classified as a direct record entry (DRE) device, the AccuVote-TS system has capabilities that transcend traditional DRE technology.