To the Editor: 

 

I had every intention of voting for Commissioner Cawley, but not his colleagues, in the next election, because he was the only one who seemed open to research information. I'm really, really disappointed that he voted for Danaher's electronic machines. His comment at the Richlandtown (and at least one previous) meeting, that the Danaher has redundant protections, is accurate in one sense of the word only, since all six of those would record identical information, accurate or not. Nor do mechanical components strengthen reliability when the software controlling the machine is electronic. In reality, I feel that we will have no protection at all.

 

Heaven knows that professors, along with the rest of us, are not always right, but I can't imagine how our commissioners can believe that any unsubstantiated electronic machine should be trusted, if they paid attention when they were viewing the Invisible Ballots documentary, which was shown in five places up and down the county, and provided to them, in addition. I am convinced that Philadelphia and other areas that have been using Danaher machines "without problems" have no way of knowing whether votes are accurately recorded.  New Mexico didn't believe that they had any problems; now they're having to fork out millions of dollars more to replace their Danaher's with auditable machines. 

 

We at the Coalition for Voting Integrity prefer not to be a thorn in anyone's flesh. We just know that, without absolute verification of our votes, we will lose our say in how the rest of our lives, and those of generations who follow, are affected by those who have no compunctions about subverting the electoral process for unprincipled ends. 

Connie Fewlass
Lower Southampton Twp.