Coalition for Voting Integrity, the home of the Voice of the Voters

Letter to the Editor, May 5, 2008

Home
SaveOurVote.com
Voice of the Voters! Internet/Radio
Voting News
Banfield v. Cortés
2009 Holt Bill
Editorials
Letters
Videos
Voting Machine Allocation
Reports
*GAO Reports*
Take Action!
Legislative Efforts
Voting Principles
Vision and Principles
Pollwatching Kit
Facts & FAQs
Rebuttal re Danaher
Danaher Reexamination Request
Redistricting
Blogs, Groups
Cost Comparisons
2008 Municipal Resolutions
2005 Municipal Resolutions
Lou Dobbs
Slideshow
Lehigh and Northampton Counties
Facts about HAVA
Vote-PAD
New York Times
Join Us!
Contact Us
Contact Your PA Legislators
Donate
Links
Supportive Candidates
Songs
Voting Forum October 2005
Voting Integrity Forum, June 2005
 

Letter to the Editor of the Intelligencer

 

May 5, 2008

 

We must believe the machines

To the Editor:

Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in Pennsylvania was larger than polls had predicted, yet once again, all we are left with is whatever the voting machines' secret software prints out. Why are our national party leaders so quiet on this issue? Would the grassroots work so hard for their candidates if they knew how easy it would be for our voting machines to be rigged or hacked, especially in a state like ours, where the majority have no way to verify that their votes are counted as intended?

We could be the next Florida or Ohio in November. "If the presidential vote is close, it could well come down to a recount in Pennsylvania...with no paper trail"—in other words, with nothing to recount (New York Times Magazine, Jan. 6, 2008). But there is still time to avoid the disaster for our democracy of another tainted election if county commissioners will do what other states have done--switch to voter-marked paper ballots read by optical scanners, with mandatory random audits.

Would Bucks County commissioners deposit funds in a bank that cannot be audited? Our current voting system is the exact equivalent of that preposterous notion, only the currency is even more valuable—our votes, the foundation of our freedom.

The chief beneficiaries of the so-called Help American Vote Act (HAVA) are the voting machine vendors, who pushed the more expensive touchscreens/DREs. The high ongoing maintenance and service costs of DREs are another reason optical scanners have been shown to be more cost-efficient. Miami-Dade County junked $24 million worth of  touchscreens and bought opscan to save tax dollars.

Renting optical scanners is likely the best option while technical standards are revised upwards. Let's cut our losses and reclaim our right to a secure vote.

Barbara Glassman, Webmaster
CoalitionforVotingIntegrity.org

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/320-05052008-1529349.html