If you want something done right...
This past Wednesday, City Council Member Darlene Mealy submitted Resolution 961, which calls on the state Board of Elections to "promptly commission the development of a Precinct Based Optical Scan voting system that would comply with New York State voting system standards, which would be owned entirely by the State of New York."
Five years after passage of HAVA, New York remains the only state that hasn't done anything about it. Fortunately, we can learn from the mistakes of others; three states, at least, are throwing out their new computerized DREs in favor of a paper-ballot, optical scan (PBOS) system.
The current stumbling block is that under New York law all software running a new voting system must be put into escrow, including firmware and operating systems -- and practically every voting system on the market uses Windows. Naturally, Microsoft doesn't want to make their OS available to anyone.
So what can be done?
Darlene Mealy's resolution is the obvious solution -- a PBOS created for New York state that the state would own. This type of solution has worked in Oklahoma for over 15 years. Under this plan, the software would be public, ensuring complete transparency. This solution would also cut long-term costs, since we would not be dependent on a vendor to maintain and upgrade everything.
The resolution already has 18 co-sponsors, and things are just getting started. You can see the full text, plus the list of sponsors, on the City Council's webpage. Feel free to contact your City Council representative about this issue.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
City Council | HAVA | Voting systems
As I once said...
Submitted by mole333 on 27 July 2007 - 2:05pm.
NY is kind of leading from behind on this issue. Got slammed for saying then, but in some ways its true. We really have the chance to do it right. Privatization of voting was always a dumb idea.
My City Council member, David Yassky, has been doing some good things lately. Sadly I don't see him as a co-sponsor of this bill. I think to date he has not seen the importance of this issue. I really always wonder how many dubious elections are needed to wake some people up. But Yassky does read Daily Gotham at least some times, so hopefully he will see this diary and see that it makes sense.
Yassky's record on voting systems
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 27 July 2007 - 3:15pm.
Resolution 131, calling for adoption of a PBOS system, passed earlier this year on a voice vote. It had 44 sponsors -- not including Yassky.
During the push for this resolution I contacted Yassky's office and was told that he didn't necessarily support PBOS. So it's not surprising that he's not a co-sponsor of this bill.
Perhaps some of his own constituents can turn him around. He seems willing to listen on other issues.
Interestingly...
Submitted by mole333 on 27 July 2007 - 5:06pm.
I am more likely to get a response if I write something here then run into him than if I contact his office directly. Probably more a matter of whether I am filtering through others versus him reading and responding to something on his own. I know PB/OS also have problems, and maybe that is what is keeping him out of it. But the truth is the problems with PB/OS are nothing that a good election board and secretary of state can't handle if they want to. The problems with DRE is that we can never, ever even find out if the election was fair and accurate. With PB/OS this CAN be done. With DRE it can't so democracy is out the window.
Great Post
Submitted by Whats So on 27 July 2007 - 4:38pm.
Very interesting stuff...My question is, what's being done at the state level about this, since that's where it really matters? Has anyone talked to their state reps about it?
In a word...
Submitted by mole333 on 27 July 2007 - 5:08pm.
Chaos.
But that is how Albany does EVERYthing so it doesn't necessarily reflect anything about voting issues.
More of the same
Submitted by Dan Jacoby on 28 July 2007 - 9:04pm.
They met in Albany this past Thursday, and voted to continue to let us use the lever machnes past September 1.
The real problem is that the legislation hass been written by Republicans -- or rather, by lobbyists for the machine vendors who give support Republicans. That's why HAVA is in desperate need of an pverhaul (and why the current bills in Congress are no damn good), and why the 2005 NY State law was worthless.
The one shining point is the work done by some people (note the phrase "some people") at the State Board of Elections, who have written regulations that require our new voting system, whatever it is, to be as rigorously tested and as transparent as possible.
Thanks.
Done.