California Certifies Diebold AccuVote-TS for November Election

[Joanne98]

California Certifies Diebold Election System's AccuVote-TS Touch Screen System for the November Election
< back




MCKINNEY, Texas, Aug. 12 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The State of California
has certified the Diebold AccuVote-TS touch screen voting system firmware and
software for use in the November election. The counties of Alameda and Plumas
will use the Diebold AccuVote-TS solution to provide their electorate,
totaling more than 690,000 registered voters, with a secure, accurate and
accessible election system. Both counties have effectively used the AccuVote-
TS system since the 2002 gubernatorial election. Los Angeles County, the
largest county in the United States, will also use the AccuVote-TS system for
early voting, with each voting station having the ability to present to each
voter one of more than 5,000 ballot styles in seven different languages.
The federally qualified touch screen system (National Association of State
Election Directors qualification number N-1-06-12-12-002), provides enhanced
security features to further safeguard election results, ballot data and the
overall operation of Diebold's touch screen solutions. The new firmware and
software elevates election system security to a new level.
Once a ballot is cast, ballot selections are immediately encrypted and
redundantly stored to provide an extremely high level of election results
protection. The encryption key used in the sophisticated security process can
be changed by the respective jurisdiction for each election. A number of other
security enhancements, such as dynamic supervisor passwords, are also
included, providing an extremely high level of election system protection.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK3.story&STORY=/www/story/08-12-2004/0002230845&EDATE=THU+Aug+12+2004,+03:03+PM

[fdr_hst_fan]

1. What do you expect from the

state that chose the Gropenfuehrer!

[struggle4progress]

65. E-voting paper-trail bill tossed by Dems

Concerns about cost kill measure; safeguard for touch-screens may not be seen until after the 2006 primary

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

California Democratic lawmakers killed legislation on Thursday that would require electronic voting machines to offer a paper trail for the next statewide election.

Rejection of the paper-trail bill could delay, but not prevent, use of a popular safeguard on electronic voting until after the 2006 primary.

Los Angeles Democrat Judy Chu, chairwoman of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, pulled the bill from consideration, her staff said, because of concerns about cost.

A few days before, a major voting-machine manufacturer was embarrassed by the apparent failure of its latest machine to accurately reflect votes in Spanish during a demonstration in the state capital.
<more>

http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~2336554,00.html

[Zorra]

67. I believe that the American people would donate their own money

to pay for these printers.

This "cost concerns" excuse is pitiful. Democracy is priceless and we should spare no expense to insure and preserve it.

Disgusting.

[nolabels]

68. This is all really fishy

coupled with this thread it makes me wonder
CA Sec of State Shelley Controversy Grows w/ Campaign Donations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=751726

or this
How They Could Steal the Election This Time
(snip)
According to Dr. David Dill, professor of computer science at Stanford, all elections conducted on DREs "are open to question." Challenging those who belittle the danger of fraud, Dill says that with trillions of dollars at stake in the battle for control of Congress and the presidency, potential attackers who might seek to fix elections include "hackers, candidates, zealots, foreign governments and criminal organizations," and "local officials can't stop it."

Last fall during a public talk on "The Voting Machine War" for advanced computer-science students at Stanford, Dill asked, "Why am I always being asked to prove these systems aren't secure? The burden of proof ought to be on the vendor. You ask about the hardware. 'Secret.' The software? 'Secret.' What's the cryptography? 'Can't tell you because that'll compromise the secrecy of the machines.'... Federal testing procedures? 'Secret'! Results of the tests? 'Secret'! Basically we are required to have blind faith."
(snip)
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=dugger

I am following the money and will check out this movie later

http://www.thepublictheatre.org/herring.htm

[Trajan]

2. It is STILL DRE .....

GEEEEZ ! ...

The system CANNOT BE TRUSTED !

[Joanne98]

3. This sucks........

x(

[aquart]

4. And each jurisdiction has someone sophisticated enough

To alter the encryption keys? Or will they all use the same person sent out from Diebold? Just asking.

[AndyTiedye]

8. Doesn't Matter

They'll just load "rob-california.zip" into the machinez and the
votes will be fixed as soon as they're cast.

[aquart]

26. Well, that's a relief.

For a second I was worried.

[ParanoidPat]

11. No encryption keys needed!

Bev was at my house last night right after addressing the California Voting Systems Panel and demonstrated the 'back door' hack she did on CNBC with Howard Dean and also explained the latest MUCH EASIER hack that was recently discovered! :scared:

She will be back next week and we're going to demo that hack for the VSP in a closed meeting. I'm hoping to get permission to video the demonstration. Stay tuned!

[leftchick]

5. F....

uck! :grr:

[hunter]

6. Here's another link, not so full of Diebold crap...

http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2329595,00.html

tick... tick... tick...

[AndyTiedye]

7. Can't Win for Losing

I thought we'd beaten Diebold back in California for this election
at least.

How is it that every time we think we've won a victory, like getting
the Diebold machinez decertified in Caifornia, it gets taken away?
It never fails!

Now California's electoral votes are in danger. If three counties
are allowed to use the Diebold touch-screens, the others who have
bought them will be as well. That's enough to throw the state to
Booosh! We have NO chance of winning if that happens.

[Pachamama]

56. What do you think also about the "controversy" around Shelley regarding

the campaign donations? I think its a smear effort and very "convenient" that this info comes out less than 3 months before the elections....I think that the Repukes want to then force Shelley (who in my opinion has done so much to try and protect the CA voters) to resign and have Ahnuld replace him with a Republican appointee....

I feel sick to my stomach....Dubya looked way too confident on Friday traveling the state of CA and making a prediction that he could possibly win CA....

:scared:

[Demonaut]

9. WE NEED A PAPER BACKUP!!!!

this is crap

[DubyaSux]

13. Another myth...

There is a paper backup.

Straight from Diebold:
When a voter casts their ballot using the Diebold touch screen system, the ballot selections are immediately encrypted and stored in multiple locations within the voting station. When stored, the order of cast ballots is scrambled to further insure ballot anonymity. The image of each and every ballot cast on the voting station is captured, and can be anonymously reproduced on standard paper should a hard copy of ballots be required for recount purposes. Once voting concludes at a precinct, a printed election results report is printed as a permanent record of all activity at each voting station. This printed record is used to audit the electronic tabulation of votes conducted during the election canvas process, when final, official election results are reported.

The machines are audited throughout production and the election. Those wiley, brilliant, and felonious repugs would have to figure out how to fix the election at every precinct without us democrats knowing, PLUS be able to survive random audits.

All without an intelligent and honest democrat figuring out and putting a stop to it. That's my problem with Bev Harris. She gives the repugs too much credit and the democrats none.

This is why they are being certified and used and the subject that will eventually get me banned from DU.

And why? Because I don't want Bush in office again because of pregnant-dimpled-hanging chads. Paper ballots are a joke and if you used the same tin-foil wearing conspiracy methods, everyone would have their 10 year olds stuffing ballot boxes instead of retaining highly skilled technicians to commit felonies on a grand scale with evoting.

[MGKrebs]

15. You have much to learn, Grasshopper.

[Demonaut]

16. the paper backup recommended would a visible printout on

a roll attached to the machine, that way you can verify the vote immediately, the option you describe still leaves hole in tampering

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. A sequential roll means that every vote would be traceable to the person

A sequential roll means that every vote would be traceable to the person voting, so there would be no secret vote.

[Demonaut]

23. then trim the end off after you confirm the vote

a tangible product in the event of a recount

[Zorra]

19. I have no confidence in these machines. I want to see physical proof

of my vote, just like I want to see physical proof of my transaction when I use an ATM machine.

Period. End of story.

Here is the DU electronic voting links library. It is a great reference for learning about electronic voting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=3390

[Almost_there]

35. Physical proof? Like a receipt??? You're kidding, right?

I live in NY, and we still use voting machines from the 50's to the best of my knowledge. In college, we had something akin to a scan tron type method, and never once in the history of voting has anyone given me a receipt. If you have such distrust in the system, you may as well stay home.

Seriously, if you get a receipt, what does THAT proove? You have a receipt you pulled a level or filled out a card or touched a screen for Kerry at such and such a time. So there goes anonymity at the booth, bring on the Gestapo!

"Let me see your receipt, sir. SO! You voted for Ralph Nader! You will now go and change your vote."

Let's get realistic, ok? The machines that we use in NY still work, but, they are ancient and I am sure they are fast breaking down. Punch cards as we have seen don't work. Butterfly ballots are confusing. Scan tron works, but, its leaving something to an electric eye. Truly, progress would dictate that at some point, now or in the future, either touch screens or keyboard style voting must take place. BUT, it must be anonomous.

There is a reason that there are so many voter workers and people to certify elections. I just get tired of people wanting to literally regress to a true old ballot box. Come on, don't you remember the pictures of the people voting "Do you love Saddam, Yes or No"? and signing multiple ballots in blood? Was that an election?

I think Diebold is as crooked as they come, but, I also think that progress is going to be made, like it or not. We can't use antiquated systems forever, they break down. You cannot EVER be given a voting receipt, could you even fathom the corruption then? I could see that one...

The republicans have 11,240,302 receipts for the schmuck in Witchita, KS, population, 23,481. Hmmm....

~Almost

[Zorra]

39. Canada uses paper and pencil and the people are very happy with

that system. It is simple, accurate, and effective. Paper and pencil does not break down.

I apologize, I always take it for granted that people are more informed about the electronic voting issue. After you get a receipt, you can verify that your vote was actually for the person you voted for, and you put the receipt in a locked box, for random audit purposes. Here is a very good link for you to educate yourself on this issue. It contains a wealth of information on the problems inherent in electronic voting systems.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[ParanoidPat]

62. I did not see the word "receipt" in that post.......

.....I believe he was referring to a printed paper ballot. Out here in Santa Cruz County, California we get BOTH, a printed BALLOT that one marks with a pen or pencil and a receipt with a serial number that is torn off the ballot when you cast your vote. Having grown up in New York City I am well acquainted with the 50's lever machine technology and the scams that go with them. (Just loosen the set screw on the cam that drives the mechanical counter for the candidate you wish to defeat!)

Printed paper ballots leave a means to audit the intent of the voter that would require elimination and destruction of the physical ballots by a dishonest poll worker. That's a lot harder to do than eliminating a few bytes of data on a memory card and offers the added security of having a human readable audit mechanism that can be witnessed by people from all parties.

While optical scan readers can be rigged to miscount, the ballots offer a viable method to audit the results through hand counting a small percentage of the actual ballots and comparing the count to the numbers counted by the ballot readers.

If just 5% of the ballots are randomly hand counted and compared to the electronic results you can be fairly sure that the results are accurate.

Without a 'physical' ballot there will never be any way to be sure that the machines registered the intent of the voters properly. There have been way too many cases of DRE's recording wrong results after the logic and accuracy testing has been completed to trust them under the current regulations.

[hunter]

20. There are many democrats here who believe as you do, DubyaSux...

...who haven't been banned from DU.

I myself believe that DRE voting machines are a stupid idea; an unreliable high tech solution to a problem that never existed until our lazy ass backwards society created it.

[ParanoidPat]

21. You obviously know nothing about the system......

.....and will believe everything you read! :evilgrin:

It seems rather odd that the elections officials have so far REFUSED to even allow for a SECOND COPY of the results tally to be printed and posted at the polling precincts as is mandated by California law.

One of the County officials actually threatened that all of the poll workers would quit if they were forced to print a second copy which makes no sense whatsoever in that all that is required to do so is to type in the number '2' when the machine asks for the 'number of copies' to print. :crazy:

Is that you Wally? :shrug:

[AndyTiedye]

31. If They Load Patched Software On the Machinez...

...then the encrypted ballot images could be fixed too.
Since Diebold left their source code on an open server,
ANYBODY could generate rogue software for their machinez.

Not to mention that all that auditing was MIA in some recent
elections using Diebold touch-screens.

A paper backup means paper. Visible to the voter.

[harmonyguy]

44. Mythbuster - ever seen a "ballot image"?

"The image of each and every ballot cast on the voting station is captured, and can be anonymously reproduced on standard paper should a hard copy of ballots be required for recount purposes."

Have you ever seen one of these "ballot images"? Do you know what it looks like?

It's nothing more than another printout of how the machine has rightly or wrongly interpreted the action of the voter, nicely prettied-up to look just like what a real ballot would, only with a bunch of selections filled in. It proves nothing, and still isn't an audit.

Unless the voter who originally performed the action verifies that what is on the paper truly represents their selections, these supposed ballot images printed once voting concludes at a precinct are nothing more than a waste of trees.

In it's simplest form, auditing is comparing a result with an original. Since ONLY the voter knows what the original selections are, then ONLY the voter can verify that their selections have been recorded on paper properly. You can re-tally and re-total the stuff spewed out by these machines until you're blue-in-the-face, but unless you start from a verified source, it's nothing more than a sham.

Now, Sequoia has gone so far as to prove this very point. The demo of their paper trail, showed that you can try to print whatever you want, but if the data is messed with, whether through incompetence or mal-intent, you need the paper to be voter verified in order for it to count.
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x748352

(End of rant)
HG

edited to add link

[w4rma]

46. That does nothing. It just prints the results once the hack is done. (nt)

[Guaranteed]

63. Exactly. nt

[silverweb]

10. Absentee ballots.

Hand delivered to your voting precinct.

[Paulie]

51. Yep, and still stored in a drawer a year after the election...

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/states/florida/counties/broward_county/6627385.htm?1c

Paper BALLOTS, audited properly (sampled for counting errors after the first count), is the only solution. Technology will just allow the system to be corrupted.

[Pachamama]

57. The only secure way...its what I plan on doing....

We should be encouraging every Californian to be doing this....

:kick:

[Walt Starr]

12. Gallup will report Bush up by 3% in CA by October 20

No doubt about it now. This election is ripe for stealing.

[WillyT]

14. Yep... They Won't Be Able To Pull It Off Without The Polsters, And...

the lapdog media!!!

Canada... Costa Rica...
Canada... Costa Rica...
Canada... Costa Rica...

:shrug:

[bear425]

55. Canada - too cold

Costa Rica - too third world? I just don't know... maybe New Zealand?

[Joanne98]

17. here's another article

Diebold voting machines certified for Alameda, Plumas counties
The Diebold AccuVote-TS touch screen voting system firmware and software have been certified by the state of California for use in the November election in Alameda and Plumas counties, Diebold, Inc. said Thursday. Secretary of State Kevin Shelly's office confirmed the report.


Both counties had used the AccuVote-TS system since the 2002 gubernatorial election. But those machines and all others were decertified earlier this year by the secretary of state pending proof the touch-screen computers met more stringent security standards, including a voter-certified paper trail.

Los Angeles County, the largest county in the United States, will also use the AccuVote-TS system for early voting, with each voting station having the ability to present to each voter one of more than 5,000 ballot styles in seven different languages, Diebold says.

Diebold's TSX machines are still unqualified in California, the secretary of state's office says.


http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2004/08/09/daily38.html?jst=b_ln_hl

[fujiyama]

33. It's also very convenient

that it's in LA county, one of CA's largest and the democrats best counties in the state.

Holy shit, this isn't good.

[wildeyed]

37. But isn't the CA sec state a dem?

Why would he certify?

They should just throw all the Diebold machines in the trash. The public will never trust them, no matter what they do. Their early lies and overt partisan bent were too egregious. Just say Diebold, and all Dems go :scared:

The problem seems to be, all these counties spent big $$$'s to buy these machines and they don't want to lose their investment. Any way to refund the $$$'s so they can buy better, more reliable machines?

[Pachamama]

59. Could it have to do with this:

http://www.sfgate.com/shelley/

Coincidink? I don't think so....I'm convinced its not...I think its awfully convenient that 3 months prior to what many would deem the most important presidential election in our lifetimes, perhaps this country's future on the line, and suddenely, this "campaign donation" improprieties pop up and are front page news and bringing growing controversy to Sec. of State Shelley. Ya think they might want to be forcing Shelley to resign and then have Republican Governator Ahnuld appoint a Republican? Hmmmm....makes one wonder.... :eyes: :think:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

18. This from a state that chose "Hitler-Lite"

[ParanoidPat]

32. Or did we?

:shrug: :evilfrown:

[shance]

24. How did Kevin Shellys decertification become overturned?

Unbelievable. It doesnt make sense at all.

[shance]

25. Paging Bev*** What do we do about these counties b/4 November?

What are some ideas on the best and most effective action we can take right now?

[ParanoidPat]

29. Bev has been invited to participate in a special meeting with......

.....the Voting Systems Panel next week to give a demo of the security problems with the machines. You might be interested to know that the California elections officials now have a special term for citizen poll watchers.......INFILTRATORS! Some officials have vowed to have us thrown out of the polls if we show up!

Gives you a 'warm and fuzzy' doesn't it? :evilgrin:

[wildeyed]

38. Thrown out of the polls?

Is that even legal?

[lovuian]

27. The Fix is In!!!

:argh:

[PATRICK]

34. For another time and place

Remember, California is pretty well lost to thew GOP, so the issue is keeping the system in there and potentially crooked- which it is despite the new shell game and bells and whistles. No, the important matter is them trying to dodge the simple, really transparent paper trail suggestions and possible upcoming(don't bet on it) Congressional legislation.

California is probably safe from Presidential race fixing unless they feel like tinkering around to fool the system as an experiment. It is a blow against the rest of the country on a few principles: Diebold has proved it can't be trusted and/or is incompetent, the inherent invisibility of the tabulation has not changed a bit. Add ons and "extreme security" fixes are a joke waiting for a punchline, that gasp of faux collective surprise when some odd results occur but solidly check out according to Diebold.

Missing the point and deflecting the issue is this is ALL about and always has with the ox-brained collaboration of way too many groups who should- or do- know better.

belated articles from The Nation are just that- late. No one has been listening to the dampened solid research and fundamental arguments against these Frankenstein machines. More talk about 2000 lawyers suing the aftermath is ludicrous and too late with the main falsehoods and the untrustworthy companies tall in the saddle. A grand jury investigation would have broken a company like Diebold. Common sense should have alerted lawmakers years ago. Computer experts(not bought) should have had an ounce of common sense about the perils and concern about the vast political implications.

Except for a few, simple logic in this country has been MIA for a long time. You can't patch over that with Fuccurcount Accuvote Machines.

[ParanoidPat]

64. "California is pretty well lost to the GOP"???

Now whatever gave you that idea? :shrug: :evilgrin:

According to the official results of the 2000 election, Bush* lost in California by almost 12% of the votes cast!

Al Gore Dem 5,861,203 53.5
George W. Bush Rep 4,567,429 41.7

http://vote2000.ss.ca.gov/Returns/pres/00.htm

That's well over 1.2 MILLION votes! :)

Bush has done NOTHING to woo California voters since 2000 and has actually made matters worse for himself with many of his economic policies that have resulted in tens of thousands of high tech workers being laid off due to down sizing and out sourcing. That's not to mention his environmental policies which have impacted a very environmentally aware state. Add to that the Enron scandals that raped us for on our energy costs, artificially driving prices up to the tune of over 9 billion dollars in overcharges that Arnold decided to drop the lawsuit on and you can't possibly make a case for Bush* taking California in this election!

If you will recall, he won* Florida by just over 500 votes if you don't include all of the votes lost to the 'butterfly ballot' (Jews for Buchanan anyone?) and the tens of thousands of predominantly Democratic voters whose votes were lost to the 'felon' purge list and several other assorted 'problems' at the polls. I don't think he'll take Florida this time around much less California!

[Pachamama]

61. Like this connection?

http://www.sfgate.com/shelley/

[genius]

28. That slime. If Bush wins CA, we should lynch Shelley.

[0rganism]

30. So the Bushistas have something damning on Shelley

I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/08/09/MNG7084QD947.DTL

[nolabels]

36. Many seem to be going after him (maybe he pissed someone off)

For so many to be going after him and so much fuss for such a small potato one could only wonder what is up :shrug:

[Joanne98]

40. Paranoid Pat

I can't beleive what you wrote in this thread. Damn. I'm so pissed. I've been worried about CA all along. It's just like them to steal one big state instead of bothering with a bunch of smaller ones. what the hell are we going to do? this is so depressing.

[Barret]

52. CA going red

would be about as beliveable as Texas going blue.

If they are going to do this they will do it swing states.

[Noodleboy13]

41. Delightful Symetery

Bev Harris' work on BBV was what originally got me so interested in DU. Now I get to comment on the topic in my First Post Ever!!!:)

This article seems to be a bit of a puff piece aimed at assuring the corporate world that "by golly, these machines are OK, they used technical language and everything."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that Diebold's voting software is written in VB using Access db's?
I mean, I'm sure the product has improved over the years, but I can remember opening locked .mdb files by hacking the appropriate .ldb. This was only a couple of years ago, and I'm not a computer expert by any means. I mean :wtf:


peace,
Noodleboy

[glitch]

42. Welcome to DU noodleboy!

and you are absolutely correct.

[Noodleboy13]

43. Thank you

It's nice to be here.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

45. oh shit!

[tom_paine]

47. 17 counties, eh? Maybe Bunnypants* WILL "win" Cully-fornia

[Pachamama]

60. Yeah, Bunnypants* was awfully confident on Friday as he hung out in CA

...and talked about candidates not taking "CA for granted" (little pun on the NAACP thingy)...

This and the story about the campaign improprieties to Shelley are starting to make me feel ill....I think something is up and the Repukes are going to try to demand Shelley's resignation so Ahnuld can replace this "girlie man" with a Republican nominee....its getting more nauseating and frightening by the day...I didn't think something like this was possible, but I might be wrong...maybe they really do have plans for our state....

:scared:

[MallRat]

48. WTF? Didn't the Sec'y of State DECERTIFY THEM?

Obviously, I haven't been following this story as closely as I should have.

-MR

[Zorra]

49. Kick

[Barret]

50. Doesn't matter

CA is one of those "it will go bush when hell freezes over" states. They would never attempt to make CA go red, as 90% of people would not believe it.

[coreystone]

53. No machines.....

will ever ACCOUNT for the most reliable system of a voting democracy.....THE PAPER BALLOT!
:think:

[oasis]

58. Californians better apply for absentee ballots pronto.

[ecoalex]

54. Absentee ballots

Why not use absentee ballots, easy, vote at home, mail it in.I don't get the poll fixation, especially with the handicapped challenged. Oregon votes completely by mail.Why not Ca. ? I do.Anyone can request an absentee ballot in Ca., anyone.

[harmonyguy]

66. Absentee Ballots are only PART of the solution

Yes folks, paper ballots whether through absentee or early voting ARE a way of at least getting your vote recorded and verified by you ON PAPER. That's only one step.

If the paper ballots are counted using an optical scanner, which apparently most are, then the audit of the results of the scan MUST be made by comparing the scanned total with a MANUAL HAND COUNTED total of the original paper ballots.
HUH??? Why not do as some counties do and just run them through the scanner a second time? Because that just counts the ballots the same way twice.

Some counties even have the system print nice, neat (without any folds - so they're easier to work with) 'ballot images' created from the previously scanned data, and then they count THOSE papers. Well, since the 'ballot images' haven't been verified by the voter, who's to say that they're accurate? They're nothing more than another printout of how the machine has rightly or wrongly interpreted the intent of the voter, nicely prettied-up to look just like what a real ballot would, only with a bunch of selections filled in. Unless the voter who originally voted, verifies that what is on the paper truly represents their selections, these supposed 'ballot images' printed once voting concludes at a precinct are nothing more than a waste of trees.

Also, keep in mind that the 'vote-count juggling' that Bev recently demonstrated with Governor Dean was to the GEMS system, which is the central tallying system, not the touchscreen system. If I'm not mistaken, the exact SAME 'vote-count juggling' can be performed on GEMS regardless of whether the voters intent was indicated on a touch screen or on an optical scanned ballot.

Regardless of your party affilliation, paper ballots are better than vapour ballots, but paper ballots alone don't provide assurance of an accurate count. Paper ballots AND proper auditing is what's needed - no short cuts.

HG ;-)