Update to "Two days in the field with ES&S OpScan"

[Kelvin Mace]

This is a followup to this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=426627&mesg_id=426627

I took this report down for a few days because of objections about my having taken this job in the first place by unnamed individuals in Raleigh. A dust up has ensued in that some people were angry that I stated my opinion of DREs. Now my opinion of DREs is the same as it has always been and is not going to change. Why this shocks some folks in the establishment I have no clue.

In view of these objections, I will not be taking ANY compensation from PrintElect, even though I had planned on donating the money to charity. I doubt it will be possible for me to work with them in November given the hue and cry.

That said, I am proud of my state and its election officials. They deployed a brand new system with VERY few problems, none of which were more than minor wrinkles. I also commend PrintElect for the hard work they did in making things run smoothly. Rather than follow the tried and true Diebold formula of denigrating your critics, lying and keeping your actions cloaked in secrecy, PrintElect let someone like me in to observe, creating greater, MUCH NEEDED transparency in our election process. I am disappointed that some election officials find this openness intolerable, but that's their problem, not mine.

While many states (Ohio comes to mind) were pulling their hair out with machine failures and the fruits of poor training, North Carolina came through with flying colors.

Problems with ES&S hardware were identified BEFORE the election and remedial actions taken. Why did that happen? Because our law, the law the voters helped pass, REQUIRED that the state be made aware of such problems as soon as they occur. In the past, vendors would have been allowed to hide such problems, which they often did.

In short, our law worked, and we are leading the nation in how it should be done.

Kudos to the voters, the voting activists and our election officials in Raleigh and locally (even the cranky ones). Congrats to PrintElect (but I still don't like DREs) for being open and remembering that "it's the transparency, stupid!" Special thanks to Linda Mundy and her very fine staff in Taylorsville. I appreciate them taking time to show me elections from their side of the table.

[Bill Bored]

1. Nominated! Any idea of the percentage of bad memory cards found? nt

[Kelvin Mace]

2. We had a few over them before the election and all were replaced

I have not heard of a single bad card during the election.

I have to admit to being impressed.

[BeFree]

3. Good going!

Among several odd occurrences in North Carolina that led to the state writing a new law was the case at the link below that established some real funny number patterns in the state with 90% e-voting equipment.

DUer, ingnatzmose, did the analysis and his work even made it to the pages of Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again". If you have any doubt that the numbers were cooked, check out this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=170&topic_id=2562&mesg_id=2562

[namewithnohorse]

4. Unnamed people

"some people were angry that I stated my opinion of DREs."

You're doing good here, reporting on the systems. You're opinion of DREs is no secret.

What sort of people would be angry about you stating your opinion on DREs? Isn't freedom of speech one of those important things that come from voting?

Why are these 'unnamed individuals' able to get to you?

If they're trying to keep you muzzled, maybe they shouldn't be left unnamed. Why keep them hidden and protected?

I'm a long time lurker here, and respect your work (especially that ES&S report) but I never seen you protect your opponents before.

Sdun

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. they didn't "get" to him

He just wanted to make sure that no innocent parties were harmed during
the filming of this event.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. They are unnamed becasue

the sources telling me about them does not want to be identified. If I identify the individuals, I give away my source.

They have not "gotten" to me, they have just made a lot of noise and whined about my being in the position I was in and receving the training I got. I am not muzzled, I will go back out in the field in November, but in a private capacity. I originally pulled my article down to re-read it and seek the opinon of several people about whether I had been fair. I then restored it without change (except for correcting a typo or two). I have omitted nothing from my report.

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com