Posts
"I don't think there are any electronic machines that are foolproof, I've heard horror stories that palm pilots can be used to hack into the machines." - Luzerne County Commissioner Greg Skrepnak
The way things are going the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 might turn into the Hardly Anyone Votes Act of 2006.
WILKES-BARRE - The Luzerne County commissioners delayed a decision Tuesday on the selection of a new electronic voting machine, opening the possibility that voters could use the old lever machines in the primary election. Commissioners Todd Vonderheid, Greg Skrepenak and Stephen Urban recessed a board of elections meeting until they learned from the Pennsylvania Department of State if the May 16 primary election is considered a federal election. Vonderheid and Urban said they are dissatisfied with the limited number of manufacturers whose machines have been certified by the Pennsylvania Department of State and by the Federal Election Commission. "The menu is more limited than what we would like," Vonderheid said.
"There is no reason to rush into this, into this mine field," said Robert Caruso, a member of the electronic voting machine committee who voted against the Danaher machine. Caruso said a lawsuit before the state Commonwealth Court filed by concerned residents against Westmoreland County has statewide implications. Caruso said Westmoreland County violated the state constitution when commissioners there decided to purchase nearly 750 electronic machine without first having a referendum on the purchase. "Commonwealth Court will be making a decision for all 67 counties," Caruso said. "There is no reason to rush into this. They (Luzerne County) did the right thing today."
This rush to fix a problem in areas of the country where none exist is going to have some very bad results. Last year, the state decertified UniLect voting machines used in Beaver County after the machines undercounted the 2004 presidential vote. There is also another lawsuit that alleges the state has not performed adequate security testing of these machines.
HARRISBURG - Critics of electronic voting machines have sued Secretary of State Pedro Cortes seeking to block county purchase of the new machines by the May primary and a redo of machine certification. The Coalition for Voting Integrity, a statewide group with origins in Bucks County, says Cortes, as head of the Pennsylvania Department of State, has not applied uniform standards in certifying nearly two dozen new electronic machines. The group argues its constitutional voting rights are being violated because the department has not adequately checked the new machines for their reliability and security. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Commonwealth Court, points to the department's denial in certification of one of Diebold's AccuVote optical-scan machines, in part, because it didn't pass a hacking test done by a Finnish security expert in June 2005. The department did not consider or perform hacking tests on other voting machines before certifying them, the lawsuit contends.
"I don't need a (party) committeeman anymore," said the coalition's attorney, Lawrence Otter. "I'll just have a high school computer geek hanging outside the polling place and fixing votes as I see fit."
Another law is making it harder to register to vote. You now have to provide your drivers license or Social Security number and if you provide one when you should have provided the other your registration may not be processed or you could be charged with perjury! Taken together these changes will discourage people from voting.
Note: After I wrote this I found a very good analysis of this question over at Lou's List.
6 comments:
The only people it will discourage are lazy people not amenable to change who don't understand the significance of politics. Or people who don't belong voting because they aren't really citizens or are criminals....no wonder the liberals think this is a bad idea. They'll lose more votes now. Where is the ACLU Gort? Don't you have them on speed dial?
Hey nurse, if somebody registers to vote, they should be allowed to vote. During the 2000 election I responded to 10 calls at precincts that were staffed with GOP hacks challenging people without cause. As soon as I arrived, they stopped the challenge. Heck, I'm not even a lawyer and they stopped the challenge.
But hey, never mind that this week we just celebrated MLK's birthday and that the right to vote came out of that very same movement for too many people.
Nursing is a great field! You say it as though it's an insult?
WOW! You really are defending criminals.
Let me ask you...
Do you or do you not think criminals voting is a conflict of interest?
Gort, what did Anthony Romero have to say?
One more thing. I post when I copy stuff from Drudge, its an excellent source for news. More so, I always link it when I copy stuff or don't make my own "spin off" of it.
My material is not only often comical, but insightfuly and origional.
I don't think I said anything about criminals. But now that you brought it up why shouldn't someone who made a mistake and served their time be allowed to vote? Are you saying that someone who was convicted of drunk driving or was locked up because they fell behind on child support payments be banned from voting forever? It suggests to me that people who want to be able to vote again are showing a desire participate in a positive way and keep their nose clean. In fact I know a couple of people who are presently banned from voting that would vote Republican if they could.
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers with my ribbing. And I have to agree that I also find some of your stuff "comical."
I wasn't insulting nurses. I was insulting a person who calls himself doctor when he is a nurse. I don't claim to be a congressman b/c I have worked as a legislative aide.
And you need to learn what a conflict of interest is. A conflict of interest is when somebody stands to gain material benefits from a decision that he/she makes. So no, it's not a conflict of interest for criminals to vote. The question you should be asking is whether or not people who have undergone due process to revoke life or liberty should be able to be a part of the democratic process. There is certainly debate to be had in that matter.
I would like to see the rights of anybody who has been deemed through due process to have voting requirements revoked. However, I don't think somebody who made a mistake at age 18 should be forced to suffer when he is out of prison for 20 years and is now 50 years old. I would also like to see some uniformity in the process so that people in Texas don't have to face different franchise penalties than the people in Virginia, which is the case.
I would also like to see all of those white collar criminals face the same penalties that their counterparts face. But my guess is that franchise is a right that is defended for some criminals and not others.
Post a Comment