Comments on: Guilford County Commissioners Vote “Yes” on DREs

By: Joyce McCloy

Joyce McCloy — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:34:00 +0000

The Guilford County Board of Elections was lobbied hard by citizens of Guilford, but relegated to status of conspiracy theorists.

The Guilford County Director of Elections, George Nixon Gilbert, is very anti paper. He went to the state legislature to lobby against voter verified paper ballots, and even predicted that the very machine he is buying for Guilford County is a horrible idea.

The touchscreen machines print the “ballot” on a journal tape, or reel.
It uses thermal paper. One reel may hold about 150 ballots before it has to be changed, and testimony to the EAC advises that it takes about 1 hour to hand/eye recount 4 of these ballots.

At 4 ballots in an hour, that amounts to taking about 37.5 hours to recount an entire reel, of 150 votes.

That is why the Green Party abandoned recounting Nevada.

see http://www.ncvoter.net/guilford.html for more on Gilbert’s efforts to prevent S 223 from being passed, and his anti paper background.

By: Plead the First » Blog Archive » Cartoon: Touchscreen Voting

Plead the First » Blog Archive » Cartoon: Touchscreen Voting — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:19:41 +0000

[...] As previously noted, computerized DREs are now the voting machines of choice for Guilford County, so keep a close eye on your vote! [...]

By: Brenda Bowers

Brenda Bowers — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:54:13 +0000

I have participated in hand counts of contested elections and can tell you that with no reservations the process is difficult at best. Having to deal with a flimsy paper roll such as that in a cash register will be a fiasco. By the time these slips of cheap sawdust and paste are passed thru a few hands as needs to be done for accuracy they will no longer be legible; then watch the law suits over election outcomes begin. You should worry about the security of your vote Sue and so should the rest of us.

By: Roch101

Roch101 — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:18:15 +0000

Nothing is taken away by the voter (such a “receipt” could be a ticket to vote selling). With the machines that were approved, a paper scroll that the voter can view is printed as you cast your ballot. It’s like a cash register roll, but it is under glass and stays in the machine. (Until removed by a poll worker). It can be used to audit the vote (random comparrisons of the paper record with the electronic record as now required by state law) and it can be used for a mannual hand recount if necessary.

By: PotatoStew

PotatoStew — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:03:00 +0000

I was under the impression that the paper trail consisted of more or less a receipt that was taken away by the voter. Did I misunderstand? Is the paper record kept by the BoE, and can it be used by them to verify the vote count later?

By: Roch101

Roch101 — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:33:31 +0000

Actually Sue, that’s one thing the verified voting advocates can count as a success. Although they didn’t get the system they considered the best, their earlier efforts with the state legislature did assure that last night’s decision had to be, one way or antoher, for a system that includes a paper trail. The system chosen does keep a paper record of the ballots.

By: SUe

SUe — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:28:18 +0000

No paper trail. Sounds about right for our commishes. You think they really understand the implications of this decision? I never USED to worry about the security of my vote.

By: Brenda Bowers

Brenda Bowers — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:20:33 +0000

Gee Whiz, People, you all sound a bit surprised at the performance of our esteemed Guilford County Commissioners last night. I thought it was a typically enlightening performance; they had their lines down pat and came in right on cue. As for choosing the Dre voting machines that should have been a foregone conclusion also since from what I have been reading they are the more EXPENSIVE of the two choices.

By: Cara Michele

Cara Michele — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:57:36 +0000

I thought Steve Arnold was just trying to say “Cheaters will find a way to cheat,” no matter what voting method is used. So his comment made sense to me in that context. There’s no fraudproof voting system.

Apart from that, I found it ironic that the commissioner who most closely questioned the presenters was the one who is embroiled in a voting scandal of her own, and some would say, shouldn’t have been there to cast a vote anyway. Delicious. (But she made good points!)

By: Roch101

Roch101 — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:29:33 +0000

A few had their minds made up it seemed, others, it was quite obvious, were willing to trade their approval of DREs in exchange for having Gilbert drop the idea of “voting centers” — that, not the soundness of the voting system, being the determining factor in their votes.