The image “http://www.votetrustusa.org/images/votetrust-small2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

 

The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information!
State and Local Election Integrity Organizations
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
VoteTrustUSA does not speak on behalf of any of the listed organizations.
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>

   
Around the States

New York: Schedule Slips and Slippery Slopes PDF  | Print |  Email
By Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting   
July 24, 2008
Voting Machines Can’t Meet NY Standards in Time for 2009

This article was posted at Bo Lipari's Blog and is reposted here with permission of the author.

It’s become obvious that New York State’s new voting systems will not be able to complete New York State certification testing in time for the scheduled 2009 rollout. The state sets the highest bar in the nation for approval of voting machines, one that vendors have never been required to meet before. Their performance in New York demonstrates that they are a long, long way from understanding that the public will not stand for poorly designed, badly tested and outrageously overpriced equipment, and a business philosophy of let the customer be damned.

In its July 24 status report SysTest, the contractor performing the state’s testing noted the serious problems and risks to the testing schedule, and cite the reasons that “NYSBOE’s ability to meet its court-mandated timeline for complete and thorough testing is at significant risk for the reasons described below”. Some of the reasons demonstrate the complete lack of quality control on the part of the vendors before they send systems out to New York’s certification site.

It’s unbelievable that these machines, which cost upward of $12,000 apiece, could be delivered for approval with the kind of problems cited in the report:

“Numerous documentation discrepancies, caused in large part by missing information from both Vendors’ documentation, prevent us from finalizing the test procedures in all of the test cases”.

“There is a significant risk, given the remaining allotted time, that the Vendors will be able to address all of the expected discrepancies and SysTest Labs will have sufficient time to regression test the fixes”.

“…the election setup procedures do not match the documentation”.

It goes on like this. The problem is that the voting machine industry has thus far been able to get away with selling expensive equipment that frequently breaks down, failing at a rate that we would never, ever accept for toaster ovens, let alone a machine that counts the vote. But now New York State comes along, and prodded by citizen advocates demanding high certification standards, sets the bar higher than it’s been before. But rather than act like a company that has just signed a multi-million dollar contract and wants to make sure that their products meet all the customer stated requirements prior to shipping it out, the vendors take the same old broken approach – a quickly thrown together, poorly designed product; not validated by user testing; manufactured in haste with no discernable quality control standards; let the buyer beware.

The question now is what will the State Board of Elections do – allow the schedule to slip or compromise the regulations? At their meeting on July 22, there seemed to be agreement that New York should not allow any system to be used that does not meet all of the state’s standards. But there was also talk that the Board of Elections could perhaps overlook what was described as “unimportant” discrepancies from the New York regulations.

This would be a dreadful mistake, for once you start down this slippery slope, there’s no going back - and what was once a shining example becomes a muddy mockery. New York must not reward the vendors for this typically abysmal performance. The State Board of Elections must protect New York’s voters – they must not approve any machines that do not meet every single one of the State’s requirements.

Comment on This Article
You must login to leave comments...
Other Visitors Comments
You must login to see comments...
< Prev   Next >
State Resources
Election Law @ Moritz
Electionline
National Conference of State Legislatures
Verified Voting
Model Legislation
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>
State Pages
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Puerto Rico
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>