DEPARTMENTS
ANTI-WAR
DEATH PENALTY
ELECTIONS
ENVIRONMENT
GLBT ISSUES
HEMP
INTERNATIONAL
NATIONAL
REVIEWS
|
Departments Election Issues Does ES&S really want to sell the Automark machines? A few months later, when ES&S representative Mike Devereaux praised the AutoMARK over touch screens, it appeared that ES&S had partnered with ATS in order to take advantage of the growing demand for paper ballots.[2] The company's subsequent business decisions seem to say otherwise. ATS describes their AutoMARK voting system as “a ballot marking system designed to provide privacy and accessibility to voters who are blind, vision-impaired, or have a disability or condition that would make it difficult or impossible to mark a ballot in the usual way. In addition, it provides language assistance to voters who are more comfortable speaking an alternative language or who have reading difficulties. The AutoMark voter assist terminal has been developed with input from election authorities and disability organizations, and meets all of the requirements of “The Help America Vote Act of 2002.”” The system marks a ballot that is inserted into the machine. That ballot is then either read by a precinct based optical scan machine or is put into a ballot box and read, later, by a central count optical scan machine; or by hand. In February of 2005, Bo Lipari of New York Verified Voting asked ATS to bring a complete voting system (AutoMARK touch screen and an ES&S precinct based optical scan machine) to New York so the state legislators could look at the system in an informal setting and see how it operates. ATS brought the system and set it up for the legislators in Albany. Unfortunately, a lobbyist for ES&S happened to walk by the demonstration and almost immediately told the ATS representatives to remove the equipment. According to a source close to the issue, a protracted discussion between ES&S representatives and ATS ensued in which ES&S refused to allow the system to be shown. Finally a compromise was reached. ATS was allowed to show the AutoMARK in New York State but without any optical scan machine to complete the system. Following this incident one state assemblywoman, Sandra R. Galef, (D,I,WF-Ossining, NY), was interviewed by The Legislative Gazette, which reported, “Galef believes that corporate interests were fueling previous support for DRE machines. Lobbyists and the president of ES&S, a voting machine manufacturer, told her that New York State was a touch-screen machine state. She responded by saying, “When was that decision made? We’ve [Legislature] never voted on it, New York doesn’t have a voting system yet.”[3] The New York Daily News also reported this story; “All the major companies offer both types of equipment” (optical scan and DRE), “and they deny promoting one technology over another. But they mysteriously avoid making the cheaper equipment available for inspection. At the Capitol recently, a lobbyist managed to shut down a demonstration of optical scanning by getting his client to pull its machine from the display. “Assemblywoman Sandra Galef of Westchester called the company to object and was told that New York is "a touch-screen state." “"I said, 'We are?'" Galef recalled. "I'm a legislator. I don't think I've voted on anything." “"Why are the vendors deciding what type of state New York State should be?" asks Bo Lipari of Ithaca, a retired software engineer who founded New Yorkers for Verified Voting. "We ought to be able to look at all our alternatives and make a rational choice."”[4] Why would ES&S not want to sell the system that everyone has been waiting for? Why would they not want to provide the state of New York with a choice of voting systems? Is this evidence that ES&S is trying to control the market and make decisions for its customers? A source has told this reporter that ES&S sales representatives are being paid a much higher commission rate for selling their DRE system than they are for the AutoMARK system. ES&S is clearly controlling the marketing of their systems by offering a far less lucrative reward for selling ATS systems than for products produced by ES&S. Is this more evidence that ES&S is attempting to keep the sales of the AutoMARK system to a minimum? On May 6, 2005 the AutoMARK voting system completed the last testing with an Independent Test Authority enabling the system to be qualified to the federal standards within days. This opens the doors to all of the states that require federal qualification before a voting system can be certified and sold in the state. This success should have been big news for AutoMARK and for their partner in sales, ES&S. I called AutoMARK to ask if they were going to be sending out a Press Release to announce their successful ITA testing. I was told that a press release would be sent out the following Monday. On Monday I searched the wires and found no Press Release. I then called AutoMARK and asked about the promised release. I was told that ES&S wanted to review the release before it was sent out. In fact, as I found out a few days later, a release was written by ES&S but it only appeared on their website not in the news. AutoMARK also issued a Press Release but it, too, went only on their website. Nothing was sent to the business-wires as normally happens with corporate news. Essentially, ES&S controlled the news and kept this announcement as secret as they could. Is this even more evidence that ES&S is attempting to keep the sales of the AutoMARK system to a minimum? There is no doubt that many elections officials and voters have been looking forward to the qualification of the AutoMARK voting system. South Dakota didn’t wait for federal qualification. They bought AutoMARK's system for $5,400 per machine, according to a state election official. Bowie County, Texas was quoted an average price of $5,500 for only 36 of the machines.[5] A Texarkana newspaper reported that the cost per machine to them was $5,400.[6] These seem to be fair prices though sources say $4950.00 was quoted in many locations last year. “Myth Breakers: Facts About Electronic Elections” provides the following information, collected before the ATS and ES&S agreement: “According to AutoMARK Technical Systems (formerly Vogue Elections Systems), which manufactures a ballot-marking device, the cost for the device would be comparable to the cost of a DRE with a printer attached.”[7] Why then did ES&S, quote a price of $6,500 per machine to Cook County, Illinois, a potential customer with 2650 precincts? Is there any better way to minimize the sales of a product than by inflating the price quoted to its largest customers? Refusing to demo its product to the largest market in the United States, reducing the commission paid to salespeople who sell the product, minimizing publicity about the product's successes, increasing the product price as the size of the contract increases are these marketing techniques designed to take advantage of a business bonanza or are they evidence that ES&S is trying to decide where and whether Americans will be voting on paper? [1] New Ballot Marking Device from ES&S, AutoMARK Makes Optical Scan Voting Accessible to Voters with Disabilities; Breakthrough Technology Increases Participation in Democratic Process. March 31, 2004 ES&S Press Release. Archived at http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=1751 [2] Election commission hears last pitch on vote machines. Benton Courier. June 25, 2004. By Richard Duke, Courier Staff. http://www.bentoncourier.com/articles/2004/12/22/news/46tnews.txt [3] http://www.legislativegazette.com/read_more.php?story=546 “Optical vote scan machines cheaper, more accurate, group says”, By JARRETT CARROLL, The Legislative Gazette, April 20, 2005 [4] http://www.nydailynews.com/03-09-2005/news/ideas_opinions/story/288160p-246677c.html “Put polling machines to a vote”, New York Daily News, March 09, 2005 [5] http://www.texarkanagazette.com/articles/2005/04/26/local_news/news/news10.txt By GREG BISCHOF Texarkana Gazette April 26, 2005 [6] http://www.thevictoriaadvocate.com/local/local/story/2744088p-3176176c.html By BARRY HALVORSON Victoria Advocate April 28, 2005 [7] “Myth Breakers: Facts About Electronic Elections”, by Ellen Theisen VotersUnite.Org, pg. 52 John Gideon Information Manager www.votersunite.org and www.votetrustusa.org VotersUnite! is a national non-partisan organization dedicated to fair and accurate elections. It focuses on distributing well-researched information to elections officials, elected officials, the media, and the public; as well as providing activists with information they need to work toward transparent elections in their communities. |
|
Recent Election Issues Articles An open letter to the Election Assistance Commission Diebold hack proven in county test! Diebold Inc. in a tailspin after resignation of CEO and filing of a class action fraud lawsuit Orr thinks machines make voting simpler, more secure Diebold "hack test" - Sec. State / Black Box Lawyer square off With new legislation, Ohio Republicans plan holiday burial for American Democracy Important daily voting news Poll shock Ohio's Diebold Debacle: New machines call election results into question Diebold attempts to evade election transparency laws Supreme Court stabs another GOP knife into US democracy by upholding ex-felon vote ban Has American Democracy died an electronic death in Ohio 2005's referenda defeats? What John Kerry definitely said about 2004’s stolen election and why it's killing American democracy Scrap the "secret" ballot - return to open voting Clarification of NEDA's withdrawal of Ohio exit poll paper Clarification of NEDA's withdrawal of Ohio exit poll paper Watergate-style money laundering indictments stoke Ohio's stolen election fires Powerful Government Accountability Office report confirms key 2004 stolen election findings Did you erase your own vote? Why can't the left face the Stolen Elections of 2004 & 2008? Carter/Baker Report can't face how the GOP stole America's 2004 election & is rigging 2008 Two Steps Forward, One Step Back FEMA Chief Brown Paid Millions in False Claims to Help Bush Win Fla. Votes Ohio recount lawsuit set for trial; election workers indicted Ohio Governor's ethics violations expose money trail to stolen 2004 election Diebold's failure in California Did the GOP steal another Ohio Election? Conyers-Kaptur seek special counsel for Noe probe Dramatic new charges deepen link between Ohio's "Coingate," Voinovich mob connections, and the theft of the 2004 election None dare call it stolen - Ohio, the election, and America's servile press Civic Engagement and the Restoration of Community from a voter activist’s view My report from Hocking County, July 5, 2005: An update on Sherole Eaton's unfolding Story Handbook for Ohio Voter Activists, Version 2.0 Direct testimony: Presented to Election Assessment Hearing Log Cabin Republicans in Ohio With a limp election theft report, Dems prove why they're unworthy Voting problems and uncounted votes in Lucas County, Ohio The DNC 2004 Election Report: An indictment of incompetence Corporate control of the election process Introduction: Did George W. Bush steal America's 2004 election? Voter Confidence Committee Calls For Rejection of CA Special Election Activists from 25 states lobby for paper ballots on June 9 and 10 Fear of riffraff Electoral Politics and the War: Lessons from 2004 and What the Anti-War Movement Should do in 2006 Optical scan machines hacked in Florida Does ES&S really want to sell the Automark machines? Attack on election board whistleblower and leaked Blackwell threats re-fire Ohio's election theft scandal Franklin County, Ohio Election Procedures – April and May 2005 Carter Gets It – But Will His Electoral Commission? Voter Perceptions and Political Deceptions: Federal, Ohio and Knox Electoral reform groups call for James Baker's resignation from electoral reform commission National Conference on Election Reform Opens with Civil Rights Panel View from Another Planet Democrats! Paper “Trails” Aren’t Good Enough. Count The Damn Ballots! Democrats, Paper ‘Trails’ Aren’t Good Enough; Count The Damn Ballots! Scientific Analysis Suggests Presidential Vote Counts May Have Been Altered As Blackwell Says, Ohio’s in 2004 was a National Model Understanding the difference between paper ballots and paper audit trails Save Our Democracy Republicans maneuvering to get Voting Rights Act killed Legal filing highlights Blackwell's hypocrisy in Ohio recount case Selma 40 Years Later Exit Poll Madness - Analyst Steve Freeman & Company Offer False Choice Libertarians To Testify in Ohio House: Modernize Ohio's Election Laws The New Voting Rights Movement Begins Here Today Voting in America The Mighty Texas Strike Force Blackwell presidential election sanctions briefs Representative Conyers and others file amicus brief in Ohio Supreme Court Congresswoman Tubbs Jones Outraged at Blackwell's Failure to Appear During House Administration Hearing Ohio Attorney-General's attack on election protection attorneys draws mountain of documentation on state's stolen election, including new study on exit polls Prominent Statisticians Refute 'Explanation' of 2004 U.S. Exit Poll Discrepancies in New Edison/Mitofsky Report and Urge Investigation of U.S. Presidential Election Results The last man to concede... Report on Washington DC, January 6, 2005 Arkansas in 2004: Did Bush Really Win? New links Voting Problems and Uncounted Votes in Lucas County, Ohio Plan B: Parallel Elections & Signed Ballots Open Letter to Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro from Representative John Conyers, Jr. Open Letter to Warren Mitofsky and Larry Rosin from Representative John Conyers, Jr. Ohio's GOP Attorney General launches revenge attack on Election Protection legal team What are they hiding in New Mexico? In the Shadow of Dr. King, counting the vote remains a civil rights issue Did the “Liberal Media” Get the 2004 Election All Wrong?
'COUNT EVERY VOTE. EVERY VOTE COUNTS' Moss v. Bush moves on and movement continues Rally Continues Drive for Democracy Estimated vote count in Ohio January 6 Washington, D.C. rally report Together, we moved three mountains What the election challenge means Progressive Democrats lead historic voting rights protest as Congress ratifies flawed 2004 Electoral College tally Arnebeck letter to Congress re Presidential Electoral Challenge Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-OH contested the election The "Crime of November 2": The human side of how Bush stole Ohio, and why Congress must investigate rather than ratify the Electoral College (Part Two of Two) Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff Seven key reasons why the vote must be challenged at the electoral college Ten preliminary reasons why the Bush vote does not compute, and why Congress must investigate rather than certify the Electoral College (Part One of Two) Verified election contest petitions and documents in Ohio Supreme Court Distribution of voting machines by county in Ohio Did We Bounce An Election? Presidential election congressional hearing transcript Read Election Issues Articles by Year: |
FREE PRESS EMAIL UPDATE
Donate to the Free Press Election Protection Fund to help us investigate and monitor election fraud in this year's election.
FOLLOW US ON
twitter
facebook
SEARCH THE FREEPRESS
1021 E. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43205 | 614.253.2571 | truth@freepress.org
All content © 1970-2012 The Columbus Free Press
Disclaimer