Reply #4: The scanner replacement would require audits we can't afford, are not pushing for. [View All]

[MarjorieG]

The only way the scanner to be considered even comparable would require procedures we won't do, and the election boards don't have the time and will to do.

We highlight computer security, when the issue is really election security with public observance and transparence. Anything else is undemocratic and results that can't be trusted. Not to mention soaring costs when we employ outside services and hire extra poll workers tht are unavailable.

Mechanical is always more secure than electronics, especially at the price we're paying for these units, and a voting proces which must remain anonymous, not allowing or checks and balances required of any electronic process: bank ATM and online sales transactions.

The idea of all interconnecting electronic machines, databases, central tabulators rely on systems that work, and they don't. The Diebold tabulator was found to delete audit logs.

All this tearing apart of our elections started as a business plan by the voting machine companies, with causing paper problems in 2000 to jumpstart. Now we have unreliable equipment throughout the country that the Feds are not requiring states change. We're talking paperless recording and counting machines that weren't even certified and tested for security.

Why then push NY, when we have a system far more accurate that we can operate and observe. Arguments for replacement seem phony and hollow.