no matter what other processes are used to improve the integrity of vote counting, post-election auditing has to be part of the mix ... an audit should be performed comparing the machine totals to paper totals either in every precinct or at least in an adequate sample of precincts ... there is no excuse not to do this ...
the new guy the county in the story just hired to "help with elections" stated: "I always tend to operate under the assumption that people are operating in good faith." ... that attitude has got to be changed ...
source:
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/news-story.php?story=205502A new study raises serious questions about whether Diebold touch-screen voting devices used in more than half of Ohio's counties produce accurate results, but Diebold insists the machines can be trusted and that the study is flawed.
A three-month review of Diebold electronic voting machines used in Cuyahoga County during the May primary concluded that the votes recorded electronically and on paper receipts did not always match.
“(T)he election system, in its entirety, exhibits shortcomings with extremely serious consequences, especially in the event of a close election,” concludes the study, released yesterday by Election Science Institute of San Francisco, Calif., or ESI.
“These shortcomings merit urgent attention. Relying on this system in its present state should be viewed as a calculated risk,” the study said. <skip>
With suspicions of mischief in Ohio's 2004 presidential election still percolating, Democrats yesterday argued the report raises concerns about how Blackwell implemented the new machines and the state's ability to accurately count or recount votes in a close election.
“This is historic because the report gives us empirical evidence of faulty procedures that affect the integrity of our most Democratic process, which is voting,” said Jennifer Brunner, Democratic nominee for secretary of state. “It should give every voter pause and great concern.”