Other Editorials

Hans Off Our Vote, Finally

 Update: Without comment, van Spakvosky comments on his withdrawl with an WSJ Op-Ed <read> Hans van Spakvosky has withdrawn his nomination to the Federal Elections Commission. As reported here and elsewhere, Hans is just not the person we would want messing with our votes <read>

No Paper, No Problem*

We favor paper filled out by voters, followed by optical scan, followed by a sufficient audit, just like 100%** of computer scientists. * unless you want your vote actually counted and counted correctly ** very vary small margin of error, such as Michael Shamos. Here is an example from Shamos’ state of the start of […]

Why We Vote: To Keep A Republic

Robert Koehler, Huffington Post, Keep The Republic, <read> The ground feels a little soft, but we’re going to stand it. Premise one: Having a fair election — all votes counted, all who are eligible and want to vote allowed to vote — is far, far more important, even in 2008, than who wins. Premise two: […]

Courant Editorial: Don’t Overlook The Assumptions

We agree with the overall thrust and purpose of the editorial, to support the encoding in statute of privacy measures in the polling place to protect secret ballot and voters’ confidence in privacy.

Where we disagree is with some of the assumptions of the ediorial which subtely reaffirm the Courant’s blind faith in the integrity of our optical scan systems

American Statistical Association: Hard Copy Audits Critical To Election Integrity

Press Release: American Statistical Association Calls for Audits to Increase Confidence in Electoral Outcomes, ASA Board adopts position on Electoral Integrity <release> . This should erase all lingering doubt on the part of legislators, election officials, and non-statisticians: “Trustworthy elections demand integrity throughout the entire electoral process, from voting laws and regulations to details of […]

Doth The Courant Protest Too Much?

Perhaps there is one thing worse than a voting system we cannot trust, outsourced, and unaudited. It is a media we cannot trust, downsized, outsourced, bent only on profits, oligarchical, and failing to actually do the work necessary to do the research and reporting necessary for democracy.

DemocracyNow! Interviews New York Times Author

<read, listen, view> More scary and devastating than reading the article in the New York Times Magazine. Still does not fully address the similar issues of optical scan which are only solved with sufficient post-election audits. Yes, recounts of the paper from optical scan is vary reassuring, yet recounts are seldom done, even in cases […]

New York Times: Can You Count On Voting Machines?

New York Times Magazine article today, Can You Count On Voting Machines? <read> This is a large, significant article primarily focused on touch screen voting machines. Hailed by advocates as significant because the New York Times is recognizing problems with voting machines. Yet, also criticized by advocates for selective quotes and statements that do not […]

Courant Fresh Talk: Voting: Too Far From Online

Fresh Talk editorial by Courant intern asks question and answers well: <read> Why is it when more and more Americans spend more and more of their time at a computer, we still having a voting system that doesn’t incorporate online capabilities? …Several computer scientists took part in 2004 in federally funded program called the Secure […]

Myth-Based Voting

Your editorial “Fail-Safe Voting?”, September 20, 2007, could be titled “Myth-Based Voting?”.