Coalition for Voting Integrity, the home of the Voice of the Voters

Slots vs. DREs

Home
SaveOurVote.com
Voice of the Voters! Internet/Radio
Voting News
Banfield v. Cortés
2009 Holt Bill
Editorials
Letters
Videos
Voting Machine Allocation
Reports
*GAO Reports*
Take Action!
Legislative Efforts
Voting Principles
Vision and Principles
Pollwatching Kit
Facts & FAQs
Rebuttal re Danaher
Danaher Reexamination Request
Redistricting
Blogs, Groups
Cost Comparisons
2008 Municipal Resolutions
2005 Municipal Resolutions
Lou Dobbs
Slideshow
Lehigh and Northampton Counties
Facts about HAVA
Vote-PAD
New York Times
Join Us!
Contact Us
Contact Your PA Legislators
Donate
Links
Supportive Candidates
Songs
Voting Forum October 2005
Voting Integrity Forum, June 2005


Slots vs. DREs

 

by Mike Doyle, Retired Research Scientist

Americans are taught to be proud of their governmental institutions and the constitution on which they are founded. The American constitution has been an inspiration for democracy around the world.

 

Often, the only tangible action connecting the voter to those who represent them in their Congress and the White House is the vote. Many voters were surprised and dismayed at the confusion and unseemliness of the Florida vote in 2000 and the resolution of that Presidential race by the US Supreme Court in December 2000 when they stopped the recount. This international embarrassment was simply due to our inability to count the votes with confidence and our prior neglect of the accuracy and integrity of the voting process.

 

In an attempt to rectify this deficiency Congress passed the HAVA Act, which, among other things, attempts to set standards for voting technology. As a consequence the Pennsylvania State Plan will likely force many counties, including Bucks County, to adopt DRE, direct recording electronic (‘computer’) voting machines to replace their mechanical lever machines before the 2006 elections.

 

What many voters fail to appreciate is the lack of a rigorous quality control system for DRE voting technology. The machines are not secure against deliberate fraud, are demonstrably unreliable, and they are costly to maintain.

 

The security issue is easily confirmed by comparing the measures adopted to detect fraud in electronic slot machines as opposed to DRE voting machines.

.
 
 Slot machines
 
 DRE voting machines
 
 Software open to state
 inspection and review
 
                Yes
 
                    No
 
 Ethical standards
 for vendors
 
                Yes
 
                    No
 
 Certification labs
 independent
 from vendors
 
                Yes
 
                    No
 
 Random audits
 of equipment
 
                Yes
 
                    No
 
 Continuous
 upgrading of
 quality standards
 
                Yes
 
                    No

Clearly the integrity of slot machines is more important than that of DRE voting machines!

 

And how does the State of Nevada approach this issue with respect to their own DRE voting machines? They are the exception that proves the rule; they apply the same standards to DRE voting machines that they apply to slot machines.

 

New York Times Editorial, June 13, 2004: Gambling on Voting

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/opinion/13SUN1.html

 

Nevada improves odds with e-vote: Slot machine experts consulted on voting technology

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/28/nevada.evote/

.