Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (FL) 2004 - Voting Equipment Status U... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
pat_vesely
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: pat_vesely
Post Number: 555
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:41 pm: | 
|
(From BBV Admin): The document below appears to have been removed from the Sec. State's Web site. Here is a link to an archived copy: http://www.bbvdocs.org/FL/state/2004-voting-equipment-status-pressrelease.pdf
(32 KB)
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Glenda E. Hood
Secretary of State
Voting Equipment Status Updates from
Vendors as of April 6, 2004
The following document highlights the status of verifiable paper ballot machinery.
The Department of State, Division of Elections has been in routine contact with both vendors and national independent testing laboratories inquiring about printers and their development but we currently have no applications from any vendors for a voter verifiable paper trail machine.
No vendor has any machines that will be available before the 2004 election cycle.
Standards for new technology will surely be developed by the newly appointed Election Assistance Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
When new technology such as companion printer equipment is fully developed, we stand ready to work with vendors through the certification process.
Vendor: Sequoia Pacific
Status: President, Tracey Graham, recently testified before the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee that, although they are working on prototypes of voter verifiable paper ballots, and they have a contract to provide untested prototypes to certain of their current customers, they would not have such a device ready for certification and testing in Florida in time for the 2004 election cycle.
Vendor: Diebold
Status: Don Vopolenski has stated that they have a prototype "on the drawing board" but did not see any sense or need to have it tested because he believes that there are not standards for such equipment. He said that in time, when standards are set for such devices, they would bring a product to market.
Vendor: ES&S
Status: The Department of State has received a letter from ES&S President, Aldo Tesi which states that although they have a working prototype, they will not put it into production until standards are published. He estimates the time from starting to put the device into production to achieving certification would span 8 to 10 months.
Vendor: Wyle Laboratories
Status: The Department of State has been in contact with Mr. Jim Dearman who has stated that Wyle had tested voter verifiable ballot machines from two companies and that the machines worked. He would not identify the companies. When asked if Diebold, Sequoia or ES&S had submitted anything to Wyle, Mr. Dearman said he had not received a voter verifiable ballot machine from any of these companies.
Vendor: Cyber Laboratories
Status: The Department of State has spoken with Ms. Jennifer Price at Cyber Laboratories who states that she had successfully tested the election management software for the Avante System which includes Voter Verifiable Ballots. She did not do functional testing on the system.
Vendor: Vogue AutoMark
Status: The Department of State recently entertained a demo of the Vogue AutoMark system which uses a touch screen device to mark an optical scan ballot. They said they expected to submit their machine to Wyle and Cyber in the near future.
They said they would like for The Department of State to do joint testing with the labs. On March 31, 2004, Vogue entered a marketing agreement with ES&S. The Department of State has contacted ES&S and inquired as to when they might begin Florida Certification. They said that Vogue submitted the device to Wyle Laboratories just before their agreement was reached. ES&S is in the process of taking over the certification planning.
The Department of State encouraged them to bring it in for Florida Certification as soon as possible. They promised to discuss their plans with The Department of State in the near future.
Vendor: Hart Intercivic
Status: Mr. Neil McQure said that they do not have anything as far as a voter verifiable paper ballot. He said that should Hart develop such a device, he has no interest in applying for Florida Certification.
Vendor: Avante
Status: Ms. Cynthia Chu states that they do have a device, The Vote Trakker EVC308, "certified" in June 2002. The NASED number for the device is: NASED# 0114-4.4.3 - 1990. She said that they do not plan to pursue certification in Florida because it is too expensive. Ms. Toshia Brown on our staff was conducting the interview and told Ms. Chu that it really was not expensive because all vendors have to do is reimburse the State of Florida for our out of pocket expenses such as travel and that we frequently hold testing at the vendor's headquarters so that the vendors can have more of their own staff involved without incurring a lot of travel cost. Ms. Chu said that she was not aware of that. She asked for more information and Ms. Brown gave her the address of the Florida Voting Systems Standards listed on The Department of State website.
Vendor: Unilect
Status: Mr. Jack Gerbel said that they do have a prototype in development but have no real interest in bringing it into production unless one of his customers mandates it. He stated that he believes the idea of a voter verifiable paper ballot is a bad idea and he's hoping that cooler heads will prevail and the topic will be dropped.
Vendor: Micro Vote
Status: Mr. Steve Shamo said that they do not have a voter verifiable paper ballot and they are not interested in applying for Florida Certification at any point in the near future.
Vendor: AccuPoll, Inc.
Status: On March 26, 2004, AccuPoll, Inc. announced federal qualification of its voting system by the National Association of State Election Directors. We are currently reviewing the work product of Wyle Laboratories on that system. It appears that the AccuPoll Voter Interface Device was determined by Wyle to meet the 1990 Federal Election Commission Voting Systems Standards. The system was not qualified to the 2002 Federal Election Commission Voting Systems Standards. We are in the process of reviewing their published materials. At the conclusion of that work we will write them, inviting them to bring their device in for Certification and inquiring when the device will go into actual production and be ready for the market.
Pending Certification Applications as of April 2004 The Department of State is scheduled to begin Phase One certification testing of the Diebold Touch Screen System on April 13, 2004. Phase one testing sets the Audit and Validation benchmark of the system and exercises its pre-election functionalities. If Phase One testing is successful, The Department of State could begin Phase Two testing as soon as the end of the month. Phase Two simulates actual election use of the system to conduct a primary and general election.
On March 26, 2004 The Department of State received two applications from ES&S. One is for modifications to their Optech Product lne which will be a blended system of the iVotronic Touch Screen with the Optech mark-sense system. The other is for upgrades to the iVotronic Touch Screen system. Both of these applications are under review. The reviews are scheduled to be completed no later than April 9, 2004.
The Capitol • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 • (850)245-6500
http://www.dos.state.fl.us |
flower
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: flower
Post Number: 31
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
Wow. So much to be nauseated by. I begin to see why elections officials go with Diebold and ES&S.
Hart: "he has no interest in applying for Florida Certification"
Unilect: "he believes the idea of a voter verified paper ballot is a bad idea and he's hoping that cooler heads will prevail and the topic will be dropped"
Micro Vote: "not interested in applying for Florida Certification at any point in the near future"
I'm particularly disturbed by the last paragraph. "Phase one testing sets the Audit and Validation benchmark of the system and exercises its pre-election functionalities." I guess that means there is an audit and valuation benchmark. Does anyone know what it is? Why we can't seem to get useful audit information out of florida (other than the whole obstructive official thing...)? |
Stephen Mellor
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Echidna2
Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 - 8:43 am: |
|
It is beyond outrageous that the very foundation of our Democratic process should be controlled by venal corporate interests , and we citizens,
subject to their whims. The current administration has demonstrated time and again that , given the chance, politicians and corporations will take "the low road" . It is imperative that we force a change in the electoral process that (at least) lets the will of the people be expressed (in a veriafiable form). |
|
|
