NYS Green Party SUPPORTS Optical Scan Voting?!

Green Party of New York State Backs Optical Scan Voting Machines

The Green Party of New York State (GPNYS) today announced its preference for precinct-based Paper Ballot / Optical Scan (PBOS) voting machines as the most practical method for New York State to comply with the requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Citing studies provided by New Yorkers for Verified Voting and wheresthepaper.org documenting the many failures of, and problems with, Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) touch-screen voting machines, GPNYS said of the choices being offered to voters in New York State, only PBOS meets the requirements necessary for accurate and transparent elections. In opting for PBOS, GPNYS is proclaiming its opposition to DRE’s and their inherent flaws. If these are the only choices in the race to comply with HAVA, then we must go with the method that’s the safest.

The Green Party of New York State acknowledges the reservations many have with adopting electronic systems in the wake of the 2004 election, but at the same time point out that our choices have been limited by misunderstanding of HAVA requirements by legislators who hold the mistaken belief that we must acquire some type of electronic voting machines.

It should be noted that PBOS is not GPNYS’ first choice, or necessarily the best choice. Greens would have preferred full-paper ballot elections, a system that is used successfully in many countries including Canada. Opponents of this method believe it’s too time consuming and subject to fraud despite its widespread use.

Another acceptable choice for Greens would have been to retain our present lever machines. These machines have proven their reliability for decades. They’re easily maintained, even by poll workers, but have fallen into disrepair by the misperception that they’re outdated, and by the allure of modern systems. They were built to last 150 years and parts for these machines, despite statements to the contrary, are still readily available from the manufacturer. Neither of these methods is precluded by HAVA. However, state legislators have all but eliminated these choices from the discussion, having opted for the more expensive electronic systems. They’ve further muddied the waters by throwing the choice of voting systems to county election officials who, for the most part, were not involved in the original decision making process. The result may be a hodge-podge of incompatible systems.

http://www.gpnys.org/

with proper controls. You have a paper ballot that can be hand counted if needed. It is more reliable than touch screens and costs a lot less to operate.
But the compilers can be rigged like any computer compilers, so the system needs to have a mandatory random sample of precincts that are hand counted later as a check, or a combination of some recounted on a different compiler and some hand counted.

I live in San Bernardino county, the geographically largest county in the nation. We have optical scan. I vote by absentee, but I get the same ballot that everybody else gets.

Advantages:

These are auditable. One can read them just as easily as a paper ballot. Why? Because they are a paper ballot.

If we are going to count ballots by computer, this is probably the safest way to do it.

Nota bene. If you are going to recount mark sense ballots it is imperative that a random sample of precincts be hand counted in addition to ballots being run through the mark sense readers again. If there is a significant difference between the sample hand count and the mark sense count--enough to put the election in question--an entire hand count should be ordered.

And ditto reply 1 & 2.

"However, state legislators have all but eliminated these choices from the discussion, having opted for the more expensive electronic systems."

Wrong!

NY Election Law only states that THE DECISION of whether to replace lever machines must be made by 2007 -- NOT that they MUST be replaced.

But thanks to the Greens for standing up for election integrity.

I just find it incredible that the Greens were ALL about voter transparency, yet now they are willing to make concessions...