Friday, July 09, 2004
My (Chanur's) Letter to the Denver Election Commission
On February 17, 2004 Mr. Howard Cramer of Sequoia Voting Systems stood in front of the Election Commission and straight out lied to you. The fact that he lied is easily verifiable by simply looking at the Sequoia Voting Systems website. The items that he lied about are fundamental to the security and accuracy of
the machines in question.
Here is a quote from the minutes of the Feb. 17 meeting:
Cramer claimed that the problems encountered in Maryland arose from the fact that the state utilizes a system created by the Diebold Company. This system is Windows-based; the Sequoia system is not. Sequoia uses a proprietary operating system, not Windows. The only area in which Sequoia uses Windows is in the voter registration system – not in anything that has to do with voting itself.
Now here is a quote from Sequoia Voting Systems website:
-----------------------------------------
AVC Edge®Features
- The Edge® in tandem with other Sequoia systems, automates some to the
most tedious aspects of election administration, smoothly delivering
your Elections Office into the 21st Century.
- WinEDS, the "Elections Database System for Windows" is Sequoia's
client-server based computer network system. WinEDS is used to
administer all phases of the election cycle, create electronic ballots
for the AVC Edge®, and tally early voting, as well as official election
and absentee votes. WinEDS provides a flexible, easy to use reporting
and information processing tool for the election administrator.
- Ballot set up is accomplished in-house. After election information is
entered, ballots are generated by the central system automatically.
- Auto Activation eliminates the need for the poll worker to manually
activate each ballot. The AVC Edge® automatically activates when a smart
card is inserted by the voter, selecting the correct ballot and any other
options that were incorporated into the card. After activation, the card
is disabled by the AVC Edge® to stop any attempt by the voter to use it
to vote twice.
- Electronic Write-Ins eliminate the problem of interpreting voter intent.
Write-ins are recorded electronically and stored redundantly in the
AVC Edge® and in the Results Cartridge. The write-in votes are
transferred automatically, with all other votes, to the central
Election Database System (WinEDS). Write-in votes for each jurisdiction
can also be printed after polls close.
- Early Voting is another option provided by the AVC Edge®, which can
support thousands of precincts and ballot styles to accommodate
jurisdiction-wide early voting on a single machine.
-----------------------------------------
At the Feb. 17 meeting Mr. Cramer went on to say:
Also, Denver’s (Sequoia) DRE Voting Machines are free standing. They are not connected to anything – not to the Internet or to any other network.
Now, I've only been a computer network administrator for 10 years so I might be wrong but I do believe that "Elections Database System for Windows" means that it runs on Windows. Mr. Cramer was very clear in stating that it does not run on Windows. The term "client-server based computer network system" means that the computers are, for lack of a better word, networked. If the computers are networked then by definition they are connected. Perhaps not by wires, but they are connected none the less. Mr. Cramer was also quite clear that the computers were not connected (networked). Mr. Cramer states that Windows is not used in anything that has to do with "voting", well, he should probably clarify what the website means by "all phases of the election cycle".
This piece from the website, "Write-in votes for each jurisdiction can also be printed after polls close." means that the machines already have the hardware to be able to print, so the cost of $1500 per machine for hardware (that they already have) is ludicrous.
This man came in front of you and lied.
He also misled you on the problems with Sequoia Voting Systems. He was correct about Maryland's problems, but he conveniently left out the problems that Sequoia machines have had in places where they WERE installed. Here are some things that Mr. Cramer overlooked in his assesment of "completely safe":
Ten days after the November 2002 election, Richard Romero, a Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Democrat, noticed that 48,000 people had voted early on unauditable Sequoia touch-screen computers, but only 36,000 votes had been tallied — a 25 percent error. Sequoia vice president Howard Cramer apologized for not mentioning that the same problem had happened before in Clark County, Nevada. A “software patch” was installed (more on that risky procedure later) and Sequoia technicians in Denver e-mailed the “correct” results.
Not only did Cramer fail to mention to Bernalillo County that the problem had happened before in Nevada — just four months later, Sequoia salespersons also failed to mention it while making a sales presentation to Santa Clara County, California. A Santa Clara official tried to jog their memory. According to the minutes of this meeting, “Supervisor McHugh asked one of the vendors about a statistic saying there was a 25 percent error rate. ... No one knew where this number came from and Sequoia said it was incorrect.”
That meeting was held Feb. 11, 2003. Just 20 days before, in Snohomish County, Washington, Sequoia optical-scan machines had failed to record 21 percent of the absentee votes.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a member of the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Advisory Council reports the following: “In July 1996, a public test to certify Clark County’s Sequoia Pacific machine for early voting was conducted. During the test, a cartridge malfunctioned; also, the examiner had difficulty casting his vote. He had to vote 51 times rather than the designated 50, an option not afforded the voter should the machine malfunction in an actual election.
Sometimes they omit testing key systems: The manufacturer of Baltimore’s $6.5 million voting system took responsibility for the computer failures that delayed the November 1999 city election results and vowed to repay the city for overtime and related costs. Phil Foster, regional manager for Sequoia Pacific Voting Equipment Inc., said his company had neglected to update software in a computer that reads the election results. Although it tested some programs, the company did not test that part of the system before the election. Before Sequoia agreed to reimburse the city for the problems — a cost that election officials said could reach $10,000 — Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke had threatened a lawsuit against the company.
And now you, the Election Commission, are asking us, the voters, to trust these guys? You ask us to trust someone that you know will come and lie right to your face about facts that only take a few minutes to verify. If they take that much care with how they present themselves to you, how much care will they take with my vote?
Without a voter-verified paper ballot (not a reciept as you keep calling it in the meetings, a ballot which is a legal record of the vote) neither the integrity of the company providing the machines nor the integrity of the voting process can be assured.
Relevant links:
the machines in question.
Here is a quote from the minutes of the Feb. 17 meeting:
Cramer claimed that the problems encountered in Maryland arose from the fact that the state utilizes a system created by the Diebold Company. This system is Windows-based; the Sequoia system is not. Sequoia uses a proprietary operating system, not Windows. The only area in which Sequoia uses Windows is in the voter registration system – not in anything that has to do with voting itself.
Now here is a quote from Sequoia Voting Systems website:
-----------------------------------------
AVC Edge®Features
- The Edge® in tandem with other Sequoia systems, automates some to the
most tedious aspects of election administration, smoothly delivering
your Elections Office into the 21st Century.
- WinEDS, the "Elections Database System for Windows" is Sequoia's
client-server based computer network system. WinEDS is used to
administer all phases of the election cycle, create electronic ballots
for the AVC Edge®, and tally early voting, as well as official election
and absentee votes. WinEDS provides a flexible, easy to use reporting
and information processing tool for the election administrator.
- Ballot set up is accomplished in-house. After election information is
entered, ballots are generated by the central system automatically.
- Auto Activation eliminates the need for the poll worker to manually
activate each ballot. The AVC Edge® automatically activates when a smart
card is inserted by the voter, selecting the correct ballot and any other
options that were incorporated into the card. After activation, the card
is disabled by the AVC Edge® to stop any attempt by the voter to use it
to vote twice.
- Electronic Write-Ins eliminate the problem of interpreting voter intent.
Write-ins are recorded electronically and stored redundantly in the
AVC Edge® and in the Results Cartridge. The write-in votes are
transferred automatically, with all other votes, to the central
Election Database System (WinEDS). Write-in votes for each jurisdiction
can also be printed after polls close.
- Early Voting is another option provided by the AVC Edge®, which can
support thousands of precincts and ballot styles to accommodate
jurisdiction-wide early voting on a single machine.
-----------------------------------------
At the Feb. 17 meeting Mr. Cramer went on to say:
Also, Denver’s (Sequoia) DRE Voting Machines are free standing. They are not connected to anything – not to the Internet or to any other network.
Now, I've only been a computer network administrator for 10 years so I might be wrong but I do believe that "Elections Database System for Windows" means that it runs on Windows. Mr. Cramer was very clear in stating that it does not run on Windows. The term "client-server based computer network system" means that the computers are, for lack of a better word, networked. If the computers are networked then by definition they are connected. Perhaps not by wires, but they are connected none the less. Mr. Cramer was also quite clear that the computers were not connected (networked). Mr. Cramer states that Windows is not used in anything that has to do with "voting", well, he should probably clarify what the website means by "all phases of the election cycle".
This piece from the website, "Write-in votes for each jurisdiction can also be printed after polls close." means that the machines already have the hardware to be able to print, so the cost of $1500 per machine for hardware (that they already have) is ludicrous.
This man came in front of you and lied.
He also misled you on the problems with Sequoia Voting Systems. He was correct about Maryland's problems, but he conveniently left out the problems that Sequoia machines have had in places where they WERE installed. Here are some things that Mr. Cramer overlooked in his assesment of "completely safe":
Ten days after the November 2002 election, Richard Romero, a Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Democrat, noticed that 48,000 people had voted early on unauditable Sequoia touch-screen computers, but only 36,000 votes had been tallied — a 25 percent error. Sequoia vice president Howard Cramer apologized for not mentioning that the same problem had happened before in Clark County, Nevada. A “software patch” was installed (more on that risky procedure later) and Sequoia technicians in Denver e-mailed the “correct” results.
Not only did Cramer fail to mention to Bernalillo County that the problem had happened before in Nevada — just four months later, Sequoia salespersons also failed to mention it while making a sales presentation to Santa Clara County, California. A Santa Clara official tried to jog their memory. According to the minutes of this meeting, “Supervisor McHugh asked one of the vendors about a statistic saying there was a 25 percent error rate. ... No one knew where this number came from and Sequoia said it was incorrect.”
That meeting was held Feb. 11, 2003. Just 20 days before, in Snohomish County, Washington, Sequoia optical-scan machines had failed to record 21 percent of the absentee votes.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, a member of the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Advisory Council reports the following: “In July 1996, a public test to certify Clark County’s Sequoia Pacific machine for early voting was conducted. During the test, a cartridge malfunctioned; also, the examiner had difficulty casting his vote. He had to vote 51 times rather than the designated 50, an option not afforded the voter should the machine malfunction in an actual election.
Sometimes they omit testing key systems: The manufacturer of Baltimore’s $6.5 million voting system took responsibility for the computer failures that delayed the November 1999 city election results and vowed to repay the city for overtime and related costs. Phil Foster, regional manager for Sequoia Pacific Voting Equipment Inc., said his company had neglected to update software in a computer that reads the election results. Although it tested some programs, the company did not test that part of the system before the election. Before Sequoia agreed to reimburse the city for the problems — a cost that election officials said could reach $10,000 — Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke had threatened a lawsuit against the company.
And now you, the Election Commission, are asking us, the voters, to trust these guys? You ask us to trust someone that you know will come and lie right to your face about facts that only take a few minutes to verify. If they take that much care with how they present themselves to you, how much care will they take with my vote?
Without a voter-verified paper ballot (not a reciept as you keep calling it in the meetings, a ballot which is a legal record of the vote) neither the integrity of the company providing the machines nor the integrity of the voting process can be assured.
Relevant links:
- Minutes of the February 17, 2004 Meeting of the Denver County Election Commission
- Product Information for the Sequoia Voting Systems AVC Edge®
- List of known failures of Sequoia Voting Systems machines
All articles in this archive are used under "fair use" as they are important to the national discussion of whether or not the people of this country are being deceived by their government. These articles are used as evidence in that discussion.
