Groucho, You sign the register to create a paper trail on your voter eligibility. If there is a question about it then it's there for checking. As for the election being decided by 10 states that seems to be true. But it makes the integrity of a clean election that much more important. What if a Democratic computer hacker caused Kerry to win, where would all the Bush supporters stand then on election honesty? Why should this be a left/right issue?
Here's some more info on the importance of a paper trail, more can be had from the web site as I did not want too long a post:
http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html
ELECTRONIC VOTING UPDATE
Voter Verified Paper Ballots -- An Informational Brochure:
An explanatory brochure has been prepared in response to the myths and misinformation that are currently being circulated by those who are opposed to independent election auditing. "Facts About Voter Verified Paper Ballots" can be downloaded, printed on double-sided paper, and freely distributed (if in its entirety and unedited).
The Act that is not helping America Vote:
The 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) legislation authorized $3.8B in federal spending, with a substantial portion of these funds allocated to US states and terrirories for the purpose of replacing their punch card and lever voting machines and making voting systems accessible to the disabled. To obtain the money, an implementation plan must be submitted to the Election Assistance Commission by January 1, 2004. Note that states are not required to purchase computerized voting systems, they can still obtain mark-sense (optically scanned) products, but in order to receive certain of the equipment funds, the plan must indicate that the state will replace all of its lever and punch card machines by the first election for Federal office held after January 1, 2006.
The Presidentially appointed 4-member HAVA Election Assistance Commission, in addition to approving each of the state plans, will also be responsible for administering a host of other tasks, not the least of which include overseeing a 14-member Technical Guidelines Development Committee and a 110-member Standards Board, and making provisions for "testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software by accredited laboratories." The Technical Guidelines Committee must produce a set of recommended voluntary voting system guidelines nine months after appointment, and it is understood that these guidelines would be the ones used by the laboratories in their certification and testing processes.
Only problem is, the members of the HAVA Commission were appointed nearly a year late. As well, HAVA Committees and Boards have yet to be established. Thus, the Technical Guidelines were NOT available by the time that state implementation plans were due. This resulted in 9 states requesting HAVA extensions, and many others contracting to purchase voting systems that can not possibly be HAVA compliant, since there does not yet exist any official HAVA standards. A further setback occurred at the beginning of 2004, when the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) announced that it had to curtail all work related to HAVA (despite their named role in the legislation), due to Federal budget cuts.
Those of us (including myself) who had worked hard for this bill are sorely disappointed that the VITAL security aspects of its implementation continue to be stalled, while the equipment purchases are allowed to proceed. Write your congressfolk and urge them to get things moving. You are welcome to attach a copy of the statement by Rebecca Mercuri on HAVA and Electronic Voting to your letter.
