Skip to main content

View Diary: How to Repair the Voting System: Sec. Debra Bowen's Answer (302 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK This is Just You (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming

    Not being willing to accept that her office has, contrary to what you read on verifiedvoting, authorized continued use of the machines as long as they meet the paper trail requirements for use. A voter always has the option of an optical scan paper ballot, but that's what it is, an option.

    The Orange County lawsuit is what led to this requirement, not followed it.  Spend some time clicking on the county by county links and youl will see that use of voting machines continues to be statewide, absent a few very small counties.

    I can't help you with your unwillingess to accept that on this, your source of information is just wrong/out of date.  I just hope that others aren't quite so unwilling to accept that the situation is not what you believe when it comes to the status of voting by machine here in California.

    •  Sigh... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm not sure there's anything contentious here...

      Listen to her talk.  She makes the case for going all optical scan, but what her ideal system is and what she had to implement in CA don't have to match.

      Yes, we still have DREs with paper trails in CA, and yes voters have the choice to use them, but only the DREs that passed the security review and only in that configuration.  In the several times I was a poll worker under her new system we probably had under 10 voters use the DRE machine at our precinct over the course of the entire day, and those were folks who had a hard time reading the small print on the paper ballot. - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

      by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:20:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You Do Know that the Talk (0+ / 0-)

        You have linked is from 2008, right?

        •  Um, yes... (0+ / 0-)

          I say that in the diary ("few years back").  Why does that matter?  Her talk is about the process by which she concluded that optical scan with random recount is the best approach, and also about all the issues to consider in elections in general.  It's just as informative of a talk now as it was a few years back.

 - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

          by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:27:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It Matters Because (0+ / 0-)

            Despite her stated opinion 4 years ago, the system that she has actually implemented in California does not eschew DRE technology - it improves upon it by requiring a paper trail, and always includes the option of an optical scan ballot. Thus, a diary relying upon her words from 4 years ago to advocate for use nationwide of an exclusively optical scan system system that she herself, when she has the power to do so, didn't implement for her own state is misleading.  If Ms. Bowen found a way to merge the best of both worlds, it's shown that her thinking has evolved over the years.  That's the type of thing that should be clearly disclosed if you are going to rely upon her words from 4 years ago to make your arguments.

            •  Ugh. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Ok, I don't really know where you're going with this, but it seems you like arguing, and I have to get to work.

              I think it's pretty straightforward.  Listen to her talk and the Q&A that follows.  She argues for optical scan with random recount.  She acknowledges accessibility is an issue (which is why there are DREs (only the semi-secure ones) in some counties, but usually limited in number and limited in use; why a couple counties use them primarily was my only question mark).  What she did in CA follows from her talk, and it also seems clear from what she says that if there were a way of getting rid of DREs altogether she'd be for it.

              As for legal matters of what authority she has and what the counties have, and how or why she can or can't compel them to change - I'm not a lawyer, and this diary isn't about that anyway.  It's about the ideas.

     - thoughts on energy, the environment, and society.

              by barath on Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 08:39:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I Am a Lawyer (0+ / 0-)

                In California.  So I'm not speaking lightly about the power of the Office of Secretary of State.  But I agree it's irrelevant except for one thing:  I mentioned the law only because YOU first speculated about what power she does, or does not have, to implement her (now no longer existing if you go by what she's done when she has the power) vision from 4 years ago.  Had you not done that, the law would have never been discussed at all.

                We are obviously not going to see eye to eye, but since I've made my point and you've made yours, it's all good.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site