Comment Re:Any hope? (Score 1) 185
I understand it completely actually. I used to work for ES&S. That $9 million is nothing compared to probably what they were losing by holding onto inventory that wasn't being utilized. And in the end, they won't pay a dime. They'll end up *leasing* (because NO ONE buys voting machines) the machines for some discount, then change order or service call the inventory up the wazoo to make up for the cost of the lawsuit. Always happens that way. Always. And anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.
Also, all the paper stock that ES&S uses is funneled through them. You don't get to use anyone else's stock with their machines. So guess what? Here comes the markup on the paper stock too. And the voting paper stock isn't cheap. And the AutoMarks are not touchscreens...they are basically inkjet printers that write directly onto the paper ballot. If there are arguments of inaccuracy, then the PAPER ballots can be hand-counted and examined with the human eye so no electronics can be of fault.
THIS is why I said the spirit of the law isn't being represented here. It doesn't matter if the machine is malfunctioning, has different code, etc. It doesn't matter. With ANY of the AutoMarks, the proof is ON THE PAPER. There isn't some magical electronic record. The receipt is the ballot. This is why this particular lawsuit is absolute garbage. In the end, it's the Secretary of State exerting muscle in a lawsuit that doesn't matter...it's not going to affect one way or the other the accuracy of vote-counting in any election...because for the most part, the machines have already been taken out of the equation. It's nothing but the state of California trying to be a hard-ass and the leader of the states when it comes to election *reform*...or whatever you want to call it. It's 100% politics...has nothing to do with preserving people's voting rights or anything.
This would actually matter if a touchscreen was the machine in question. AutoMarks aren't touchscreens...nowhere close.
At some point, people should hear the other side of the story. Believe it or not, a LOT of Secretary of States out there don't give a damn about the voter. I know this because in my previous position, I worked with at least 6 of them the last 6.5 years. They just give a damn about the voter's *perception* about how the system is working for them. This lawsuit does nothing for the voter except potentially take a relatively good voting solution out of their hands temporarily.
Also, all the paper stock that ES&S uses is funneled through them. You don't get to use anyone else's stock with their machines. So guess what? Here comes the markup on the paper stock too. And the voting paper stock isn't cheap. And the AutoMarks are not touchscreens...they are basically inkjet printers that write directly onto the paper ballot. If there are arguments of inaccuracy, then the PAPER ballots can be hand-counted and examined with the human eye so no electronics can be of fault.
THIS is why I said the spirit of the law isn't being represented here. It doesn't matter if the machine is malfunctioning, has different code, etc. It doesn't matter. With ANY of the AutoMarks, the proof is ON THE PAPER. There isn't some magical electronic record. The receipt is the ballot. This is why this particular lawsuit is absolute garbage. In the end, it's the Secretary of State exerting muscle in a lawsuit that doesn't matter...it's not going to affect one way or the other the accuracy of vote-counting in any election...because for the most part, the machines have already been taken out of the equation. It's nothing but the state of California trying to be a hard-ass and the leader of the states when it comes to election *reform*...or whatever you want to call it. It's 100% politics...has nothing to do with preserving people's voting rights or anything.
This would actually matter if a touchscreen was the machine in question. AutoMarks aren't touchscreens...nowhere close.
At some point, people should hear the other side of the story. Believe it or not, a LOT of Secretary of States out there don't give a damn about the voter. I know this because in my previous position, I worked with at least 6 of them the last 6.5 years. They just give a damn about the voter's *perception* about how the system is working for them. This lawsuit does nothing for the voter except potentially take a relatively good voting solution out of their hands temporarily.
