New York Times letters -- one from head of ES&S , one from me on "public option"
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Rob Richie
Nov 8, 2009, 8:17:25 AM11/8/09
to Election integrity
FYI.
Rob
######
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/l08vote.html
To the Editor:
“ Trust, Antitrust and Your Vote” (editorial, Oct. 29) does a disservice by linking antitrust concerns with the integrity of the vote in the United States.
Voting, like public education, is a local process combined with federal and state oversight and financing. More than 10,000 jurisdictions are involved in the administration of elections, with hundreds of thousands of Americans working to ensure that every vote counts.
Citizens should be confident that local officials administer fair and honest elections. As our customers, we know they are. We encourage citizens to assist their local election officials by volunteering their time in support of the election process.
We are confident that the acquisition of the United States voting machine division of Diebold will be beneficial in keeping talented people working on innovative products that help local officials run reliable elections. Elections are our passion, and we are proud of the work of our customers and employees in facilitating democracy in the United States.
Aldo Tesi
President and Chief Executive
Election Systems and Software
Omaha, Nov. 5, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Your Oct. 29 editorial about the dangers of consolidation in the voting equipment industry is spot on.
To ensure that the public interest is protected in our elections, however, there must be clear public ownership of the process — either directly through publicly owned voting equipment and software or at least through transparently managed, verifiable counting processes with a “public option” for any jurisdiction wary of working with existing private vendors.
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
Takoma Park, Md., Nov. 2, 2009
Rob
######
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/l08vote.html
Voting Equipment and the Way Elections Are Run
New York Times, Letters Published: November 7, 2009To the Editor:
“ Trust, Antitrust and Your Vote” (editorial, Oct. 29) does a disservice by linking antitrust concerns with the integrity of the vote in the United States.
Voting, like public education, is a local process combined with federal and state oversight and financing. More than 10,000 jurisdictions are involved in the administration of elections, with hundreds of thousands of Americans working to ensure that every vote counts.
Citizens should be confident that local officials administer fair and honest elections. As our customers, we know they are. We encourage citizens to assist their local election officials by volunteering their time in support of the election process.
We are confident that the acquisition of the United States voting machine division of Diebold will be beneficial in keeping talented people working on innovative products that help local officials run reliable elections. Elections are our passion, and we are proud of the work of our customers and employees in facilitating democracy in the United States.
Aldo Tesi
President and Chief Executive
Election Systems and Software
Omaha, Nov. 5, 2009
•
To the Editor:
Your Oct. 29 editorial about the dangers of consolidation in the voting equipment industry is spot on.
To ensure that the public interest is protected in our elections, however, there must be clear public ownership of the process — either directly through publicly owned voting equipment and software or at least through transparently managed, verifiable counting processes with a “public option” for any jurisdiction wary of working with existing private vendors.
Rob Richie
Executive Director, FairVote
Takoma Park, Md., Nov. 2, 2009
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org
r...@fairvote.org
(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider
a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's
CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!
Joyce McCloy
Nov 8, 2009, 9:09:18 PM11/8/09
to Election Integrity
FairVote's lobbying for IRV in New York RIGHT NOW may cement the use
of Sequoia/Dominion proprietary voting machines in New York. Sequoia/
Dominion (which is it now?) is the only voting vendor that makes IRV
software right now.
Senate Bill Would Eliminate Primary Runoff
By Sewll Chan
Published October 5th 2009 in
"Robert Richie, executive director of FairVote, a nonpartisan
organization that researches and promotes electoral reforms, said in a
statement that he supported the idea of an instant runoff:
Now that New York is likely to move to new optical scan voting
equipment, instant runoff voting is a sensible alternative. It’s been
working well in elections in cities with diverse electorates like San
Francisco and London and adopted for upcoming elections in Oakland,
Minneapolis, Memphis and a growing number of other cities. It’s even
going to be used to pick the best picture Oscar this winter. We’ve
found that voters like the idea of getting a definitive winner in one
round rather than two."
http://fairvote.org/press/?page=21&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=3657
On Nov 8, 8:17 am, Rob Richie <r...@fairvote.org> wrote:
> FYI.
>
> Rob
>
> ######
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/l08vote.html?_r=1&ref=opinion>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/l08vote.html
> Please support FairVote through action and donations -- seehttp://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider
of Sequoia/Dominion proprietary voting machines in New York. Sequoia/
Dominion (which is it now?) is the only voting vendor that makes IRV
software right now.
Senate Bill Would Eliminate Primary Runoff
By Sewll Chan
Published October 5th 2009 in
"Robert Richie, executive director of FairVote, a nonpartisan
organization that researches and promotes electoral reforms, said in a
statement that he supported the idea of an instant runoff:
Now that New York is likely to move to new optical scan voting
equipment, instant runoff voting is a sensible alternative. It’s been
working well in elections in cities with diverse electorates like San
Francisco and London and adopted for upcoming elections in Oakland,
Minneapolis, Memphis and a growing number of other cities. It’s even
going to be used to pick the best picture Oscar this winter. We’ve
found that voters like the idea of getting a definitive winner in one
round rather than two."
http://fairvote.org/press/?page=21&articlemode=showspecific&showarticle=3657
On Nov 8, 8:17 am, Rob Richie <r...@fairvote.org> wrote:
> FYI.
>
> Rob
>
> ######
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/l08vote.html?_r=1&ref=opinion>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/opinion/l08vote.html
>
> Voting Equipment and the Way Elections Are Run
>
> New York Times, Letters Published: November 7, 2009
>
> To the Editor:
>
> “<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29thu3.html?scp=1&sq=trust,...>Trust,
> Voting Equipment and the Way Elections Are Run
>
> New York Times, Letters Published: November 7, 2009
>
> To the Editor:
>
Rob Richie
Nov 8, 2009, 10:33:45 PM11/8/09
to Election Integrity
Joyce,
Why would New York City using instant runoff voting for some elections "cement the use of Sequoia/Dominion proprietary voting machines"? Making IRV firmware and software is easy -- in fact Diebold charged Cambridge (MA) only $40,000 for it in 1996. The vendors like to jack up prices for any "add on" features, but that can be challenged better in New York state than many places. That kind of price-gouging is an example of why a public option is so important.
North Carolina likely would have IRV-readiness in its current ES&S optical scan machines if you hadn't so fervently fought that requirement in 2005, by the way.
Rob
Why would New York City using instant runoff voting for some elections "cement the use of Sequoia/Dominion proprietary voting machines"? Making IRV firmware and software is easy -- in fact Diebold charged Cambridge (MA) only $40,000 for it in 1996. The vendors like to jack up prices for any "add on" features, but that can be challenged better in New York state than many places. That kind of price-gouging is an example of why a public option is so important.
North Carolina likely would have IRV-readiness in its current ES&S optical scan machines if you hadn't so fervently fought that requirement in 2005, by the way.
Rob
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages