[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# Fw: Article

- To: "Sales Talk" <salestalk@dieboldes.com>, "Support" <support@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: Fw: Article
- From: "Greg Forsythe" <gfglobal@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:34:47 -0400
- Organization: Global Election Systems, Inc

    > Glitches in election-reporting system raise some eyebrows
    >
    > By Todd J. Gillman
    > Published 04-01-2000
    >
    > Column: POLITICS
    >
    > In its maiden run almost two years ago, Dallas County's new $3.8 million
    > computerized election system overlooked 41,000 votes, one of every eight
    > cast. A software error made it think the votes had already been counted.
    >
    > Thirty elections later, in the March 14 primaries, the county released
    > "final" totals that left out 11,000 votes.
    >
    > No races were affected, and local party officials weren't even aware of
    the
    > error, which was made and corrected overnight.
    >
    > But state election officials, who didn't receive correct tallies from
    Dallas
    > until 17 hours after polls closed, are reviewing the system' s
    > certification.
    >
    > "We are concerned that it failed to operate properly in Dallas, " said Ann
    > McGeehan , the state's director of elections. "This election- reporting
    > system is very clunky. I think it was designed for smaller counties."
    >
    > Michael Limas , chief operating officer at Election Systems & Software of
    > Omaha, Neb., which sold the county the system, blamed an honest mistake by
    > the company's onsite computer operator. He said the company would "refine"
    > its procedures to avert future problems and upgrade some county equipment
    at
    > no taxpayer expense.
    >
    > "The omission was caught and corrected immediately," he said. "
    > Realistically, within the context of election night reporting, this was in
    > many ways a nonevent."
    >
    > Local party officials said the glitch helped explain why a fax awaiting
    them
    > the morning after the election was labeled "corrected final return."
    >
    > "It just confirms what I already thought, which is that this whole system
    is
    > a piece of garbage," said Dallas County Democratic Chairman Bill Howell .
    > "Voters are not getting results they can be confident in."
    >
    > Dallas Democrats have been skeptical about the election system since its
    > debut, because of the 41,000-vote undercount in November 1998. In that
    case,
    > the computer was not reset after a dry run a few days earlier, and it
    > rejected votes from a county commissioners district, determining -
    > incorrectly - that they'd already been counted. The recount cut incumbent
    > Republican Kenneth Mayfield 's victory margin from 1,800 votes to 467.
    >
    > Even if the final tallies from last month's primary are accurate, Mr.
    Howell
    > said, the process doesn't inspire confidence. "This might as well be a
    > rigged election like in the Philippines under Marcos, " he said.
    >
    > One race that could have been affected was the Democratic U.S. Senate
    > contest.
    >
    > Retired lawyer Gene Kelly easily took first place. But the second spot for
    > the April 11 runoff was uncertain long after polls closed. As of 6 a.m.,
    the
    > secretary of state's office showed former state Rep. Charles Gandy of
    Austin
    > ahead of computer systems analyst Don Clark by 142 votes.
    >
    > The updated Dallas tallies, received at noon, added 2,891 votes to the
    > five-way Democratic field and pushed Mr. Gandy's lead to 520. (After a
    > handful of recounts and updates from other counties, the spread stood at
    > 1,372 this week, after the official Democratic canvass.)
    >
    > Here's how the Dallas system works and what went wrong March 14:
    >
    > Optical scanning machines at each precinct record votes as they come in.
    > When polls close, election judges transmit results to Dallas County
    > elections administrator Bruce Sherbet 's office using modem cards.
    >
    > A computer called a communications server collects the data. An operator
    > shifts the results to another computer that generates reports - a step
    meant
    > to buffer the system from outside tampering.
    >
    > But in the early hours of March 15, the operator forgot to check four of
    72
    > electronic "in baskets."
    >
    > The county posted a "final" report on its Web site around 3 a.m. and sent
    > the same results to the state, which logged it received at 4:11 a.m.
    >
    > Within an hour, the computer operator and county workers - following a
    > standard verification process - caught the error as they compared tallies
    > from the computer to those generated manually.
    >
    > Few people ever saw the erroneous numbers. Only corrected versions were
    > issued to local party officials and reporters about 7 a.m.
    >
    > For reasons that remain unclear, Mr. Sherbet's office didn't reach the
    > secretary of state's office with corrected numbers until noon.
    >
    > "We certainly are concerned" about the glitch, Mr. Sherbet said. Even so,
    he
    > has no second thoughts about buying the system, which is used in two dozen
    > Texas counties.
    >
    > "All of the different systems have vulnerabilities," he said.
    >
    > Staff writer Todd J. Gillman covers politics for The News. His column
    > appears Saturdays.
    >
    > ) 2000 The Dallas Morning News All Rights Reserved
    >
    > Todd J. Gillman, Glitches in election-reporting system raise some
    eyebrows.,
    > 04-01-2000, pp 30A.
    >
    > )1998 The Dallas Morning News
    >
    >
    >

- Prev by Date: Trademarks - GEMS and AccuTouch
- Next by Date: HQ Phone System OUT
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread