Having worked with the Sequoia Edge DRE system and now the Sequoia Edge DRE
with VVPAT, I can most emphatically state that the NIST report is definitely
flawed. They point out that the DRE's alone are flawed. The VVPAT is
simply an add-on to a flawed system. The VVPAT is not only electronically
flawed but is also mechanically flawed.
In my county here in California we
have 47 Precincts and approximately 29,000 voters. We run 45% to 55%
turnout. In those small numbers we have and continue to experience a
minimum of 10% discrepancy in Roster tallies to Machine Tallies. Further,
in the November Election we ran a 38% failure rate of the VVPAT.
It is beyond comprehension how any investigative report, no matter how
cursory, can recommend the use of DRE's with VVPAT.
The Secretary of States office of Voting System Technology for California
"reluctantly" admitted that the Sequoia DRE's with VVPAT have a serious
security system flaw and are completely open to manual manipulation. This
simple fact alone would negate any finding that any use of the DRE with or
without VVPAT can be used to conduct an open and legitimate election.
I have been involved as an elections worker for more than ten years. I have
been trained by De La Rue, (parent co. of Sequoia) so I am very familiar
with the system.
The WINEDS which is the tabulation system for the Sequoia's used here is so
flawed that the Elections department actually upload the entire election for
November and sent it via Internet to Denver for interpretation because
Tehama County was unable to obtain the results with their equipment. This
is the same equipment that lost 7 Precincts earlier in the evening.
I am deeply concerned that the NIST report is motivated to selectively rule
out the use of some systems and promote the use of others. Independent
testing of the Sequoia DRE's with and without VVPAT's consistently showed
them to be a flawed system. The issue of both electronic and mechanical
failures was found in each and every test.
I urge all that read the "White Paper" to bear in mind the preceding
information and question what could possibly be the motivation to recommend
the decertification of an admittedly flawed system and them praise the use
of that same system after you have hung a flawed paper roller on its side.
With respect and concern:
Ron Watt
with VVPAT, I can most emphatically state that the NIST report is definitely
flawed. They point out that the DRE's alone are flawed. The VVPAT is
simply an add-on to a flawed system. The VVPAT is not only electronically
flawed but is also mechanically flawed.
In my county here in California we
have 47 Precincts and approximately 29,000 voters. We run 45% to 55%
turnout. In those small numbers we have and continue to experience a
minimum of 10% discrepancy in Roster tallies to Machine Tallies. Further,
in the November Election we ran a 38% failure rate of the VVPAT.
It is beyond comprehension how any investigative report, no matter how
cursory, can recommend the use of DRE's with VVPAT.
The Secretary of States office of Voting System Technology for California
"reluctantly" admitted that the Sequoia DRE's with VVPAT have a serious
security system flaw and are completely open to manual manipulation. This
simple fact alone would negate any finding that any use of the DRE with or
without VVPAT can be used to conduct an open and legitimate election.
I have been involved as an elections worker for more than ten years. I have
been trained by De La Rue, (parent co. of Sequoia) so I am very familiar
with the system.
The WINEDS which is the tabulation system for the Sequoia's used here is so
flawed that the Elections department actually upload the entire election for
November and sent it via Internet to Denver for interpretation because
Tehama County was unable to obtain the results with their equipment. This
is the same equipment that lost 7 Precincts earlier in the evening.
I am deeply concerned that the NIST report is motivated to selectively rule
out the use of some systems and promote the use of others. Independent
testing of the Sequoia DRE's with and without VVPAT's consistently showed
them to be a flawed system. The issue of both electronic and mechanical
failures was found in each and every test.
I urge all that read the "White Paper" to bear in mind the preceding
information and question what could possibly be the motivation to recommend
the decertification of an admittedly flawed system and them praise the use
of that same system after you have hung a flawed paper roller on its side.
With respect and concern:
Ron Watt
