June 10, 2003
Comments Regarding the Article on Wever's Accusations
Thank you for writing the article on Weaver's accusation about computer voting fraud. Your article was very helpful in explaining how the programming process works and how difficult it would be to commit fraud. I did learn of one instance in the computer voting process that could cause a vote to be changed. A person related to me that during the May 3rd general election they went to a machine to start voting and the previous voter had not "cast their ballot". Which means the card was still in the machine and no vote recorded. They called an election official over who then "cast the ballot" and pulled out the card. Would it be possible for that election official (if no one was watching) to change the ballot and then cast it? I think Helen Jamison needs to train her election officials to make certain each and every voter has "cast their ballot" and pulled the card out. Since El Paso started using computer voting for early voting and now all voting I have observed that the election officials only seem to be there to help people get started but they are not doing a good job in making sure there is some sort of procedure to ensure that the cards get returned. If a card isn't returned then that means a vote didn't get cast or someone left with the card. Many times I have observed that voters are confused as to where they return the card. I believe the computer voting system is much better than the punch card system. The election officials just need to concentrate on making sure the vote is cast and the card returned and accounted for.
|Return to the Top of the Page Go to the Front Page Legal Statements|
|© copyright 2002, 2003 by the El Paso Tribune all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the expressed written consent of the copyright holder.|