I'm impressed that the paper put two documents on their website and I uploaded them here in case the story is eventually archived on the SJ-R website. Both documents are worth reading in full. They raise many issues I don't recall seeing in the local press including a long list of problems found by two people on election day after visiting only 32 precincts.
The document from the State Board of Elections includes a list of security concerns with this paragraph:
"The administrative access to the system is inadequately password protected. Access to the system to change files, delete and add files and passwords, activate a wireless network, etc. would not be difficult. In fact, a simple Windows log in is better protected."I'm not going to suggest that the voting system is vulnerable but it's worth pointing out that major vulnerabilities weren't found in other systems until they were audited by independent experts outside the normal state certification process. Has the obscure Populex system undergone that level of examination? If so, why hasn't the public been made aware of it? If not, then why?
When reading the response from Populex you can almost smell them lose control of their bodily functions. What really bothers me about their letter is the fear they repeatedly express over the public finding out about any potential concerns over the system because it might undermine voter confidence. Considering how few clients Populex has, I can understand why they would be deeply worried about public opinion turning against their system in the county of their biggest vendor.
What Populex, and apparently Ron Michaelson and the County Board, fail to understand is that public confidence is earned by having a thorough open discussion of all concerns, not by attempts to conceal issues and using heavy handed tactics to dismiss anyone who asks questions. Getting friendly reporters to keep those questions out of the public eye and ridiculing dissenters as conspiracy theorists merely gives rise to greater voter concern in the long run. If the voting system is secure then let the County Clerk make all relevant information easily accessible to the public and put the issue to rest.
The State Board of Elections document also mentions problems caused by the voting machine asking people to insert their ballot after its already inserted. That confused me too the first time I used it. Some people damaged their ballots by trying to stick it in further.
I wonder if there was any way to discover and resolve that issue before election day? I know! Maybe if the county had presented and tested the voting machines with the public before making a final decision they could have acted on public feedback before election day. Believe it or not, the public can sometimes play a useful role in decision making, which is why it wasn't such a great idea to keep the process in the hands of a few insiders, as the county did with the Sanitary District rate increase and the new voting system.
This is one more example of the mindset that needs to be changed in county government. When local governments fail to engage the public its the government decision makers who eventually suffer as much as the general public.