Myth Breakers For Election Officials (see below)

=2>

Myth Breakers �

��
for Election Officials

A Brief Summary

� HAVA Facts

� E-Voting Problems in Recent Elections

� Election Complexities with E-Voting

� HAVACompliant Alternatives to DREs

� Costs Considerations

� Distinguishing Truth from Myth

What Myths?

Many local election officials don't have the information they need
to make wise decisions about voting equipment. They hear many conflicting
stories, and it's hard to tell truth from myth.
This presentation gives facts that dispel many of the e-voting myths.

Preface

For details download:�

www.votersunite.org/takeaction/mythbreakers.pdf

For Example:
did you know?

A repeat of a failed election was held in 2004

Hinds County, Mississippi had to hold its November 2003 election all
over again because so many of the DREs broke down that they couldn't
determine the will of the voters.

Dead batteries had to be replaced before an election

Neglecting to keep the DRE batteries charged between elections cost
Arapahoe County, Colorado over $100,000 in battery replacements just
before a recent election.

Logic and Accuracy testing is labor-intensive

If it takes an hour to do the Logic and Accuracy testing on one DRE,
San Diego county would have to spend 1275 person-days testing before
every election in order to comply with California law.

Preface

Facts about
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA)

HAVA Does Not Require the Use of DREs

States are required to allow the disabled to vote unassisted, and they have
until the first general election of 2006 to comply.
Three non-DRE systems currently satisfy this requirement:

Ballot
marking devices, such as the AutoMark.
Tactile
ballots like they use in Rhode Island.
Open
Voting Consortium system, which is free software that runs on �

standard
computers.

Download

Electricity-Tool

Myth Breakers For Election Officials (see below)