EAC Voting Equipment Certification as a Ponzi Scheme

The Election Assistance Commission’s
Voting Equipment Certification Program
as a Ponzi Scheme

[This one-page summary, and the 13-page full report (Ponzi_EAC.pdf) are both downloadable from the links under the heading Attachment, at the foot of this article).]

The Holt Bill perpetuates a failed system of electronic voting that was created in large part by the Help America Vote Act, which the HR 811 amends. The Report,  “Voting Machines as a Ponzi scheme”, explains this failure in an analysis of the EAC Voting Equipment Certification Program. The Report contends the Program is a Ponzi scheme in which American taxpayers are asked to invest in a never ending cycle of investment for a product that is, in fact, an illusion. The initial payback came in the form of HAVA disbursements, but is now a financial bleed. The Report explains that the EAC system can not possibly work for the following reasons:

a) The guidelines in and of themselves are impossible to attain and contradict the standards of democratic elections. The technology standards are above and beyond what is required for a voting system, and the complexities of the recommended technologies further obscure the vote casting and counting processes, which is in direct contradiction of transparency and citizen oversight required for democratic elections.

b) The timelines for implementation do not sync up with reality. The 2005 EAC Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG I) becomes law in Dec. 2007, but EAC test labs will not have their test suites complete until at least 2010, the manufacturers will not have proper specs for their equipment until the test suites are available, at which time they will need time to develop, test and certify the products.

c) The financial model does not work. Voting jurisdictions operate on a 10-15 year lifecycle for their voting equipment, but the EAC program is operating (on its face) on a 2-3 year cycle, in which new requirements are defined which obsolete all existing equipment. Voting jurisdictions can not financially afford this approach, and neither will the American taxpayers agree to continue to subsidize the voting industry, particularly in view of the poor record the industry has to date in terms of delivering reliable, accurate, and secure products.

Contact:
Nancy Tobi
ntobi(at)democracyfornewhampshire(dot)com
603.315.4500