Matches: 240 Displayed: 20
- Technology > Machines > Flywheels
- Technology > Machines > Machines
- Technology > Machines > Simple Machines
- Technology > Machines > Aviation
- Technology > Machines > Aviation > 2004
- Technology > Machines > Aviation > Aviation Safety
- Technology > Machines > Harvesting Equipment
- Technology > Machines > Aviation > 2006
- Social Studies > Government > Election Reform > Voting Machines
- Technology > Machines > Aviation > Ultralights
- Technology > Machines > Trains > Train Safety
- Simple Machines (Museum of Science)
Provides elements of machines, such as gears. 12-01
- Simple Machines Lesson (Museum of Science)
Provides a lesson for children to explore simple machines. 12-01
- Simple Machines Projects (Teachers.net)
Provides simple projects to understand levers, pulleys, screws, wedges, and more. 12-01
- Simple Machines Explained (Candelora)
"This is a series of experiments about simple machines: levers, wheels and inclined planes. This unit was designed for use in the third grade." 12-01
- Sewing Machines - How Sewing Machines Work (HowStuffWorks.com)
Shows how a sewing machine works. 2-02
- Simple Machines and How They Work (Edheads.org)
Describes simple machines for children. 1-03
- -11-04-04 Fraud Alleged With Voting Machines (BlackBoxVoting.org)
"Black Box Voting has taken the position that fraud took place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines. We base this on hard evidence, documents obtained in public records requests, inside information, and other data indicative of manipulation of electronic voting systems. What we do not know is the specific scope of the fraud. We are working now to compile the proof, based not on soft evidence -- red flags, exit polls -- but core documents obtained by Black Box Voting in the most massive Freedom of Information action in history." 11-04
- Editorial - Electronic Voting Machines Are Not Secure (USA Today)
Suggests that a paper trail should be required for auditing puposes. Also makes a second suggestion:
"Make the machines' software available to anyone to see. Far from being a security risk, by allowing thousands of people to view the code, any potential problems could be found and the systems made more secure. This is the same way open-source software works, and the same way encryption technology does — the way it works should not be a secret. In fact, the more people who look at it, the more secure it becomes; 10 thousand people looking for holes are more likely to find them than a small group of programmers."
"Face facts: Today's electronic voting machines are unreliable and unsecure." 11-04
- 11-18-04 Study: Insufficient Voting Machines Disenfranchised Voters in Ohio (Wikipedia.org)
"Prior to the election, there was much ado about each precinct getting enough ballots, but an equally serious matter that seems to have been overlooked by people trying to protect people's right to vote is whether the precints had a sufficient number of voting machines, such that the votes could be proccessed at a sufficient rate. Machine quantity as well as ballot quantity determines the saturation point of votes. Number of machines * Max. votes per hour per machine * hours poll is open = max. number of votes precinct is able to process. Every voter over this limit is effectively disenfranchised, just as if the precint had run out of ballots; the precinct runs out of voter-time-slots."
"Although low population precincts had relatively plenty of voting machines and were well within the limits of processing capacity, high-population centers often did not, and sometimes had less than half the machines requested and were well outside the limits of processing capacity, effectively disenfranchisng an undetermined number of voters."
"This may explain the discrepancy between expected voter turnout in high-population areas and counted voter turnout in these areas. Since high-population areas are predominantely Democratic, this would primarily effect the Democratic constituency, and appear on the surface to reflect inefficacy in the Democratic GOTV effort. It is entirely possible, and arguably - from the empirical evidence - probable, that the vote did get out, but the polling places, due to lack of machines and/or staff, were not able to processs the full vote-load."
"140 such incidents (over 1/7 of the national total) are from Cuyahoga County, Ohio ." 11-04
- -12-23-04 Bush Gains Mysterious 5% From E-Touch Machines (NewsTarget.com)
"Or, put another way, all the exit polls showed Kerry winning, and the exit polls asked people who they actually voted for. But strangely, the 'official' count appears to have been boosted in favor of Bush."
"How was it boosted?"
"Another burning question is surfacing: if this was such a record turnaround, with long lines all over the country, where did all the votes go? Because the vote totals don't show much of a difference from the 2000 election. It's as if a few million votes just vanished..." 12-04
- Problems with Electronic Voting Machines - "Myth Breakers" (VotersUnite.org)
Provides a discussion of the key problems with electronic voting. 3-05
- -10-01-04 E-Touch Machines Fail (Wired.com)
" 'If election officials admit that the standards and certification process are bad, then public confidence in elections is threatened (and) participation in elections will go down,' Jones said. 'So the question is, do you talk about this? The answer seems to be, for a lot of people in the election community, no.' " 11-04
- Voting Machines Study (CalTech-MIT)
"This report examines the use of voting equipment and the incidence of spoiled and unmarked ballots associated with that equipment. We call the rate of spoiled andunmarked ballots the residual vote rate. The residual vote rate is not a pure measure ofvoter error. If voting technologies are not producing voter mistakes or confusion, theresidual vote rate should be unrelated to equipment. The study covers election resultsfrom over 2700 counties and municipalities in the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000presidential elections." 3-05
- Problems with Electronic Voting Machines - "Myth Breakers" Summary (VotersUnite.org)
Provides a discussion of the key problems with electronic voting. 3-05
- Essay - Paperless Voting Machines Corrupted the Results (BartCop.com)
"My preference would be that you read my argument from the viewpoint of a member of a Grand Jury being presented with a summary set of facts. You are being asked to decide whether or not they indicate enough of a possibility of wrong doing to warrant issuing an indictment and conducting a full and thorough official and public investigation."
"Secretaries of State and local election officials certify vote counting software based solely on [Shaun] Southworth’s say so. They do no independent examination or testing of the code themselves beyond simple logic and accuracy tests which security experts have called completely inadequate to the task of ensuring the software to be safe, secure and accurate. In essence this means that outside of the programmers who actually write the code, there is only one person in the entire US who has had access to the code and he is at best a shadowy figure who is dependent for his livelihood on the companies whose products he tests and certifies."
"In many states (including AZ), a legal recount consists only of running the ballots back through the same central tabulator."
"In the 2002 midterm election, there were fourteen House and Senate races across the U.S. where Democratic candidates were leading in the last pre-election polls by margins of 4 to 10 points. The votes in all those races were counted on either ES&S or Diebold optical scan or touchscreen systems. In all fourteen races the Republican candidate won by 3-7 percentage points. Republican control of the House and Senate were decided by these races. In the case of Senator Max Cleland of Georgia who was defeated by Saxy Chambliss, it took a sixteen point swing."
Editor's Note: The tone of this article is very partisan. 4-05
- Stewart v. Blackwell Decision on Ohio Voting Machines (USCourts.gov)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit REVERSED the decision of United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron. "The [District] court stated that: 'When coupled with the previously referenced de minimis affects of the punch card ballots, these facts do not allow this Court to conclude that an 'actual' denial of the right to vote on account of race occurs.' "Finally, the court concluded that 'the operation of different voting systems by different counties within the same state does not amount to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.' ”
"Relying heavily on Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 134 (2000) (Souter, J., dissenting), the district court concluded that states may freely use a variety of different voting technologies without running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. Further, the court concluded that the defendants have a rational basis for continuing to utilize punch card technology in that it is cost effective and there are security concerns with electronic technology." 04-06
- -Editorial: Lou Dobbs Reports on Threat to Democracy Posed by Voting Machines (BradBlog.com)
Dobbs points out that many of our voting machines are owned by foreign companies and such ownership is not in any way reviewed by our federal government. The software that runs the machines is proprietary and cannot be examined to determine what it does when it counts the votes. 06-06
- -Debate: Should Voters Trust Electronic Voting Machines? (VoterAction.org)
The Voter Action Co-Director debates with the Election Assistance Commission Director. 06-06
- -06-27-06 Study: 80% of Voting Machines Are Vulnerable (USA Today)
"Most of the electronic voting machines widely adopted since the disputed 2000 presidential election 'pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections,' a report out Tuesday concludes."
"There are more than 120 security threats to the three most commonly purchased electronic voting systems, the study by the Brennan Center for Justice says. For what it calls the most comprehensive review of its kind, the New York City-based non-partisan think tank convened a task force of election officials, computer scientists and security experts to study e-voting vulnerabilities." 06-06