|
|
PRESS RELEASE December 19, 2003 Contact: David Biddulph 386-423-4744 odemocracy@aol.com INVENTION OFFERS BOTH SIGHTED AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED VOTERS PROOF THEIR VOTE IS ACCURATELY COUNTED
New Process Goes Beyond Growing Demands For Accessible Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail An electronic voting system that goes beyond the growing demands of elections officials, elected representatives, computer scientists, voting rights advocates and the visually impaired that electronic voting systems incorporate an accessible voter verified paper audit trail (AVVPAT) has been announced by a Florida inventor. The California, Nevada and Washington Secretaries of State recently announced that they want to require an AVVPAT that can be used by all voters, including the visually impaired, to verify that their votes are accurately recorded. Legislative proposals have been introduced by Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. Bob Graham, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Rush Holt and his 96 bipartisan cosponsors calling for a “voter-verified paper trail.” In her recent legislative proposal, Senator Hilary Clinton (D. - N.Y.) noted that “The systems used by the people of the United States to exercise their constitutional right to vote should be as reliable as the machines people depend on to get their money.” David Biddulph, of New Smyrna Beach, Florida, has announced that his electronic voting system will not only comply with the proposed legislation but will gain voters confidence by empowering them with the ability to check the official vote tabulation database and make sure their vote was counted exactly as they intended. This unique process will work for sighted as well as vision impaired voters. Biddulph recently demonstrated his “Perfect Voting System”, or PVS (www.PerfectVotingSystem.com), to attendees of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Symposium entitled “Building Trust and Confidence in Voting Systems.” His patent pending voting process, which is compatible as an add-on to existing electronic voting hardware, would provide voters, for the first time, a way to privately verify and audit their vote to make sure it was entered and counted exactly as intended. The heart of the PVS is a computer-printed voter-verified paper ballot and receipt. The first step is for the voter to make his or her selections and then print out the ballot and receipt. Printed on the ballot and receipt is a secret password. If the voter finds a mistake or even changes his or her mind, the secret password could be used to amend the vote and produce a new ballot. Once the voter is satisfied the computer printed ballot is accurate, he would deposit it in a secure container, sign and retain the receipt. To maintain the secrecy of the ballot, the receipt does not indicate how he voted and the ballot does not contain the voter’s name. Once the official vote tabulation database is complete, every voter using a PVS enabled system would have the right to audit his vote using the secret password printed on the ballot receipt. To limit “vote selling,” the voter is required to have his identity and ballot receipt signature verified by an election official before privately auditing the official vote tabulation database. If his vote is missing or altered, he would have the right to require an official examination using his receipt password and matching it with the paper ballot containing the same password. If the electronic vote tabulation is in error, the paper ballot would be used as the official record for any recount. Importantly, all the information would be represented in two bar codes, one imprinted on the ballot and another one, excluding the vote summary, printed on the receipt. These bar codes would be used to provide disabled voters accessibility through a Braille and/or audio output. The Perfect Voting System would likely add about 2-5% to the cost of running an election. The licensing cost of the PVS is about $0.10 per vote cast. Biddulph asked, “Would it be worth another, say, $0.15 -$0.20 per vote so that every citizen could be completely confident that their vote counted exactly as intended?” *** |
POLITICAL PULSE Inventor has way for voters to track ballots
By John Kennedy | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted March 2, 2003
Since the mass confusion and lawsuits stemming from Florida's infamous 2000 presidential recount, some voters still wonder whether their vote ever got counted correctly.
Generally, there is no way to know which vote is which after your vote is cast. But now, a New Smyrna Beach man thinks he has the answer -- a way for average voters to track their votes.
Dave Biddulph, a part-time inventor and activist who led several Florida anti-tax constitutional-amendment fights in the early 1990s, says he has come up with a new electronic voting system that gives voters peace of mind.
Voters would cast ballots on an electronic voting system and then get a paper stub with a password picked by each voter. The password would allow every voter to track his or her vote later if thereis a question to see how it was recorded, he said.
Biddulph gave a hypothetical. Let's say a city such as Orlando is electing a new mayor. Are you reading this, Pete BarrSr.?
"In the mayoral election, if I didn't believe [Buddy] Dyer won, I could go in and check my vote," Biddulph said. "If it has been altered, they can open the precinct box and start a recount."
Biddulph said he has had encouraging talks about selling his idea to Sequoia Voting Systems, a national company that has sold touch-screen voting systems in 14 states, including California, New York and, yes, even Palm Beach County, home of the famed butterfly ballot.
"We don't have a done deal, but they're very interested," Biddulph said. The system costs more and requires more equipment, but he says it's worth it.
"We believe it's well-justified because it would help take away the concern that our votes may not be counted accurately," he said.
|
PRESS RELEASE February 21, 2003 Contact: David Biddulph 386-423-4744 odemocracy@aol.com Electronic Voting System With A Voter Audit Capacity Announced By Inventor
Patent Pending System Assures Voters The Same Level Of Confidence In The Validity Of Their Vote That Lottery Players Have In The Validity Of Their Tickets New Smyrna Beach, Fl. – An electronic voting system that lets voters check their own vote has been announced by David Biddulph, a New Smyrna Beach inventor. “The 2000 Presidential election revealed how flawed the recount process is,” he said, adding “Election disputes should be settled by the objective process of counting unambiguous voter intentions, not by the subjective determination of the judiciary.” At the heart of Biddulph’s Perfect Voting System, PVS, is a computer-printed, voter-verified paper ballot and stub. In the first step, the voter would make his or her vote selections electronically. The system would then print out a ballot and stub, which would both include the same secret password. If the voter realizes he made a mistake, or even has a change of heart, he could use the unique password to amend his vote and produce a new ballot as required under the new Federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Once the voter is satisfied that the computer printed ballot is accurate, he would deposit it in a secure container and retain the stub. To maintain the secrecy of the ballot, the stub would not include any information about the voter or his vote. Once the official vote tabulation database is complete, any voter who has used a PVS enabled voting system would have the right to audit his vote by accessing the database with his ballot stub’s password. If he discovers his vote missing or altered, he would have the right to require an official examination matching his stub with the paper ballot. If the electronic vote tabulation were in error, the voter-verified paper ballots would, under HAVA, be used as the “official record for any recount.” The Perfect Voting System addresses a growing controversy over the use of “paperless” voting systems by providing a voter-verified paper trail and voter audit capacity. The San Jose Mercury News reported on February 5, 2003 that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors “…decided they needed more time to consider the move to electronic voting after hearing from several computer scientists, who said that the system could be easily manipulated or tampered with.” Biddulph estimates that the PVS would add about 2-5% to the cost of running an election. The licensing cost of the PVS is approximately 10 cents per vote cast. Every computer-based voting system with a printer could be modified to incorporate the PVS. “I think most taxpayers would be willing to pay an extra dime to ensure that elections determine winners with the same certainty that lotteries do,” stated Biddulph. *** Link to Stanford Professor David L Dill’s Petition “Voting Machines Must Provide A Voter-Verifiable Audit Trail” - http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html |
|
|
|
 |
 |
