Voting Machine Mess-up

Boulder, Colorado. November, 2004. Hart Intercivic.
"Ballot Now" reads ballots differently in three different tests.

Bar codes on the ballots were the wrong size, causing the system not to count the ballots. EagleDirect, the printer, accepted some of the responsibility, but also said that Hart had not informed them of the close tolerances required when printing.*

Eagle CEO Bill Schaefer demonstrated one test ballot that, after being scanned once, was found to have one "damaged race" where the system could not process information for an individual race. The second time through, the system found more damaged races on the same ballot and read another race as an "undervote." The third test read everything on the front page of the ballot properly but one race was rejected on the back page.

... [Eagle president Howard] Harris said Hart did not inform Eagle about certain system tolerances until after the election. He said the system would reject races when the boxes on the paper ballot were not within plus-or-minus 20 percent of their expected position.

He also said a Hart official told him the system could have worked using 30 percent tolerances, and Harris said he felt loosening the tolerance could have prevented occurrence of many of the damaged races.

* Printer played role in Boulder voting woes. Rocky Mountain News. November 10, 2004. By Berny Morson.

  Printer says ballots bear partial blame: Maintains most of fault lies with the new voting system. Boulder Daily Camera. January 29, 2005. By Eric Bontrager.

  EagleDirect speaks. Colorado Daily. January 31, 2005. By Richard Valenty.

See: Hart Intercivic in the News

News stories make it rapidly apparent that
electronic voting is not reliable, accurate, or secure.
Any one who claims otherwise is either uninformed or deceptive.
~ Joseph Holder