Skip to comments.Russian electronic voting equipment perfect at elections in Ecuador
Posted on 03/03/2014 10:18:45 AM PST by mgist
BOGOTA, February 26. /ITAR-TASS/. Russian voting equipment proved to be reliable at municipal election in the South American country of Ecuador, Russian Ambassador in Ecuador Yan Burliay told Itar-Tass by phone on Tuesday.
Moscow provided to Quito two sets of electronic voting equipment, which were installed at a polling station in Quitos district La Morita. Meanwhile, Russia delivered its voting equipment to Argentina and Venezuela. Ecuadorian authorities are testing different types of equipment to evaluate their advantages and shortcomings and to buy equipment they liked to refurbish their voting system.
It can be said for sure that our technology is more reliable than others, as 10% of ballot papers were found invalid at the polling stations, where Argentinean equipment was used, but no ballot papers were found void at the polling station La Morita, Burliay said. Our voting equipment turned out to be most reliable and simple in use, the ambassador noted. Argentinean voting equipment has a ballot paper with a chip, he noted. First of all, this is expensive, as, according to unofficial estimates, each ballot paper costs around ten dollars, secondly, this is too complicated and, thirdly, this is unreliable, he added. Photos of candidates pop up in our equipment, and even an illiterate voter can vote immediately, Burliay said, noting that the Ecuadorians learnt to handle Russian equipment immediately, but it was more difficult with that of Argentine.
Chairman of Russian Central Elections Commission Vladimir Churov visited Ecuador on February 20-24, holding talks with Ecuadorian counterpart Domingo Paredes and heads of the central elections commissions in Argentine, the Dominican Republic and Peru. Thanks to this visit we have laid good foundations for cooperation between Russia and Latin American countries in the sphere of elections, Burliay added.
Russia and Ecuador continue developing cooperation in the sphere of elections, as Churov has already visited Quito in December 2013 and Paredes visited Moscow on common election day in September 2013.
The results were exactly as expected.
It’s all in who counts the votes.
Interesting. The Ecuadorans are allowing Putin to decide their elections...
Are there any American companies that manufacture worthwhile equipment??
“Are there any American companies that manufacture worthwhile equipment??”
Yes, companies that make pens/pencils, paper and cardboard boxes.
Not exactly they have no idea where these voting machines come from, and what they can do.
JUST LIKE US.
I am all for paper ballots.
I don’t like electronic voting - much too easy to compromise and probably is more than anyone realizes.
ALIENS could be rigging all of the elections in every country on the planet - all for their own amusement.
If that is the case, I think it’s time for us to say to them: “Yeah, we get it. VERY funny. Hahaha. But can we please have a REAL president and congress, now?”
When I was growing up in New York City, voting was by machine. Basically, the voting machine was a mechanical tabulator (adding machine), with no paper ballots. You can snicker, but I am unaware of anyone ever questioning the fairness (or reliability) of the machines.
When set up, all the machines in a polling place were locked and set to zero for all contests, witnessed by poll watchers from any party (and New York City had a lot of parties: Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, etc) on the ballot. The adding machine was locked except during the voting period, and poll watcher kept an eye on the machines, so it would have been difficult for someone other than a voter who had been passed by the election officials to vote. The “totalizator” windows (like an odometer) were hidden during the voting period. Before voting began, the tabulators were unlocked, as witnessed by representatives of the same parties, doors opened and voters filed in. Once the voting period ended, the machines were locked - and remained locked until the election results were certified.
A voter entered the booth, pulled a large lever to close a curtain, and selected at most one candidate in each race by depressing a small lever. There was one row of levers for each contest. Once the voter finished his selection, he pulled the large lever again, to open the curtain and add his vote to the races he selected. (Paper ballots were available for write-ins, but in New York City, you had a lot of candidates in each race.)
Once the voting period was over, the “odometer” windows were unlocked, and the totals on each machine entered into a tally sheet, witnessed by the poll watchers. The machines totals remained locked at least until the results were certified and all challenges cleared. It was really a very effective and trusted way to vote.
The machines were subject to testing for accuracy and reliability, and again, I don’t think anyone ever suspected their accuracy, reliability or fairness.
We are using the same voting machines as Venezuela
Obama outsourced the 2012 vote counting to foreign company tied to Soros.
Smartmatic: All things connected
BTW, I think the old NYC voting machines were a lot more tamper resistant than paper ballots.
“You can snicker....”
Not me I don’t have any experience other than as a voter. But I do read of hackers getting into systems, of people who manipulate them one way or another, etc. I am thinking of the recent Target store security failure, then yesterday it was Sears, and on and on. I just don’t have much confidence in the system.
From what I understand, getting a paper receipt of some kind is best. Taht way their is a check in the system for auditing.
From what I understand, getting a paper receipt of some kind is best. That way there is a “check” in the system for auditing.
The old mechanical adding machine style voting machines were quite tamper resistant, as proven over time, and had the advantage of being testable and comprehensible. ATMs and banking software have been relatively secure. I think it goes to motivation. Banks recognize people want to steal their money (and it’s not their money).
Most of these security breaches (like Snowden) ultimately can be laid to appallingly bad, actually lackadaisical, security practices.