Unacceptable UniLect
Press Release     American Voter   18 April 2005   

UniLect is trying to reverse the decertification and will be in Harrisburg on April 22, 2005 (to demonstrate that they can now hide undervotes). We need to put a stop to the use of this system if the Commonwealth doesn't abide by its valid decision to decertify.

(PRWEB) April 18, 2005 This blatant ballot-rigging system has been decertified by the Commonwealth of PA, in a fully-justified move based on the failure of the UniLect company to deliver on even its original claims. It doesn't comply with the principles of good electronics manufacture, and it doesn't comply with Pennsylvania law. It doesn't work. It has failed repeatedly and severely in the field. It's a "lemon" if ever there was one. It's not trustable and not worth our money. It robs us of votes.

Ask any computer security experts you see if they'd want their future life dependent on an ill-designed 80's-technology unencrypted DOS box that's not upgradable with a touchscreen which provides no user-verifed direct paper printout of the individual records. Tell them about how it is built and tested in total secrecy. Observe those experts as they cringe and reject it outright. (Caution: they may use some harsh language in doing so.)

There are intrinsic flaws in the design and the manufacture of the UniLect 'Patriot'. The hardware is junk and there's no way to make sure the software isn't quite malicious. We have already lost too many of our votes to the defects of this faulty equipment. At some point, sensible people stop throwing good money after bad. At some point, responsible people realize that a seller who lies about a product/service which subsequently fails is the one to be held accountable for his deception/fraud.

UniLect built a bad product. UniLect lied to trick people into buying the bad product. UniLect was told by the State the first time around that it had to make improvements, but it did not make those improvements. UniLect threw away 10,000 of our votes. They can easily tweak their code to make it hide the fact that it's tossing votes. We don't need it, we don't want it. We'd like to see UniLect make reparations to those who have been afflicted by its damage.

Officials and citizens have had to devote extensive resources to doing the right thing for the public and rejecting this flawed system. They're to be commended. The only one who bears direct responsibility for this problem is UniLect. They ripped off the taxpayers with deceit and fraud, and should have to pay.

The taxpayers deserve to have their money spent on bonded/insured/accountable honest and local people doing vote counts which can be clearly observed by independent witnesses. What possible excuse could there be for trying to deprive us of that? HAVA does not require DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) voting at all. DRE systems don't do anything to help the disabled voters, and will merely disenfranchise them along with so many others.

All a paperless electronic system does is help make vote rigging as easy to do and hide as possible. In the name of democracy, out with it!

The Commonwealth has agreed to reconsider the UniLect product on April 22, 2005, in Harrisburg. We must insist that there be no reinstatement of the certification of the UniLect brand, on behalf of the voters.

# # #