I have concluded: PAPER BALLOTS ARE THE ONLY ANSWER..

[TruthIsAll]

Diebold has created an infinitely complex system. Much worse than you can imagine. Thousands of memos have been sent for memory card problems, remote modem problems, data corruption problems..and on and on. Go ahead. Search on 'memory card problems'. Do it here.

http://new.globalfreepress.com/mnogosearch/search.cgi

A cursory view of these memos leads to a single conclusion: NMFC. No more fucking computers.

Canada has it right. And Europe. And Oregon. Use paper ballots. Manually entered. Then count them up in one day. No fuss. No muss. 100% accurate.

Voting Computers? Optical scanners? We don't need 'em. I've been programming for 25 years. It's obvious. They are a boondoggle, they are a scam, they are destroying our democracy.

We don't need those stinkin' black boxes. Do it at your leisure. No waiting lines to get into the booth. No condescending poll workers treating you as if you were an imbecile. No political hack getting paid to hassle you. No taking off early from work. No excuse for not voting. No stormtroopers telling you to go home. If you are black, no one will single you out. Send out simple forms. Just check the boxes. Put it in the mail. Go to sleep. And rest easy knowing that your votes will be counted.

Put an X next to the name. Even a dittohead freeper would understand what I'm talking about.

[Maine Mary]

1. Only one of the 18 towns in my legislative district

has a voting machine. Everyone else uses paper ballots. But then again the largest town in the district has a population of only 1,200. Works fine in little towns but I think things could get bogged down too easily in bigger towns or cities.

[TruthIsAll]

3. Check out Canada. I read they do the whole country in less than 12 hours.

...

[Sticky]

14. We just had a provincial election

...my teens worked as agents for the day, checking off names and addresses of voters as they arrived.
Polls closed at 7 - they counted, double-counted and were home by 8. We have an average size riding.

I don't understand why people are against paper ballots. They're simple to read and understand, you put a check or an X in the box beside your candidate, fold it up and away you go. God knows paper ballots, a cardboard box and pencils are cheap enough.

If there's a power failure (happened here a few years ago) you can still count the votes by candlelight.

Electronic voting could be a nightmare on too many levels!

[Lisa]

24. it's also an incredibly moving experience ...

For the first time, I served as a scrutineer and ballot-counter in the last election -- several of us found ourselves wiping away tears as we sat around tables (with representatives from other political parties) -- setting aside our partisan differences in order to ensure a fair election.

Even though our party lost, I still feel incredibly pumped at having had this chance ... Elections Canada organizes federal elections, and there are also non-partisan agencies for the provinces ... I'm going to volunteer next time, too.

[shirlden]

5. Take it down to the precinct level

and it is no problem. I don't know about other states, but I assume they are all basically the same. Here in Ohio the precinct is limited to 1000 registered voters. The max that vote would be in Presidential years at maybe 60-63 percent, but off year is 35 to 50 percent. So each polling precinct has a not so whopping 350 to 630 ballots to count. A very minor deal.
Optical scans could be a good deal and shave a few minutes off the count time. But would the cost and inconvenience of technology where it is not really needed, justify having it?

[gristy]

2. There ya go!

I'm with you, though I am still willing to accept the use of optical scanners as long as there is random auditing of their results by hand counting some precincts. Or, in the case of close elections, a 100% manual count.

[liberalmuse]

4. I so agree.

I was doing some searches this morning. Someone (you?) posted the Diebold memo search engine here. Very disturbing, and I only read a half dozen of the memos. Apparently, there were some glitches that 'weren't serious' in the 2002 elections. One machine reversed the votes belonging to two candidates. Many other glitches were caused by operator error, i.e.; forgetting to unload votes, etc. We need paper!

[w4rma]

6. Folks have been saying that computers can print out the paper ballots

for a while. That will do away with *all* of the security problems. Just print out one voter verified paper ballot per voting voter and drop it into an old fashoned ballot box to be counted.

But, why does Diebold refuse to do this under any circumstances?

[DemBones DemBones]

8. Why have computers print out ballots? Why not just mark them

with pencil?

Of course, Diebold can't make much money selling ballot papers and #2 pencils. . .

[DemBones DemBones]

7. I've been voting since 1968 and have only once voted by machine.

Paper ballots work just fine. We Americans are impatient people but we can learn to be patient while the ballots are counted. Accuracy is more important than speed.

[whathappened]

9. paper is fine with me

i'm no beleaver in the 100 percent computer , running all the time with out toubles , since having my computer i have lost 3 hard drives , and can;t tell ya how many times freeze ups have taken me down how in the hell can we trust something that is no better then a toy with battery , i have alway voted with paper my whole life and don't see no reason to change , our town still has the punch machines

[Cheswick2.0]

10. I agree 100%

I have been saying and saying and saying that unless the fraudulent vote is close, all those papers that are supposed to be a paper trail will sit in a box and never be counted. The machine count will be taken at face value even if it is wrong.

I also think we need the exit polls back.

[Abe Linkman]

11. Say it one more time, in plain English. I don't have a clue about ...

what your point is. Do you?

[Cheswick2.0]

13. KMA babe

:P

[gristy]

17. It seemed pretty clear to me.

[leftyandproud]

12. NO!!!

I think the electronic machines can offer better accuracy. You can choose your candidate, and then go toa review screen before confirming your vote. This makes for extremely accurate voting...and for the worries of a paper trail, I say MAKE ONE!! What is the problem with that? Why don't the Diebold machines, after taking your vote, print out a "receipt" of sorts...a copy for you, and a copy for the polling place, printed in black and white who you voted for. Why not have the accurate electronic voting as well as a verifiable paper trail? Why isn't this do-able?

[Pobeka]

20. The problem with that?

Is that it takes a team of people nearly a year to pour over software, and come to at best a *marginal* consensus that the electronic balloting probably did not have errors. By then, the candidate is in office, and there is no turning back time. We are seeing more and more evidence that electronic voting *is* flawed. And for every scheme that someone comes up with to implement the "fool proof" system, there is a programmer over in the corner chuckling because it's obvious how to circumvent the process.

And, to boot, the cost of doing electronic voting is astronomical -- that is, if it was done correctly to certify both the hardware and software to guarantee that vote rigging could not occur -- due to the fact that we, by law, and for good reason, have a system where our vote is completely anonymous, it means the only reliable way for a voter to know the vote he/she cast was marked correctly on the ballot, is to look at it with their own eyes.

Sorry about that last run-on sentence...

[ex_jew]

15. Let's not forget statistical voting !

This is the plan under which a random sample of registered voters is chosen at random two weeks before the election and then they (and only they) vote via certified mail. No muss or fuss, easy to audit, minimal expense, great accuracy, no problems with turnout, the voters who are chosen can STUDY the issues and the candidates.

Don't say you were never told...

[moondust]

16. "They" like to say that paper is error prone, too.

But they always fail to mention that a handful of idiots and crooks here and there are only physically capable of cooking a relative handful of paper ballots. The machines are capable of cooking thousands, perhaps millions, effortlessly and without a trace.

[gristy]

18. yup. I've made that point many times.

Good to hear it made some more.

[Pobeka]

21. yes, more!

That point needs to be driven home, and solidly!

[ISUGRADIA]

19. Some Questions

1) How do those who are blind and unable to mark a ballot vote independently? This has been one of the biggest reasons why touch screen voting has been pushed by disability advocates. Several governmental bodies have been sued over this, DC for example when they chose to buy optical scan units.

2) How do you check for overvotes? An electronic system can spot this and reject the ballot allowing the voter a second chance. A non computerized system cannot.

2) Parlimentary elections in Canada and Erope are usually simpler ballots with one office or a party choice in addition. There were probably a dozen or more offices on the ballot last election in Iowa, some states are worse, check out the number of ballot props on the San Francisco ballot this year.

Tallying each ballot in a county where 40,000 ballots may be cast by hand takes time on election night and then multiply this nationwide. Human error is more likely than a controlled computer system eror rate.

My solution would be some type of government owned company producing election equipment with paper ballots, similar to the optical scan tabulator Diebold and other companies use. This would take private companies out of the equation. Fill in the circle or complete the arrow for each office. A computer count at each precinct on election night. The paper ballots will be there for any questionable results or a recount.

I question the accuracy and dependability of touch screen units. What if there is a blackout on election day? What if lighting hits a precinct in the evening and fries the circuts in the units?

Then even without any questions of vote rigging there is the cost. One tabulator that tallies paper ballots in a manner of seconds. 20 cheap voting booths. People in and out quickly. Maybe $4000 for the tabulator and another $100 for each booth, $6000. No matter that people have to wait while the touch screen units are tied up by others. The hassle of setting up all this equipement by these 70 year old poll workers.

Compare that to having to buy six, seven, eight touch screen units for this hypothetical precinct at $4000 or $5000 a pop plus an annual maintenence agreement. We're talking hundreds of millions nationwide.

Some food for thought.

[Pobeka]

22. An answer to 2)

The electronic system can *print* the voter marked ballot, first on screen. Voter looks at ballot, says, yep -- that's what I wanted, pushes the "print" button, and gets a printed, error-checked ballot to drop in the box. You can have the best of both worlds.

[TruthIsAll]

25. Let me try to answer your questions

1) How do those who are blind and unable to mark a ballot vote independently? This has been one of the biggest reasons why touch screen voting has been pushed by disability advocates. Several governmental bodies have been sued over this, DC for example when they chose to buy optical scan units.

Simple: Install ONE machine for diable users ONLY.

2) How do you check for overvotes? An electronic system can spot this and reject the ballot allowing the voter a second chance. A non computerized system cannot.

Answer. You and the rest of America has been brainwashed to believe that voters voted more than once. Hogwash.. There was no such thing as overvotes. The overvotes were ballots "doublepunched" on purpose by corrupt Repukes after the fact in oprder to spoil Gore votes. See Duval County. Black voters are not stupid. They do not overvote. The solution is to use a uniform ballot format. No Punches. Its paper. Just an X. No Butterfly Ballot. And don't let the Repukes do the counting alone. There must be a Democrat present along with a third person. Like the Florida recount.


3) Parlimentary elections in Canada and Erope are usually simpler ballots with one office or a party choice in addition. There were probably a dozen or more offices on the ballot last election in Iowa, some states are worse, check out the number of ballot props on the San Francisco ballot this year.

Tallying each ballot in a county where 40,000 ballots may be cast by hand takes time on election night and then multiply this nationwide. Human error is more likely than a controlled computer system eror rate.

Answer. You are incorrect to assume that the time to calculate the 40,000 votes must be multiplied nationwide. Each precinct is counted independently and concurrently. This is called "parallel processing". We don't do it serially.

Human eror is virtually ZERO beacuse there are several individuals checking the count. Theis is called "redundancy". In a hacked computer, error rates are a function of preplanned fraud.

[ISUGRADIA]

26. A Responce to your points

>Simple: Install ONE machine for diable users ONLY.

ME I'd agree with this; this would be the best solution to the demand for independent voting for the disable.

>Answer. You and the rest of America has been brainwashed to believe that voters voted more than once. Hogwash.. There was no such thing as overvotes. The overvotes were ballots "doublepunched" on purpose by corrupt Repukes after the fact in oprder to spoil Gore votes. See Duval County. Black voters are not stupid. They do not overvote. The solution is to use a uniform ballot format. No Punches. Its paper. Just an X. No Butterfly Ballot. And don't let the Repukes do the counting alone. There must be a Democrat present along with a third person. Like the Florida recount.

ME Well, I would not say I am brainwashed as I have worked elections and I have seen people overvote. My point was that this is an arguement by many of the Democrats in Congress during the whole HAVA debate. I think real overvotes are few and far between on a clear paper ballot with an X or a O to fill in. People do make mistakes but on a paper ballot it is _very_ rare 1-200, or 1-300 and is more likely in races where you vote for 2 or more of X candidates. To me, overvoting is a non issue but seems to be one to several advocacy groups fighting in this area..

Your point about "doublepunched" on purpose by corrupt Repukes after the fact" do you mean after the polls close the ballots were spoliled this way by workers?

I do think there is evidence that the punch cards by their nature led to a higher overvote level because of 1) chads falling out by handling 2) faulty instructions in the case of the butterfly ballot and was not all Repub manipulation

In closing, just trying to debate the problems I see with absolutley no computerized voting, I am open to the idea of paper ballots only if there are plenty of safeguards build in to prevent tampering by poll workers or others.

[ConsAreLiars]

27. Reasonable questions

"1) How do those who are blind and unable to mark a ballot vote independently? This has been one of the biggest reasons why touch screen voting has been pushed by disability advocates. Several governmental bodies have been sued over this, DC for example when they chose to buy optical scan units."

First, a "touchscreen" per se is pretty useless for a blind person, but computers can provide accessibility options for a variety of folks who otherwise might find voting impractical.

Computers can be programmed to create ballots (paper ballots) in many languages and to use voice as well as touchscreen or simple inkpens to fill out the ballots. This is a real plus. But disability-friendliness is no reason to do away with the possibility of double-checking the ballot. A blind person may need assistance to verify that the paper ballot generated by the computer actually contains the votes s/he intended to cast, but I cannot imagine that any advocate for the disabled would want to deny blind or non-blind voters (same for non-English speakers) the option to verify that the ballot they drop in the ballot box actually reflects their choices.

"2) How do you check for overvotes? An electronic system can spot this and reject the ballot allowing the voter a second chance. A non computerized system cannot."

Poor ballot design can lead to overvotes or other accidents like missing a page. When the ballot is run through a validation checking scanner it can flag these and ask the voter if s/he wants to try again or leave that ballot item uncounted. In either case, the paper ballot is necessary to assure that the counting done by the machine is accurate.

"Tallying each ballot in a county where 40,000 ballots may be cast by hand takes time on election night and then multiply this nationwide. Human error is more likely than a controlled computer system eror rate."

Canada manages complete hand counts routinely. At the precinct level you have less that a thousand votes on a dozen or maybe two questions and 4-6 precinct workers. But if this seems too hard, once elections are closed randomly designate 5% of the ballot boxes for a manual validation check. If the manual count does not match the machine count, try again. Still a mismatch? Then the machine numbers are fraudulent and both a full refund from the supplier and a full manual recount are mandated.

"I question the accuracy and dependability of touch screen units. What if there is a blackout on election day? What if lighting hits a precinct in the evening and fries the circuts in the units?"

Exactly right.

"Then even without any questions of vote rigging there is the cost."

Right again. A table and a pen are far cheaper than any computer. The computer-generated paper ballots are a real plus for some fraction of the electorate, but the great majority of voters only need a preprinted ballot in English (and maybe other languages common in that particular precinct - a decision for accountants). An individualised computer-generated (and/or filled-in) ballot will be helpful to some, but there is no reason to use this more expensive option where it is not needed.

[TacticalPeek]

23. IBM originally stood for:

Its Better Manual

A paper ballot method is also easily implemented in 30 days or less. Try that with sofware development.