Conyers survey: "verifiable audit trail" is not enough!

[garybeck]

The only question on Conyers survey about electronic voting is:

Ensure that every voting machine has a verifiable audit trail?

That is not enough. We need VERIFIED, not just verifiable. We need open source code. I'm surprised there isn't more about this on the survey.

In order to be VERIFIED, each voter must be able to view their ballot and verify that the votes they made are correct. There needs to be a certain percentage of random hand counts.

Most of us here know this but it seems Conyers has been so focused on disenfranchisement that he's missing a lot of the important issues on electronic voting.

We need to contact Conyers and the committee with more info on this. If they focus mostly on disenfranchisement we lose again.

on edit:
here's the link to his survey:
http://johnconyers.com/index.asp?Type=SUPERFORMS&SEC={D806E54D-86E7-42DF-BA64-771A221369F1}

[ananda]

1. paper ballots

No, what we need are paper ballots that are all counted by hand with observers watching.

Sue

[imenja]

5. why are paper ballots any better?

The examples of fraud in American elections where paper ballots were used are countless: LBJ's election to the US Senate and JF Kennedy's election to the presidency in 1960 are two examples. They are many more. The vast majority of elections in American history have included fraud to at least some extent. I really don't understand this idea that paper ballots will somehow do away with fraud. Evidence from history shows otherwise. It's clear we need a paper receipt or even ballot for every voter, but if a machine is programmed properly, with an open source code as the original posters suggests, it offers a more standard method of counting. Hand counting provides even greater opportunity for fraud. The old saying from the city machines of the nineteenth-century like Tammany Hall was, "if you don't have enough votes, just keep counting."

[starmaker]

8. open source code

still does not ensure accuracy read www.chuckherrin.com
on the fraud cookie roberts almost laughed about it on nightline
it should be a major 5 alarm fire to voters to unite for reform
hand counting actually most accurate of voting methods

every talking point will be spun
and computer salesmen will lobby in every state

any computer vote tabulator sold today can be compromised
partial recounts cannot accurately test system

www.blackboxvoting.com links to activity in nc.

[imenja]

10. doesn't provide a convincing explanation of why paper ballots are better

Of course computers can be corrupted, but so can hand counts. The site you directed me to notes: "I think the best solution is a return to hand-counted paper ballots. They are simple, resistant to fraud." That last statement is clearly false. As my previous post noted, examples of fraudulent elections using hand counts are many. I am not convinced at all. To note, as he does, that "The arguments citing human error and malfeasance concerns with paper ballots are ridiculous" shows a profound ignorance of history. I cannot offer a suggestion on how to make machines work better, since my knowledge of computers is very limited. But I do know enough about history and human nature to be certain that a faith in paper ballots as a solution is badly misplaced.

[Igel]

39. I guess (if nobody says this below) the only

reasons for hand-counted paper ballots are:

-- it's harder to screw with multiple jurisdictions at once (still possible, just harder)

-- hand-counting forces somebody to make a decision about goofy votes. It's more "accurate" in that it counts votes that a machine might miss (such as circling a bubble on an optiscan sheet or writing a name on a punch card).

On the other hand, I was a bookkeeper for years. Given $5632.32 in small bills, how many times did I have to count it to come up with the same number twice? Even making little piles, sometimes I'd be there for a while. And balancing the organization's books? (This is before we computerized everything.)

Now take 15k ballots from 50 precincts, 5 prez candidates, congressional races, local races, state and local ballot initiatives ... and make it balance right the first time. Yeah.

[imenja]

41. exactly

That is precisely the problem. When I count something by hand I have to do it several times. The larger the number of items, the more mistakes we make. Imagine how easy it is to fudge the numbers purposefully. Also, machines are not interconnected. If the process of verification, programming, and calibration is made transparent, and we have a paper trail, machines will work acceptably.

[sepia_steel]

44. Then maybe we should try 'Keep It Simple Stupid'

It's hard to mess up counting to 5 or ten.

Why not have sectioned trays, and put 5 or ten votes in each section, and when the tray is full, that's 100 votes? Then someone can double check it, and more than one set of eyes can watch. Easy.

[Igel]

51. Nothing's easy.

The poll workers we have frequently have problems. Unless you can make sure they're trained, competent, and alert at the end of the day, have them do as little as possible. The ones I worked with couldn't follow directions; I'm a dissertating grad student, among other things, and set my own schedule. Half the affadavit ballots ("provisional ballots" elsewhere) they caused to be invalid--the actually instructed the voters to miscomplete the forms, or did something else after the voter left. No malfeasance, just incompetence.

If you need to sort things, do it at the BOE office.

I would recommend having the precinct captains keep a copy of whatever counts they make in the precinct (# of voters, or the precinct breakdown) and make sure they verify that's what was actually recorded at the BOE or are told why the numbers had to be altered.

[Joe Chi Minh]

56. A professional, white-hat

hacker by he name of Skerrin has produced an impressive Power Point presentation comprehensively answering your question in some detail. Unfortunately, I can't find the link. Does anyone else have it?

[imenja]

62. study

If you are able to locate it I would appreciate the link. Thanks


On edit: I think you are referring to Chuck Herrin. I found the study here. file:///C:/WINDOWS/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.IE5/OLMB81A3/256,1,The Effect of Computers on the Integrity of Vote Tabulation

Other posters have directed me to it.

My problem is this: His analysis is focused on the problems of computer systems as we now use them. I have no dispute with him that these systems are badly flawed and must be changed. But he provides no convincing evidence that paper is better. He simply dismisses criticism as "ridiculous" and notes the problems in the past 200 years have to do with people rather than paper themselves. That last part would seem quite obvious to me. So why would people be any less corrupt now than they were 50 or 100 years ago? If they can alter machines, they can more easily alter hand counts. I hand counting system requires thousands of poll officials of impecibly honest credentials. I think that is quite unlikely. My point is because machines are corruptable, does not make hand counts a reliable solution. He simply assumes they will be better. He does not establish it. As he himself notes "fraud is not a technological problem, it is a human problem." Why then are machines themselves considered the enemy. It is the corrupt officials and sloppy systems that corrupt elections. This blind faith in hand counting is simply niave. Because one system is bad does not mean the opposite is good. I feel quite discouraged. Republicans are fighting for no change, and the left fights for change that will almost certainly make things worse. This does not bode well for future elections.

[Joe Chi Minh]

65. Goodness, Imenja,

I can only imagine that you skimmed through his presentation very rapidly, while you were distracted by other matters.

There are at least three key, over-arching factors that I believe he pointed to, which render machine voting immeasurably more open to fraud. (Well, I think I should have said "measurably", as indicated so clearly by the statistical probablity studies carried out by the likes of truthisall, Dr Freeman, etc)

1) Just one person is able to effect the most amazingly egregious fraud at a kind of "meta" level, by a mere key-stroke or two;

2) The problem of eliminating fraud, from the chain of unambiguously partisan political and commercial decision-makers/manufacturers to similarly-minded election workers, is made a thousand times more complex and difficult by the nature of computer technology, itself; a paper receipt, as he points out, cannot mitigate against these deficiencies;

3) The aptitude and efficiency of computers for fraudulent purposes, as compared to that of the medieval level of technology of paper and stylus is, unfortunately, both literally and figuratively "incalculable"; while with piles of paper, it's not so easy to stuff great wadges of them away, at least under the gaze of citizen invigilators, from close up - as they should be.

If I may say so, I think you need to reflect somewhat more on the many points that he goes to great lengths to explain and reinforce, precisely to answer your queries.

[Joe Chi Minh]

66. Do you,

by any chance have the URL of the file you cited?

[imenja]

68. you miss my point

He establishes well that computers are susceptible to fraud. What he does not establish is that hand counts are better. He merely assumes it.

Counting paper ballots by hand requires many thousands of honest people. That has never been the case it past elections. Why should it be so now?

To show one system is vulnerable does not mean another method is preferable or acceptable. That is my point.

[Joe Chi Minh]

75. No, imenja,

he points out that both systems are susceptible to fraud, but that fraud by computer is infinitely easier, and what is more, ironically, no less, on a country-wide scale. The latter can be done by one or two key strokes. In any case, a comparison of the relative statistics shows clearly that the most strikingly improbable and massive fraud *was* perpetrated at the locartions using the machines. Always in favour of Bush.

As I stated, he also stipulated that ordinary citizens should be able to invigilate the honest counting of the paper votes *from close up*.
So finding hundreds of honest counters would not be a problem. And recounts would be both possible and, all-important, now - in this twilit psephological demi-monde - meaningful. The groundwork for proper auditing would be in place.

But the simple introduction of paper ballots could never be viewed as an answer to the immense patchwork of fraud, on its own. Where there is a will, there's a way. The will of the powerful neocon politicians, political operatives, businessmen, Governors, Secretaries of State, judges, etc, behind this massive nationwide deployment of overtly, arguably even boastfully, fraudulent practices must be nullified in every possible way. Paper ballots are just an indispensible start. But there are other indispensible measures, such as draconian criminal sanctions against perpetrators at every level, including obstructive, partisan officials on the ground, Governors, Secretaries of State, judges. Also criminally intimidatory behaviour by white-collar types in the polling stations. I saw one photo of a young suit, craning over the shoulder of an African American woman, as she voted.

[imenja]

78. where will you find all these citizens?

Please see concerns raised in posts 73 and 45. I have to wonder how many people advocating these solutions have actually worked on an election. Think about how many polling places there are across the country and how many of those are in rural and exurban areas where there are few Democrats to be found. Has anyone calculated how many volunteers will be needed? States are not going to pay employees to do all this. Given how few people volunteer to work on elections or campaigns, I contest the election that finding citizen observers would be "no problem."

I think a combination of machines and hand counts is more reliable. Paper ballots counted by machines and then a certain percentage randomly selected to be verified by a hand count, as part of every election. Not just recounts. The advantage of machine counts is that they can be more easily verified than hand counts. If a machine in a given county has the same program, you can select certain groups of ballots to make sure they were properly counted. Machines can also be examined to make sure they are properly programmed. In a hand count system alone, errors and fraud can and will occur any and everywhere. Every single ballot would have to be rechecked for accuracy. That might happen in a recount, but not during the normal course of elections.

[Joe Chi Minh]

102. You keep missing all the many points that I

and others raise, imenja.

I'll confine myself to addressing the points that you raise: the States' administration of the elections on their turf.

It is of absolutely paramount importance that they cease to have jurisdiction over elections, particularly federal. It is even enshrined in law: equal treatment.

Your suggestion that:

"The advantage of machine counts is that they can be more easily verified than hand counts", would be laughable were it not a tragic misrepresentation. Machine recounts make the same errors, deliberate or otherwise. The very fact of their being used
suggests, "deliberate".

In any case, as a side issue, it is always bad policy to reward criminals for their crimes. Their secretiveness concerning their machines in the current context is only susceptible to one interpretation.... However, that is a personal conviction; the objective realities are more than sufficient to stand on their own merits... irrespective of the probity or otherwise of the manufacturers.

"In a hand count system alone, errors and fraud can and will occur any and everywhere". No, not "everywhere".

"Every single ballot would have to be rechecked for accuracy. That might happen in a recount, but not during the normal course of elections".

Whatever intolerably dire labour-intensive burdens you impute to paper ballots, the fact remains they have been and continue to be used to the smoothest and most trouble-free effect in most advanced countries, whose government - most bitter of ironies, given your country's record in relation to elections, - frankly, is of far less significance to the world than that of the United States. The counts and recounts in national elections are performed in a matter of hours, and I have never heard any allegation of fraud, either here, France, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, to cite just a few countries.

And yet, believe it or not, their right to have their votes counted is - again, the most sovereign irony - held to be more precious by politically aware Americans than anywhere else in the world, save under overt and longstanding tyrranies.

Now, I'm off to look for Chuck Herrin's Power Point presentation on the Web.

[imenja]

104. practicality

The problem is not that I don't understand your points. Rather, it's that I don't find them entirely convincing. (See my other post about the Constituional problem of resting control of elections away from the states).

I'm glad hand counts have worked in other countries. They have not here. In Switzerland people leave their bicycles on the street and no one steels them. Would you do that here? The bicycle itself is not different. It is the tendency toward theft that differs. There are also countries that use mechanized problems that don't experience the kind of fraud we do. Brazil managed to elect a socialist president in 2002, using machine counts for the first time in it's history. (Brazil is hardly known for an absence of corruption).

Do you realize hand counts using paper ballots have not been used in this country at the presidential level since the nineteenth century?
Are you familiar with the Progressive era reforms and why they were implemented?

You are imagining an ideal world in which you can completely remake election laws and implant new officials in every county across fifty states. How do you think you can accomplish this? How do you think you can control elections officials in thousands of rural and exurban Republican counties across the country? Where do you propose to find the many thousands of volunteers needed? I am indeed curious. I volunteered many hours for the Kerry campaign. We didn't have one poll watcher for each precinct in an urban area. I imagine many of the rural counties had no one. The same people who now email me dozens of articles about voter fraud are the very ones who gave up working on election day after two hours and had never kept commitments to volunteer before then.

I have difficulty understanding why it is impossible to consider that a machine may be built that would be more secure. We use computers for banking and virtually everything else in society. Is it really machines by their nature or these particular machines?

Consider this: what if you manage to get some of your provisions passed into law and not others? What if you succeed in getting paper ballots counted by hand as the standard, but no changes in personnel, or only some, are made? How successful do you suppose that will be? How do you propose to override the consitutional provision giving authority over elections to the states? And will federalizing the system really work? It is the Republicans who control both houses of government now. I'm quite certain they would like to keep it that way.

In Florida, we had a state law requiring provisional ballots be administered, in addition to HAVA's requirement. Despite that, supervisors of elections refused to dispense them, even as they had Kerry lawyers standing there. They did it continually throughout election day. Laws and lawyers don't solve everything. I would have liked to see those officials prosecuted, but the Kerry team refused to follow up on complaints. Sadly, elections seldom unfold as planned. We need systems that guard against that. Whatever the ideal solution is, I encourage you to think through the implications very carefully. I don't find the system you describe very comforting. Perhaps it doesn't matter if elections are actually fair, as long as people believe they are. We have experienced fraud in elections throughout our country's history, but most seem to think 2000 was it's first appearance.

By the way, Votersunite.org has a study on problems with voting machines that looks far more comprehensive than Chuck Herrin's. You might want to check it out if you don't know it already.

[imenja]

105. another point: minor matter of the Constitution

There is the minor matter of the US Constitution. It gives to the states authority over elections. Taking that power away may require a constitutional amendment to avoid being overruled by the Supreme Court. Obviously a Constitutional lawyer can advise you on that far better than I. It is, however, something you need to look into.

[Occulus]

101. you provided a link to a file on your hard drive

Could you post the internet site URL you got it from originally? I'd like to see it....

[Amaryllis]

14. I've read that hand counting is most accurate also but can't remember

where. Do you have a source for that info?

[KaliTracy]

18. not if the paper ballots are tied to a voter via tear-off that has

number with signature.

1. Every person gets a database number (not ss number) -- All newly registered voters have a number on the registration form. (person registering voters has to sign-out lots of registration forms -- no "thrown out" forms. Person registering voters also has to sign registration form.

2.Database number is used on vote day:

a. person signs pollbook, and sticker with number is placed next to name. Sticker is also signed.

b. whatever ballot (paper (preferred), punch card, optiscan) - an area is made at the bottom of the ballot. The sticker is placed there, and poll person signs it.

c. Person casts vote, tears off number and places in separate ballot box. Ballot is cast in typical fashion.

Private vote, but ballot tied to an actual person. Otherwise -- Garbage In -- Garbage Out. In the case of paper ballots especially, you need to know that the ballot is attributed to a person.

For Paper Ballots --
1. A little booklet is given. The Sticker is placed on the outside of the booklet, and poll person signs it.

2. Each race is on a separate page. There is a shape or symbol on each page for easy initial sorting.

3. Each race has a "I do not wish to vote for this race" ck box to ensure that "undervotes" are truly a decline to vote.

3. Person votes -- MANY cubbies can be available -- so while there may be an inital delay at the table (not much) -- there would be more people on the floor in their cubbies voting.

4. Two ballot boxes. Person tears out all pages, and places them in a ballot sleeve. -- Drop the ballot sleeve with the votes in one box -- the "cover/back" of the booklet with the signed sticker on it in the other box.

now a signature is tied to a vote, but a private vote is cast. "stuffing" could only occur if poll worker is involved, as the stickers on the outside of the box have to be signed by them -- not a matter of just dropping more ballots in the actual ballot box -- the poll books and the ballot stickers would have to be the same.

[imenja]

24. The problem is in counting the votes

not in casting them. At the end of the day votes are counted by elections officials. This is when fraud has always occurred. Nothing you have suggested prevents that.

[eridani]

27. The problem is getting enough people to give a flying fuck

If they did, there would be enough eyeballs on the situation to prevent cheating. You can't just let one party do all the counting, not even us upstanding Dems. Really.

[KaliTracy]

28. on contrary. I do think that this is a way to mimize stuffing, extra

ballots, lost ballots. If the first call to action is counting the number of people who voted in a precinct -- the poll book is tallied, and the number stubbs are counted. They have to coincide, would they not?

Remember -- the sticker has the Poll Person's signature. I think that I might have neglected to include a signature in the poll book of the pol person --

Voter is tied to Ballot and Poll book
Poll person is tied to Ballot and Poll book
Ballot is cast annonymously -- Database number in separate box with poll person's signature. (If the paper ballots are used, the sig. would got on the sticker and off the sicker onto the book (they would be trained to do this).

So the ballots are counted. As I said, I prefer the paper counts. So they are divided first by race. And tallied. Should be same number as poll book numbers. You can't stuff the box unless you "stuff" the poll book, and in this way, there is much more likely hood in getting caught.

The problem we have with the verified paper ballots is we are still assuming that there aren't any extra votes.

I would like to see a "no thanks, I'm not voting for this race" box, no matter what type of ballot for the obvious "intention" distinction of undervotes (especially with Presidental Elections).

A tied database would not be hard to create -- it would minimize registration fiascos and "lost" registrations -- all database numbers would have to be accounted for - with a reason why it's not being used. Queries can EASILY be made -- per precinct -- to see how many registered voters that there are. This also should be verified -- the number of stickers NOT used should add up to the stickers USED(and signed for).

Is it perfect? No -- but to me, it should be the first step because at this point we don't trust election officials, and they don't trust us. Tieing the ballot to both the voter/pollworker (in the book), and the poll worker (on the stubb) would make it more difficult to loose ballots or stuff ballots. They wouldn't have to just "sign for" someone who doesn't show -- they'd have to put their signature on the line for that voter as well... I think less people would feel willing to "cheat" under those circumstances.

Our privacy is not being compromised because there is no way to tie the stubb to the ballot, yet if that doesn't match up, then a more in-depth look can be done.

[imenja]

32. again, the problem is not the ballots

It is the counting. The system you suggest contains a solution for verifying results, which is excellent. Votes must be verified and paper ballots or receipts must exist, there is no doubt about that. But hand counting is no more, perhaps even less, susceptible to corruption than other methods of counting. You don't have to "stuff" ballot boxes to alter counts. You only need to change the total figures. Remember that Republican election officials dominate in most counties in the country. What I would suggest is paper ballots or receipts that are counted by machines. The ballots would have to be saved, and the programming and calibration of the machines would need to be made public. The paper ballots remain to check the totals in a recount (or even as part of the election itself) as you describe above, but machine counting helps eliminate human error and the overwhelming tendency for dishonesty that has always characterized hand counting of ballots in this country.

[sepia_steel]

40. i Can't trust a machine, ever.

Just because they make calibration info. 'public' doesn't mean a dman thing, because we aren't programmers, and we can't check it with our own hands and eyes. They could slap any info. on some poster or website. That's not enough reason for me to trust the info, given what's happened now.

It's not enough for me.

Paper and hand counts all the way.

[Igel]

45. This is a nightmare.

It's hard enough to get the people that staff the polling stations to keep the count right and get people to sign in the right place. You'd think it would be easy to count: 1, 2, 3, 4 ... esp. when there are fewer than 200 voters. But invariably ...

Every time we had an affadavit ballot two years ago (well, 2.4 years ago) it sent us to looking at the flip cards. Once the precinct chair and the two others couldn't even remember how to set up the machine (hint: open doors. plug it in. read instructions.)

One answer: more training. But even training folks twice a year strained the county budget, and dissuaded people from working the polls. Once I had two precinct captains playing tug of war with me--they were scrounging two days before election day to staff the tables.

And what do you do with people that walk out before they vote? Or don't check the "I decline to vote" box. Or fill in more than two slots for a single race.

And if you have 30 things to vote for ... separate them all by race 1, tally; separate by race 2, tally; ....

I'm not saying your method wouldn't work. But it wouldn't eliminate fraud (unless random, independent audits were required). And it would have as many incident reports filed as the current systems do.

[KaliTracy]

61. yes, i'm idealistic. I envision a few more poll workers, Many, many

cubbies to cast the vote. Precincts that have a workable number of people assigned to them Poll tables and Ballot Box areas with proper signage. Without training it could be a nightmare. Without informing voters, it could be a nightmare. But the major complaint about paper ballots is that there is still ballot stuffing. And the major complaint this year about registrations, was registrations being "thrown away." I'm just thinking about alternatives while trying to tie two problems together, is all.

Why would people walk out before they vote? If proper signage was in place at the ENTRANCE of a polling place -- if it is more than one person at a poll book station (that's the case now in our area at least, but we were the "priveledged" here in West Chester, Ohio), and there are MORE places to cast a vote, one wouldn't have to wait in line as long, after all, it's just two stickers and three signatures.

What's the difference if someone doesn't choose the "I choose not to vote for this issue" and an undervote now? The only reason to use the "no vote" box in the first place is to record a voter's intention. At this point we "assume" that all those undervotes for presidental candidates in New Mexico, Florida, Ohio and elsewhere were from people, some who stood in line for more than an hour, who didn't vote for president. And, I tend to think that if there were explicit directions (CHOOSE any TWO, CHOOSE ONE PERSON) at the top of the page this would be less likely -- but i'm sure it would still happen.

And sure you could do all the votes for all the issues and races on one form, but it really would be harder to count, in my opinion.

Squares in one pile, triangles in another and so one for each "race." Count of all total ballots. Compare to number of all voter signatues, which should already be tallied before the vote starts. If a descrepancy occurs, count all database stubs. Only after first verification is complete would they sort per person or issue.

Presidental ballots counted first.

People for various offices counted second.

Issues counted third.

We wouldn't get results the same night except for President -- but only if precincts were in workable numbers (less than 500).

Again -- voters need to be informed -- no matter what is done for the next election -- VOTERS need to be informed! The ideas presented here are just that -- ideas to start to bounce around more ideas.

[In Truth We Trust]

29. By your own admission the fraud occurs in the counting. Since this is the

case then hand counted paper ballots are obviously more fraud proof than any other option. Granted every option has some vulnerability but nothing like the widespread state and national fraWd that took place on Nov. 2 could possibly happen with paper ballots and hand counts.

Whose side are you on anyway? Seriously how can anyone advocate against paper ballots and hand counts?

[imenja]

31. why are paper ballots "obviously" more fraud proof?

I have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that. Quite the contrary. A paper ballot is verifiable, so we must have them for that purpose, but counting by hand is not "obviously" more fraud proof at all. The high number of fraudulent elections in which paper ballots were counted by hand makes that clear. Concerns with machines are justified and well placed, but this naive faith in hand counting is rather disturbing. I suggest you consult some history books on American elections. A few examples: LBJ's election to the US Senate; JFK's election to the Presidency, the majority of elections in Louisianna and Chicago, and the political machines of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, like Tammany Hall.
I understand this is a computer society where people don't know or care about history, but before you decide handcounts are a panacea, you really must look at some historical examples where systems that you say you now prefer dominated.

[eridani]

26. Use both methods and check them against each other==

--in mandatory audits. Handcounting is very accurate if done the way the manual recount in WA state was just done. A Dem and a Repub count every batch, and they have to agree or hand off to another team. This is how Germany does all their elections.

[brindis_desala]

36. I don't know why people accept absentee ballots

but resist the much more valid early voting by mail. I have no objection to a single central tabulator so long as each party is there to witness the count and there's a representative test sample to assure that votes are being counted accurately.

[sepia_steel]

37. That's because hand-counting paper ballots

seems to expose mistakes and includes ballots that machines don't 'read'. Nothing is better or more acurate for caounting paper ballots then human eyes.

Hand counted paper ballots showed that the Gregoire won in Washington state. Optical scanners can be rigged, too.

edit: plus we take away the disgusting practice of making vote-counting into a profitable business for corp6rations. THAT has to go!

[imenja]

38. agree on the profit issue

but not on hand counting. Hand recounts are essential, and they contain a level of vigilance election day counts do not. The examples of fraudulent elections using hand counts are many. People need to think this through far more carefully.

[sepia_steel]

42. Sure there are.

But the fact remains it's easier to do on machines, no matter what.

Logically I don't see how hand counting is such a scary concept for anyone. The machines are what make it easy to steal.

[imenja]

43. please look into the history of fraud in American elections

They you will see why it is an unacceptable solution.

[Carolab]

55. Paper ballots are getting the most support.

This is what National Ballot Integrity Project, Voters Unite and Chuck Herrin endorse, as well as Cal Tech and MIT.

[imenja]

59. yes, I've seen his site

and I'm not convinced, principally because they provide no evidence that hand counts are available. They make statements like hand counts are "obviously more reliable," yet don't say how or why. The criticism they offer of machines are valuable, but their ignorance of the history of American elections is startling. Just because something is repeated over and over again doesn't make it right. This is a serious issue and the proponents of hand counting are not taking it seriously enough. I fear they will create a far worse situation than we have now. If you think 2000 was the first stolen election in history, you are kidding yourselves.

[Junkdrawer]

69. Hand Counts in front of witnesses...

And open source code, while better than we have now, doesn't insure that the vote cannot be hacked.

Now, as for fraud with paper ballots, I agree with all the posters that say that "ballot box stuffing" is MUCH harder that evote cheating.

[Misskittycat]

88. Please read the VotersUnite.Org report "Mythbreakers"

Go to the VotersUnite.Org report titled "Mythbreakers: Facts About Electronic Elections." It is 63-pages long, but well worth the read for all of us interested in election reform.

It is an eye-opening, scholarly report explaining many of the problems with electronic voting that most of us laypeople do not know.

The potential problems go way beyond the lack of open source codes --although that is a significant problem.

All of us interested in election reform should read this important document and volunteer to make it as widely disseminated as possible.

[imenja]

93. thanks for the link.

I downloaded it. I have looked at the table of contents and will study it more thoroughly when I have time. One thing I noticed, however, is that the entire study is devoted to problems with machines. My issue is not that I doubt the criticisms others have levied against machines. Rather, what I object to is the assumption, without evidence or careful consideration or historical precedent, that hand counts will be a good solution. This is merely assumed, not established. We have not used hand counts of paper ballots for presidential elections in this country since the nineteenth century, and historians agree that many of those elections were fixed. That a system works in Switzerland, where people don't even have to bother locking up bicycles, or in Australia doesn't mean it's workable here. What I would like is for us all to think far more carefully about what the best solution should be. We rely on machines to do so much in our current society--banking, for example. Is it really inevitable that a reliable machine system, verified through a hand count audit system, cannot possibly be created?

[KatieB]

2. Paper ballots, manual counting all the way up

[uppityperson]

3. Just because technology is available doesn't mean it's good or right.

[In Truth We Trust]

4. Paper Ballots NOW! Hand counts NOW!

Nothing more and nothing less! Please,DAMN.

I am truly grateful for John Conyers efforts but on this he is wrong. Since he is the only one in congress investigating and thus is out front on it then we must insist on his committee and investigation coming out in favor of paper ballots and hand counts ONLY!

[imenja]

6. why?

Please see post #5.

[Amaryllis]

9. NO ONE is saying paper will do away with fraud. However, there is one

huge and crucial difference:

With paper ballots hand counted you simply cannot switch hundreds of thousands of votee in seconds with no one the wiser. You can with e-voting machines and tabulators.


As as far as your comments to post #8, I would encourage you to read Herrin's how to hack the vote page, FAQ page, and his empathy training for conservatives page, and this: http://www.chuckherrin.com/paperballots.htm

There has been fraud as long as there has been elections.The point is to choose methods that minimize, not maximize it.

[imenja]

11. yes, I just did

Another poster kindly provided the link for me. As my above comments note, I found his comments on paper ballots unconvincing and frankly quite disturbing. I will assume he knows what he is talking about when it comes to computers, but he obviously knows nothing about the history of elections using hand counts in this country.

[Amaryllis]

13. You might find this article on the Canadian system helpful:

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSUSElection0011/28_canadianelection-ap.html
Canada shows US how to count votes right

[imenja]

23. hand counts require honesty

Thanks for the various links. The problem with hand counts, is that it assumes a level of honesty among election officials that has not typified American elections. I believe the Canadians when they say it works well for them, but we must remember than many precincts and counties, in fact most, are run by Republican elections officials. I think of all the counties in the northern party of my state, Florida, where Republicans dominate. They can manipulate hand counts even more easily than machines. I really don't think that is the answer. We must, however, have paper ballots or receipts, that is crucial. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with using a machine to count them. The problem lies with how those machines are programmed, the level of transparency, and the extent to which they can be verified. I understand the concerns of many who raise questions about voting machines. They are certainly prudent to do so. But paper ballots counted by hand won't solve the problem. As it stands now, voting machines are allocated according to precincts and counted at the county level. The system is not centralized, so a flick of a switch, as you note, can only alter the votes in a given county. Hand counts can be fudged at that level as well. How machines are programmed by the companies that produce them is of course crucial, but I believe reform can work on incorporating a system to monitor and verify those programs.

[artv28]

33. It only takes one dishonest person

to program software that can alter millions of votes. With hand counts it would take thousands of dishonest people to alter millions of votes. The really sad part is electronic fraud is too easy to do and too difficult to prove after the fact.

These machines should have been verified by systems engineers before the election (not by people who work for Diebold, Triad etc....)
Once certified, an image of the hard drive should have been saved, network security specialist should have restricted remote and local access to the machines, and strict security auditing should have been enabled. At this point corrupt files could have been replaced and file attributes could have been altered in ways that would leave no evidence of fraud.

It is ridicules that the potential for this to happen was allowed. I kept hearing about the thousands of lawyers involved to help prevent fraud but nothing about computer experts. Note: I'm not really a computer expert but pretend to be one on DU.

[imenja]

34. that simply is not true

The machines are not centralized. They are tested and counted at the county level. No two machines are connected in any way. Each one is autonomous. If Diebold or ESS programmed the machines to produce false results, this should have been caught at the county level. But that of course assumed the supervisors of elections knew what they were doing. Now, I certainly agree there are a great many problems with the system as it exists now. It must be improved and made so results can be verified. Programming must also be made transparent. But one person cannot alter millions of results. That is simply false.
The reason the fraud is impossible to prove during this election is because most counties have no paper trail for the votes submitted. If we had paper ballots or receipts, we could check those against the recorded numbers.
Having volunteered with the Kerry campaign, I can tell you the problem with the lawyers was not that they were incapable of mounting or pursing challenges. Rather, once Kerry determined he could not win the election, he instructed them to pursue no claims. After the night of 11/2, the lawyers left town. I had a voter in one of the precincts I ordered who was denied a provisional ballot (this was apparently standard in Palm Beach County, Florida) and the lawyer finally returned my call a week later to tell me that the campaign would be pursuing no claims of voting irregularities.
I also had problems during election day itself. I was responsible for coordinating four precincts. When I attempted to call the campaign to report legal problems, they did not answer the phone or return my calls. My sense is that when the exit polls suggested they would win, they quit working very hard on these matters and just assumed they would win. I wonder how much that contributed to Kerry's loss.
The lawyers worked for Kerry, not the people. It was Kerry's interests they were instructed and limited in pursuing.

[artv28]

49. What I meant

was that it would only take one programmer to write the vote rigging s/w. If we're talking about code that runs on the central tabulators and we assume the machines have remote access that isn't secure, I don't think it would take a large number of people to implement and cover-up the operation. I'm not suggesting it happened. I have no idea. I agree about the paper trail. Allowing electronic voting without a verifiable paper trail is asking for trouble.

[imenja]

52. that isn't how they work

In Florida each machine is separate. They do not operate on remote access. Each machine contains a cartridge that is removed at the end of the night and inserted into another machine at the county Supervisor of Elections office that then tabulates the votes. The process certainly leaves much to be desired, but the machines are not connected together.

I absolutely agree that we need a verifiable paper trail. I plan to do everything I can to make sure that happens in my state. What I dispute is the idea that hand counting is "obviously" (as some proponents have insisted) more secure and provides an acceptable solution to the problem.

[artv28]

54. Thanks - n/t

[BeFree]

57. Hand counting

Is an acceptable solution. What you are clinging to is a count by machine, which is not acceptable.

It is quite clear that hand-counted ballots have been found to have the most accurate relationship to the exit polls. I wonder why some people are willing to trade accuracy for speed? That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

The present system is so fraught wih failure that it needs to be totally scrapped, then re-invented with accuracy and accountability built in. Back to square one. Back to the future.

[imenja]

58. This is too important of an issue to be treated so lightly

You note: "It is quite clear that hand-counted ballots have been found to have the most accurate relationship to the exit polls."

It is not quite clear at all. In your comments above I assume you are referring to recounts, such as the one in Washington state. Recounts are not the same as elections themselves, since surveillance is much greater. If you have some evidence from the United States that shows hand counts in general elections to be reliable, I would like to see it. Who do you think will be carrying out these hand counts? It will be the same people who run elections today, principally Republicans. History is full of examples of fraudulent elections based on hand counts. Why so many here imagine this is some sort of panacea I cannot begin to imagine. I can only conclude it is because so few Americans know anything about the history of their own country. You need to examine this more carefully or you will regret the consequences.

Are you actually going to claim that the Tammany Hall elections were fair, or those of the other city machines in the nineteenth-century. Richard Daley's elections in Chicago, including the one that gave JFK the presidency? There are countless other examples. I'm tired of listing them over and over again and having people ignore them. This is a serious issue. Because machines have problems, which they certainly do, DOES NOT mean that hand counts are the answer. At some point people need to think this through carefully rather than relying of facile and counter-productive solutions. It is far too important of an issue to be treated so lightly.

[BeFree]

67. Man, that's as twisting as one can get. You're good

"I assume you are referring to recounts,"

No, it was explicit - Exit polls. Not recounts, as you assumed.

As we all know, except, it seems, you, hand counted paper ballots have been used in America for centuries. And once exit polls were started up the relationship of accuracy to hand counted ballots had few questioners. Ever since e-voting took hold, question after question has arisen.

"Lightly"? Hah. Getting rid of the e-voting is not a matter taken lightly in these parts. It is of the highest priority, actually. And frankly, you are nothing but a hindrance to the successful elimination of the vote-slaughter that took place.

[imenja]

77. you are simply wrong

that hand counts have resulted in historically clean elections. If you assume that, you are asking for trouble. I understand your concerns about e-voting. But you are not seriously examining the solution you propose. To simply assume hand counts provide a better solution is fool hardy.
You say your information is based on exit polls? How do you then know if hand counts were reliable if you haven't actually sampled elections based on hand counting?

Do you know which was the first election that used exit polls? And do you know what the counting system was at that time? I would be interested in hearing those results.

Given your distaste for computers, I have to wonder why you have such confidence in exit polls. Their results are calculated using computers as well.

[imenja]

82. Voting machines have been used since the early 20th century

Your point about exit polls showing hand counts to have been historically accurate prompted me to search for some literature on the subject. I have just read that voting machines were introduced during the Progressive Era (1900-1920). I do not know when exit polls were first used. I am trying to find that out. I would be amazed, however, if it was before 1900. My guess is that it was during the 1960s or 1970s. If you know, I would very appreciate hearing.
One of the principal goals of the Progressive Movement was to clean up wide spread corruption in politics, the kind of corruption exemplified by the "machine politics" of Tammany Hall and others.

Source for Progressive Era machines. Arnaldo Testi, "The Tribulations of an Old Democracy," _Journal of American History_ vol 88, n. 2 (2001): 415-423. It is available through The History Cooperative. I will provide a link to the source but unless you are able to enter a university library's database system through a proxy server, you probably won't be able to access it. http://www.historycooperative.org.ezproxy.fau.edu/journals/jah/88.2/testi.html

Arnoldo Testi notes: "As a result, the nation contains a confusing and yet fascinating historical stratification of voting technologies, from nineteenth-century paper ballots to Progressive Era voting machines to 1960s punch cards to state-of-the-art electronic gears."

[Igel]

47. Ack.

After staffing the polling station in Brighton, NY, from 6 am until 9 pm, with an hr off for lunch or voting (at times when we think there'll be few voters), I can tell you just writing down the numbers from a polling equipment was touch and go.

Counting hundreds of ballots for multiple races and ballot issues? Fine, but have the polls open no earlier than 8 and close no later than 5.

And eventually somebody has to total them up.

[Amaryllis]

15. Sorry, I edited post #9 before I knew you'd responded to it. Didn't hit

the refresh button soon enough.

[imenja]

70. I know the study

My point is that everyone is assuming hand counts are better, without establishing it. He rightfully points about problems with machines, yet simply assumes hand counts are better, and dismisses criticism based on previous elections as "ridiculous." Fraud,he notes, is created by people rather than paper. I can't think of a more obvious statement. Clearly the problem is the desire to commit fraud. The goal should be to create a system that can be regularly and easily verified. County election officials can add thousands of numbers to a total with a pen as easily as they can with a machine.

This is far too important of an issue to rely on such facile explanations. That one method is flawed does not make another method, by mere extension, acceptable.

I would advocate using a paper ballot counted by machine and then verified by hand as sort of auditing system used at every election. It would be up to the computer architects to design the best possible.
We would then have the paper ballots to verify by hand, as a check against machine counts. If someone can think of another method, I would certainly be interested in knowing of it. But it bothers me
that people are assuming a method that has proved itself remarkably susceptible to fraud should be reinstated without any kind of evidence that it would be more accurate than it has in the past.

[indigoblue]

71. How about paper ballots, hand counting, and bi-partisan election officials

plus non-partisan citizens' group, who keep an eye on every step of election process.

[imenja]

73. volunteers and courting

Here's what I suggest. Go get a huge stack of computer paper (600 plus pieces). Count it, separating into four piles for presidential candidates. Count it three times, and I would be surprised if you didn't get three separate numbers. Now imagine you were a volunteer who had been chosen by Ken Blackwell, Theresa Lapore, or Katherine Harris who wanted to deliberately distort the count. It would be remarkably easy. Because mistakes are natural with such systems, you could likely distort the numbers without penalty. Switch 50, 100, or 200 votes from one candidate to another. Now multiply that by 10,000 volunteers and imagine how accurate of a count would result. Then there are the results for the 20 other races that make up the rest of the ticket.


Having worked on elections, I don't know where one could find enough volunteers and citizen observers to make such a system work. The Kerry campaign didn't have even one poll watcher for each polling place in my city. Most people are lazy and want to do very little. The same people I now get dozens of emails from about voting fraud didn't volunteer more than two hours total during the entire election. Now think about how especially difficult it would be to find fair volunteer counters and observers in Republican dominated rural and exurban areas. I see no possible way in which such a system is even remotely practical or secure.

Again, I understand and applaud the many important objections raised to machines. That does not mean a hand counted system would automatically be better.

[In Truth We Trust]

30. Because

see post #29

[Wilms]

7. A Paper Ballot is your friend. n/t

[Amaryllis]

12. I noticed that too and it really alarmed me. This is why we need to

educate our legislators and do it FAST.

SEe this article: Conyers is asking people to go to his website and give suggestions on changes they'd like to see. It's crucial we let him know that the security issues around e-voting are the single most important thing to deal with if we are EVER to win another election.

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=567

" And we are also going to begin asking on our Web site, we are asking people for suggestions on changes that they would like to see in the federal law because It is clear that just as we did the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) between 2000 and this election, we have to do another law between this election and 2008."

"We are urging people to visit our Web site and recommend changes that we might want to consider that have come out of their experiences, good bad or indifferent in the Nov. 2 2004 election… This survey will give us another avenue at looking this election, with the intent to improve the next election."

[Bill Bored]

16. You are correct

All 5 bills that were blocked so far required VVPBs, but they did not all require actual auditing. I doubt that's why they were blocked though!

And what does this one mean?:

"Establish an explicit private right of action for voter rights in the Help America Vote Act."

[Igel]

48. It means if you find fraud (or have evidence of it)

you have standing to sue to enforce the law in court.

I don't think we currently do. I think if we find fraud we have to report it, and have the DA take it up as a criminal matter.

[4democracy]

17. Conyers has a contact address on the survey site, everyone could

email him with facts and opinions on machine voting. We can let him know our ideas for election reform.

[Amaryllis]

19. Do you have a link for that?

[garybeck]

21. here's the contact info.

This is what the "contact us" link brings up. I don't think it's specifically for election reform though. It's funny the interview said that they want people's suggestions on the survey but the survey doesn't take suggestions.



19512 Livernois

Detroit, Michigan 48221

Phone: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

[4democracy]

63. I got this general response back from contact page email address

Hello XXX -
Thank you for writing to Congressman Conyers. Your note will be passed on to the Congressman. If you would like to receive Issue E-Mail Alerts, please register on his campaign website: http://johnconyers.com (please click the E-News Sign up button at the bottom of the bar on the left; to be added to the list, respond to the opt-in E-Mail that will be sent to your address).
Thanks again for your support and for writing. On behalf of Congressman Conyers, best wishes in 2005.


I know it is a canned response but at least it is a response,it takes forever to get one from my state reps.
maybe we could ask his DC office to put a place on the survey specifically for suggestions.

[GuvWurld]

20. How do I submit or post suggestions to Conyers beyond his survey?

I saw several references to Conyers's survey today that gave me the idea he was soliciting open-ended suggestions. When I got to the page for it I was surprised that it was all yes/no questions. This discussion needs to open up a lot further to address other aspects of our electoral system. Here are the eight reforms contained in the http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2004/11/no-confidence-resolution.html">No Confidence Resolution:

1) all private corporations are divested of ownership in election machines, and
2) clean money laws keep all corporate funds out of campaign financing, and
3) any future mechanisms for voting conform to a uniform national standard and produce a verifiable audit trail for every vote, and
4) all votes are cast on the same day, designated as a national holiday, with the exception of absentee ballots which will be granted to applicants meeting a narrow list of federally determined criteria, and
5) all votes are counted publicly in the presence of citizen witnesses and credentialed members of the media, and
6) equal time provisions are observed by the media along with a measurable increase in local, public control of the airwaves, and
7) presidential debates contain a minimum of three candidates, and are run by a non-partisan commission comprised of representatives of publicly owned media outlets, and
8) instant runoff voting (see H.R. 5293) and proportional representation replace the winner-take-all system for federal elections;

Until such changes take place there shall be no basis for confidence in the legitimacy of the results reported from future US federal elections. Learn more about the No Confidence Movement in the GuvWurld blog.

[tommcintyre]

22. Also tell 'em it needs to be fixed by 2006, not 2008

as I've seen him allude to in the bluelemur interview.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x297124

[Stevepol]

25. It's not the paper trail that's important, IT'S THE AUDITS!!!

There has to be a requirement that every election will be audited. The optical scanners already have a paper trail but they are just as easily mis-counted by fraudulently programmed computers as touchscreens. Coleman from MN is probably in Congress because of the scanners in MN, and there are many states that showed a strong shift from the exit polls beyond the MOE but which were mostly optical scanners, NH for one. Unless there's a requirement for regular audits for every election, the other changes are more or less meaningless.

[imenja]

35. true

but if you don't have a paper trail, you can't conduct an audit. In Florida were dealing with very basic issues.

[indigoblue]

46. I agree. Paper trails will become useless

if election officials make recount so difficult like Ohio, Nevada, and New Mexico. If they need an instant result, machines can be used, but official count should be done by hand.

Red shifts were less likely in the states with paper ballots and hand counting.

See: http://findtruthnow.blogspot.com/2005/01/this-is-why-we-need-paper-ballots-hand.html

[spooked911]

50. Agreed-- it's maddening we can't see the frigging code.

[Time for change]

53. I agree and more -- look at Ohio

Ohio had paper trails available for most of its counties, and where did it get us? A highly selected and tainted hand count of 3% of Ohio precincts. I feel fairly certain that a full hand count of all Ohio votes that have paper trails would show that Kerry won that election.

[Junkdrawer]

72. Ohio was an education that was well worth the recount expense...

Thanks to Ohio, we learned just how difficult honest "spot checks" would be.

[Bill Bored]

60. You can make computers safe the same way

major corporations do: You AUDIT them. There are people who do this for a living. Senator Frank Laudenberg used to run ADP. He could probably come up with some useful insights, but he's not unique. I'm not saying his company was perfect, but they cut plenty of my paychecks, though I've never worked for them, and they were always right on the money as far as I know -- and believe me I've checked!

If we get truly random hand counted audits of enough paper ballots (probably 5% will do), the computers can be held accountable. Ohio's recount was done illegally and if there's any justice, this may yet be corrected somehow. If an audit of this type turns up an error, the full hand count is always an option if you have the paper from the machines.

[bluedonkey]

64. I read

most of the posts here and the problem,it seems,is the counting of paper ballots.
I'm very much in favour of paper ballots,they simple and everybody should be able to make a cross oe fill in a circle.The counting of such ballots is easy! Get casino dealers to do the counting!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. You are right. They are probably already planning how to

scam the election even if there is a paper trail !! I will send a message on this. Thanks

[bush_is_wacko]

76. I noticed that too. I found his email and emailed him the same thoughts!

Just simply state that you completed his survey but noticed THIS problem and want to make sure he understands that e-voting cannot be tolerated. I also added, no punch card ballots, no butterfly ballots. Simple paper and pen. I suggested he research Sweden and Switzerland's voting systems. Conyers is a good guy and very smart, when he gets enough emails telling him we will not stand for e-voting anymore, he'll jump right on board. I added that it won't save trees necessarily, but I think most of us environmentalist could live with it if we figured out a way to recycle the paper!

[jdog]

79. Right.

There was a rally in Denver and one of the speakers held up examples of paper ballots. They were the same size as cash and could be counted by money counting machines, same as the banks use. How simple! (Of course the reporting of the figures could be played with, by that's a different issue.)

[bush_is_wacko]

81. We're on the same page and were at the same rally!

Hi there jdog! What's happening in Colorado lately? I haven't been able to make it to most of the meetings I've seen listed. I live too far and have terrible night vision problems.

:hi:

[jdog]

86. Hey BIW!

Denver had another great rally for the coronation. Here's a link:

http://www.denverindyvoice.org/protests/Denver/1-20-05/CounterCoronation2.htm

(I can't take any credit, I wasn't there and didn't help plan.)

Donetta is having another Blue Ribbon Panel meeting on the 28th of January

http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/br_meeting_dates.htm

Planning to go, but having trouble deciding if this will just be a waste of my time. All of us have such little spare time, we have to really use it wisely.

Looking at those pix of my fellow Denverites I must say

Denver Rocks! :toast:

[bush_is_wacko]

91. 2pm on a Friday. This is why I can't make these meetings!

Sometimes I wish I worked downtown! I was one of the few at the rally that brought my kids. Orange rust shirt and jeans. I don't own anything really orange despite the fact I love my Broncos. Kids are age 15 and 11. I was probably the shortest adult there. I usually am. I saw lots of people taking pictures at the rally. I live in Golden so I don't get downtown much during the week only an occasional weekend.

[jdog]

92. I know what you mean.

I happen to work a 4-day work week, which is why I can do the Friday meetings. But it's really hard to make it downtown for evening meetings (I live in Centennial).

Oh well, we do what we can.

[imenja]

90. no recycling

Regardless of what method is chosen for counting, ballots must be saved.

[Dcitizen]

80. paper ballots and hand count need 2 other conditions

validation of voters'IDs or finger prints first, and
election control by a non partisan fed agency

[meganmonkey]

83. Here's a good link on Australian Hand Counted Paper Ballots

they have a great system ,IMHO

-snip-

The classic Australian of paper ballot provides an excellent introduction to the system of checks and balances used to assure voter privacy and an accurate vote count in the face of a variety of threats. In this system, first used in the province of Victoria, Australia in 1858, voters are issued paper ballots at a polling place, and after the ballot is marked, voters deposit it in a ballot box. After the polls close, the box is opened, the ballots are counted by the election judges, and the totals are reported.

On the face of it, this system looks misleadingly simple, but the fact that this system was first introduced in the mid 19th century and the fact that it took decades before variations on this system to be adopted by other jurisdictions is strong evidence that this was not a trivial invention!

The threats that must be accounted for in a paper ballot election include ballot box stuffing and dishonest ballot counting. In addition, we must guard the privacy of the voter, so that voters are not subject to harassment (or worse) because of the way they cast their vote.

-snip-

it goes on to elaborate how it works, what the security threats are, and how they protect from them.
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/paper.html

[imenja]

84. we used that same system in the nineteenth century

at least the basic parameters of it. The numbers of fraudulent elections that resulted were tremendous. I did a cursory search of the database "America History and Life" and came up with 62 citations of articles about stolen elections, most focusing on county level elections rather than the more well known ones, like the presidential election of 1876.

[meganmonkey]

85. The article goes into details about the security measures

that have been added over time. Here is a brief excerpt, the article is long and comprehensive:

We use several tools in order to guard against such fraud. Of these, the most important is openness. At no time during the conduct of the election are the judges allowed to take any action in private. For example:


As each voter is checked against the list of registered voters, the election judge is required to call the name out, loudly enough that all present can hear.
This allows others present, for example, election observers, to record the names of those who voted and compare the names with lists of eligible voters, and it gives a chance for those who may know the voter by name to recognize that an impostor is attempting to vote.


To prove that the ballot box is empty before the polls are opened, the election judges open the box and display its empty interior prior to the opening of the polls, and then close and seal it.
For the full time between the public proof that the ballot box is empty and the time the box is opened for ballot counting, the box remains sealed, and in addition, it remains either in public view or in secure storage and transport; it is never in the private custody of any one person or party.
When the polls close, ballot counting must be equally open. We cannot trust an election in which we allow the ballot counting to be carried out in private, behind locked doors.


We therefore require that all ballot counting be done openly, from the time the ballot box is opened and its contents dumped out for counting until the time the official totals for the precinct are publically posted.
In order to account for all ballots printed, the count must include a the number of ballots remaining unvoted, the number of ballots spoiled by voters and replaced at the polling place, the number of spoiled ballots found in the ballot box, and the number of valid ballots actually counted.

[imenja]

87. couple of issues

Who controls the final count? The process can seem open and transparent, but the final count can be altered. In Palm Beach county, our votes are now counted in full view of television cameras, including the hand written absentee ballots. That doesn't ensure a fair count.

Also, where will we get enough observers to monitor the elections? My experience during the 2004 campaign is that it is very difficult to get people to volunteer. The Kerry campaign didn't even have a poll watcher for each polling place in my city, let alone more than one. Lots of people claim they are willing to help but then don't turn up or go home after an hour or two of work. This problem would be even greater for Democrats in rural and exurban areas where Republicans dominate. This system requires a number of volunteers and a kind of organization that the Democratic party has never accomplished in the past.

Remember that these election judges will be the same officials who preside over elections now--the likes of Theresa Lapore, Kenneth Blackwell, and Katherine Harris. If we don't trust them to secure and oversee safe machine technology, why should we trust them to oversee hand counts?

I believe the solution lies in verification: Paper ballots counted by machine and then a certain percentage randomly selected to be verified by hand counts. Obviously there must be many changes in the way the machines are handled. The advantage of paper ballots is that they are saved for purposes of verification and recount. This is crucial. But to allow election officials the kind of control over counting this method presents seems to me to be courting disaster.

[indigoblue]

94. That's why we need to make election day a national holiday.

We will get a plenty of people who would volunteer in the name of democracy. We can get college and high school students involved in the process. And we will have enough schools, libraries, and other public places for polling stations and don't have to have them in churches (I consider this as a huge problem).

[imenja]

95. I support that 100%

[qwghlmian]

96. I would love to see elections made a national holiday

just for my own curiosity's sake - because I think the turnout will become 30% instead of 60% if election day is a holiday. Why vote when it interferes with going to a beach/golf course/out to a park with family/visit relatives etc. etc. etc.

[indigoblue]

97. If you decide to go to a beach instead, you don't deserve democracy

I'm more concerned about the people who waited for hours in rain to vote, believing that their votes were going to be counted.

[qwghlmian]

98. I was not talking about myself.

I am quite sure that if the day is made a holiday, turnouts will drop, for the reasons I gave.

[indigoblue]

100. The United States is one of the few Western democracies

that do not schedule elections on weekends or a designated holiday, and the turnout is one of the lowest.

Once again, people who don't participate in democracy don't deserve democracy.

[AtLiberty]

89. Good ol' fashioned paper ballots...

...for those with good ol' fashioned values! ;)

[Bill Bored]

99. Make Election Day a national holiday and stop this "Early Voting" crap!

The longer these ballots (vapor or otherwise), are allowed to sit around, the greater the likelihood of tampering. If everyone has a day off and they still don't get off their asses and vote, they deserve whatever corrupt and incompetent government they end up with.

Of course, we hear in the media that BOTH parties are in favor of early voting, so that pretty much puts the kibosh on any real reform in this area, doesn't it? Heck, why not just hold the election 365 days a year, unless it's a leap year of course, in which case we'd all have an EXTRA DAY to vote for President! What a country!

[Joe Chi Minh]

103. Here is how

to access Chuck Herrin's definitively compelling Power Point presentation explaining why only paper ballots are apt for elections. I would add, "above all, under the historically shockingly chaotic, indeed anarchic, electoral process in the USA".

Click on this URL

http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

then click on the blue and underlined words, "Power Point".