Plan B: Parallel Elections and Signed Ballots (from Lynn Landes)

[Carolab]

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1108

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. I've got an idea.

If so much of the problem is RW ownership of voting systems, let Soros invest a couple million in his own voting system. Let it be open source, and verifiable, with a printed ballot for recounts, and 20% cheaper than what ES&S and Diebold offer so responsible election boards will invest in them with their HAVA money. Get them on the market in 1 year, so they'll be widespread by the '06 election.

Then let's see who wins.

[Carolab]

3. Well, you'd have to keep the media out of the loop too.

Unless we allow the left-leaning media to form the exit poll consortiums and also handle the "tallying".

Plus, if "we" control the machines, they'll just accuse US of cheating.

Nope, hand-counted paper ballots and independent polls are the way to go, IMHO.

[Igel]

29. Nothing's stopping them.

It's been said before: One exit poll is worse than no exit poll.

If you only have one, and it's wrong, people go bonkers: if it agrees with what you want, it's golden, if it disagrees with the results you want, well, it's just in error.

If you have two, and they disagree, then people just scratch their heads and wonder.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. But I like the idea of open elections, too. n/t

[davidlynch]

2. I Like This--Better Than Open Exit Polling

I was thinking that open exit polling was the answer, but this is much better. Similarly to open exit polling, this must be done in a TOTALLY NON-PARTISAN manner.

One possible catch: one could make the argument that the deck is stacked if the PEP discards ballots of a given party affiliation. Instead of a parallel ballot, one might consider something like a poll book that would be based on the registration records. The book would be pre-printed with all registered voters names, and the voters would sign on their respective "slot" in the book. This way, it would be practically impossible to "lose" votes. The book would also reveal immediately the level of participation, including non-responds which would remain blank.

[qwghlmian]

5. There is absolutely no way in the world

that you can assure that all, or even a majority, of the people who voted would "vote" in the "parallel elections". Talk about "self-selected sample" - this is almost an ideal book example of one, and self-selected samples are an anathema to polling.

The only possible proof of fraud that such a scheme may provide is if they can show let's say 400 such signed ballots that voted for a Democrat in the precinct, and the precinct's official result would show that only 380 did. But this would require that almost every D voter would go and sign the "parallel" ballot. Of course, if such a thing is organized by Democratic party, you can forget about any significant fraction of R voters participating.

This is apart from the question of logistics - you really think it is possible to organize the 400,000 or so "PEPs" evenly across the US so that there will be a couple available for *every* precinct in the country?

[davidlynch]

7. Your Points Are Valid--PEPs May Only Be Possible in Battlegrounds

I know this seems daunting, but my guess is that with the help of MoveOn.org enough volunteers could be organized. It may be impossible to cover all precincts (but that would be the goal).

My sense is that it could be worthwhile even without 100% coverage.

If manpower becomes an issue, one could limit the activities to battleground states only.

[qwghlmian]

8. Ok - let's say you set up such a tent outside a precinct

and the official results are: D-200 R-250, and the "Parallel" results are: D-130 R-110. Does this indicate fraud? Or could it be that the R voters heard that the "parallel" stuff was organized by Democrats and walked on by?

[davidlynch]

10. That Is a Huge Problem--Non-Response

Well, this is obviously THE problem. But one thing is interesting: even if non-response rates were in line with your example, we'd still end up with something tantamount the most comprehensive exit poll ever conducted. Statistically, you could confirm or refute the election results with a far smaller sample (if I understand correctly).

But it may well be that another exit poll that doesn't match the results is insufficient to do any good.

So we're stuck unless someone can think of a solution.

[Carolab]

12. But if there is a non-response total

that can be added to the total for registered voters who actually signed in and took the PEP, you would still have a result that should match the machine counts as well as the pollbooks.

[qwghlmian]

30. I have no idea what you said there -

what is a "non-response total"?

Again, my example: official results are: D-200 R-250, and the "Parallel" results are: D-130 R-110. Does this indicate fraud?

[Carolab]

36. No it doesn't as long as the tallies of the PEP match the official results

I was responding to the post above regarding non-response; if some people refuse to vote on the PEP, then they would not be "checked off" on the voter registration list as having voted. They would be "non-responders" to the PEP. This group of non-responders would be counted up at the end of the day and added to the list of responders, to reconcile with the official tallies at that precinct and to the pollbooks as well.

[qwghlmian]

37. Ok - but how exactly are the results useful

as in the example: official results are: D-200 R-250, and the "Parallel" results are: D-130 R-110.

You said (correctly) that it would not indicate fraud. It also does not indicate that the official results are correct. So - what would be the use of such "parallel" results? I guess I don't understand the purpose of such an exercise.

[Carolab]

38. Well, at least we'd have a way to verify the total number of votes.

And ensure there are not "more votes than voters". We'd also have a ratio of D to R or other to use for comparison's sake, and even some kind of indication of percentage of undervotes.

I think you might take this up with Lynn Landes, who proposes it. Here is her e-mail address; she is looking for input:

[e-mail]

[juajen]

14. We only need an accurate voters' list and a democratic vote

After all, it's the dem votes that we want accurately counted. A signed, verified ballot counted by the democrats is a good way to tell what the dem vote was. After all, this is what they're changing. With an accurate dem count, and the total voters registered, we would then know what the max number of pug votes are; so, it isn't necessary for them to vote again; just us.

Additionally, it would also be helpful if precincts posted their total vote. This would also show up any discrepencies in the central tally. You would just have an appointed dem voter to vote as late as possible, and watch for the posting; then, if it was not posted, complain loudly and obtain the figures.

While we believe a skimming of the vote took place, it would be much easier for them to skim off the central tabulators, not at the precinct level. Our parallel vote would tell also if the evoting machines were flipping votes.

All in all, I think this is a great idea. I don't know about the legality of having us at the polls also. While most precincts are on public property, i.e., schools, firehouses, courthouses, colleges, etc., i'm sure they would attempt to keep us out.

[Carolab]

6. Yes, I was thinking along the same lines.

If everyone signs in and provides proper ID to vote, you could just check them off and no one would have to know how they voted, just that they did. And you'd have the pollbooks as a record that properly registered voters voted and you can tally the counts to the ballots.

[davidlynch]

9. What if Key Races Simple Checkboxes (Ink) Adjacent To Signature?

I have never understood the reason that ballots must be kept separate and secret. This seems to conflict with auditability and I sense that maybe we've come to a crossroads where we cannot afford this luxury.

Do people fear reprisals for their votes? Is the danger really there? I honestly don't understand the history, so if anyone wants to set me straight, I'm wide open.

[qwghlmian]

11. There are areas in this country where

it is not advisable to let people know that you voted for a Democrat. There are areas where it is not advisable to let people know that you voted for a Republican. Have you seen the calls to boycott businesses that support Republicans on DU? I am sure there are similar and opposite calls on the other side. With your scheme it is theoretically possible to find out whom your barber/butcher/CPA voted for, and pick them based on that. If you were a barber/butcher/CPA, would you want it known?

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

16. It opens up the possibility of buying votes

and intimidation. How many people who are desperate for money would respond if they were offered $50 to vote for XXX by showing a receipt? How many wives would secretly vote against their husband's choice? My grandpa once told me a story that during an election for sheriff in his Georgia town during the depression, one of the candidates gave him $5 to vote for him. $5 was a large sum of money during the depression, when one had children to feed. Grandpa took the money, and always felt a little queasy and sick because he DIDN'T vote for the guy.

[rzemanfl]

19. We ALREADY HAVE bought votes and intimidation. It is just that

the votes are bought in big blocks from corporations rather than one at a time.

[zann725]

Why can't we vote "on-line" from our own home computers (w/ I.P. address)

...print out a verification of our vote at home; and later verify our vote was "counted" as cast (under our name and computer I.P. address). If the two don't line-up, then we can file our dispute with an organization such as AfD or VRI, or BBV. NOT with our one-party government to investigate itself.

If we can transfer funds on-line, order goods and services on-line, and register for any number of contests...having NO trouble at all transmitting the info we send on-line received accurately and reliably on the other end. Why would on-line voting from home be such a trouble?

Why do we have to have lengthy legislation re-writing Voting Procedures, and involving lots of people and time to re-do what the Right really doesn't want done. Why not make it SO simple we can literally do it ourselves...WITHOUT their intervention!

[zann725]

13. Why can't we vote "on-line" from our own home computers (w/ I.P. address)

...print out a verification of our vote at home; and later verify our vote was "counted" as cast (under our name and computer I.P. address). If the two don't line-up, then we can file our dispute with an organization such as AfD or VRI, or BBV. NOT with our one-party government to investigate itself.

If we can transfer funds on-line, order goods and services on-line, and register for any number of contests...having NO trouble at all transmitting the info we send on-line received accurately and reliably on the other end. Why would on-line voting from home be such a trouble?

Why do we have to have lengthy legislation re-writing Voting Procedures, and involving lots of people and time to re-do what the Right really doesn't want done. Why not make it SO simple we can literally do it ourselves...WITHOUT their intervention!

[juajen]

15. What in the world makes you think everybody has a computer

and access to the internet. I know we can't imagine that, but it is true all over this country.

[Stevepol]

17. A great idea if it could be done, but we've already got exit polls

out the yang-yang that are extremely well done and that scream FRAUD and we've got all the reason and common sense in the world telling us the election was a sham, and yet we can't even get the Dems to raise their comatose heads off their hospital bed and look. I don't have any idea what it will take for them to wake up. As far as I can see they don't respond to anything except adulation and money.

I believe the Dems, when they study for public office, go to the same school that wrestling referees go to to learn how to choreograph and fake wrestling matches. First of all, you learn never to pay attention to what's happening whether inside or outside the ring. If one wrestler is pounding the head of another using brass knuckles or garden shears he's gotten out of his trunks, you never look that way when the bad guy gets the stuff or when his tag team partner uses a folding chair to break the other guy's skull. The evidence is right there but the referee with his cauliflower ears and beetle brow and neanderthal forehead just keeps his attention on what's supposed to be in front of him, i.e., a fair sporting event with rules that both sides follow. He runs around the ring looking very professional and focussed but he never sees anything outside his blinders until it's too late and one guy's head is a bloody (or tomato sauced) mess and another guy's arm is broken, and all the while the crowd is screaming, "He got something in his trunks, Ref. He got something in his trunks. He cheatin' ref. Everybody in here see it. You be the last one to know."

[Hugin]

18. Voting Blocs... or dare I say it. (Voting Unions)

Years ago... Before the electorate was smashed
like a piece of plate glass. (You know, "Divide
and conquer." became the vogue)

There was such a thing as Voting Unions. A group
of people with similar ideals got together and
would hold a vote among themselves. Their overall
vote was entered into the popular vote as a bloc
of however many people were in their group based
on how the vote went in their group.

They took great pride in the accuracy of their
totals.

Think something like this would fly in modern times?

[rzemanfl]

20. Lawyers out there. Could a municipality or county require back-

up paper ballots by local ordinance? There would be an argument that State law preempted them from doing that, but would it fly? The printing costs could be covered by donations and the paper ballots counted by volunteers in front of witnesses if there were suspicions about the vote count. It would be pretty difficult for the Repukes to take a hard line on this at the local level, where elected officials are visible in the community. Can you imagine a county board member trying to explain why he is against verified voting to the guy who fixes his car or his babysitter?

[rzemanfl]

22. Help me, I am falling in love with my own idea. There are lots of

reasons to argue that a local ordinance requiring paper ballots as a back-up is a valid exercise of local power. The ordinance could provide that the backup paper ballot had to be accepted as an original ballot if the person had been waiting in line more than 20 minutes to vote or if the machines were reported to have malfunctioned in any way (such as "calibration problems".) Imagine what that would have done in Ohio.

Arguments for the validity of such an ordinance. 1) To eliminate traffic congestion on local streets on election day. 2) To minimize the impact of election day on local businesses/farms/ranches, whatever. 3) To verify the vote in local elections and referenda. I am sure there are more I haven't thought of.

I really don't think the Repukes have any organized power at the county and municipal level, they are too arrogant to trifle with this level of government because there is no real big money to be stolen there. This movement could go from the bottom up instead of the top down.

[Hugin]

23. Reality check...

An alleged FBI agent closed down the vote in an Ohio
county based on rumored HS threat.

Yes, the RW is willing to to tamper at the county level.

Your move.

[rzemanfl]

25. True enough, but that move was made pretty much in secret, not

on local access TV. I wonder what the buzz is in Warren County, Ohio about that whole fiasco. Would you agree that if there had only been 20 minute waits and paper ballots in the Cleveland area and Franklin County, Kerry would have overwhelmed the vote-stealing that happened elsewhere?

It is a lot easier to go to public input at your county board or city council meeting than it is to try to push something through the Repug controlled Congress.

[Hugin]

27. Yes I would agree to both points.

I also am a huge believer in grass roots action.

But, to do it we need the higher ups (for lack of a better
term) to watch our backs.

OPEN and ACCOUNTABLE are the key words here.

[rzemanfl]

31. I am convinced that this local ordinance idea could work. It

would put the Repugs in a very difficult spot with the public, even the stupid Bush-voting part, if they tried legal challenges to this type of ordinance (although if they pushed them they might succeed, they pretty much own the courts). We need to make "A Verified Voting Community" the equivalent of "An Equal Opportunity Employer." Everyplace is, nowhere isn't.

[ottozen]

21. Democrats can check their turnout vs. reported numbers.

Massive effort is needed.
Which precincts to concentrate on, which states?
Universal effort?

[zalinda]

24. Too much...............

As much as we'd like to, you can't scrap the system and start over. We have to work within the system.

Let's start with registration. Everyone should be able to go on-line to check to see if they're registered. I know that not everyone has a computer, but every library should have one. (If your's doesn't then we need to start a drive for older computers, one's that can handle Win98 at least, to put in those libraries.) Every one who's registered should have a unique number, so they can be found in the poll books easier. If they are not listed on-line, they can then go to their city or town official and find out why.

As for voting, I'd love to see Nov 2nd put aside for federal elections only. But, that is another fight. Two weeks before the election, every citizen should get a ballot, mailed to them. If you don't get a ballot, then you can inquire why you didn't. You bring your ballot with you, and the poll worker takes off the mailing label and puts it in the poll book, then you sign next to it. This action will confirm that you are registered and that you are at the correct address. It will also help the poll worker since your address label will have the unique number which corresponds to your placement in the poll book.

When you vote, you should receive a receipt. The receipt printer should have a roll of 2 part tape in it. The copy stays in the printer on the roll (just like a cash register) and the voter gets the original to take with him. On each vote is a random unique number which can later be looked up on-line to see if your vote counted. Not everyone would have to check their vote, just a few and if it was off, then a seizure of the machine would be necessary. And a recount would begin, with the paper receipts outweighing the electronic count. This would hold the voting machine companies to a very high standard, and would be a series of checks and balances that could be used.

These things might be able to be put in place, and would be a big start in having truthful elections results.

zalinda

[rzemanfl]

26. Can you kick my local ordinance idea to the top?

Please. This seems to me to be a doable grassroots thing with some prospect of success.

[meganmonkey]

28. I really like this in theory

But as some other posters mentioned, it would be difficult to get full participation, and then it would have the same potential probs as the exit polls...Although if we got rid of secret ballots in general, at least there could be a cross-check for the people who DID participate. Hmm...definitely something to think about, though.

[rzemanfl]

32. See my local ordinance idea above. It would eliminate the need

to insure participation by making back up paper ballots mandatory. They could still be secret ballots but they would be duplicates of the voter's intent.

[meganmonkey]

33. Yeah...

again, participation. I can't imagine getting all local govts to do this...Although even if only some did, it would still be helpful. Interesting!

[rzemanfl]

34. I can see this working. It has to be the "in" thing for local

government. We need to make "A Verified Voting Community" something that every county, city, town and village wants on its letterhead and website.

At most local government meetings in smaller communities a turnout of 100 citizens is considered huge. Very few people would go to the meeting(s) to argue against this. If people show up to support the idea, with a check to cover the printing costs for the next election, I think it would pass easily in most localities, although it might take two or three meetings to get there. It would be a good idea to name the fund that holds the money and the ordinance after some revered and recently deceased local or national dignitary (preferably a Repug-gasp, vomit). Who is going to vote against the "Ronald Reagan Memorial Voting Verification Trust Fund and Enabling Ordinance of the City of Someplace Somewhere?"

[meganmonkey]

35. LOL

I love the idea of naming it after Repugs!!!
:)