Paper Ballots, Hand Counted: Thinking outside the box.

[Pooka Fey]

After reading DUer Byronius’s comment #7 on the hearings in Sacramento re: Diebold and Electronic voting machines being rammed down California’s throats no matter what, I have spent several hours turning his assessment over in my mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x378552

In my professional life, I have learned that sometimes a person will be set up to fail. No matter the extent of your efforts and hard work, you will not be successful, because the 'powers that be' will not permit it. Unfortunately, that is how I view our efforts to have a fair and open election process in 2006 & 2008. We are no longer working in a level playing field. We are attempting to solve the problem of having no voice and no vote through the very same channels that have already been closed to us – a democratic process in the U.S.A.

Can we accept that we no longer have a democratic process in our own government, and therefore try a different method for documenting our votes? This is in No Way meant to be disrespectful to all of us activists who are dedicating time, money and energy to solving our current election dilemma. This is my attempt to try and get another idea out on the table, a very raw and definitely ‘outside the box’ idea.

Rather than working within a corrupt system to restore transparent elections, why not opt out of the National Election system altogether, and hold a “Co-Election” on Election Day, outside the regular polling places, using paper ballots, which will be hand-counted under observation by members of all recognized political parties and by international observers? Are not the voter registration rolls public domain? Why would it not be possible, with the combined resources of the election reform movement, to set up a system reminiscent of “Kids Voting” where we collect “unofficial” ballots from all voters who would like to see a verifiable record of their vote kept somewhere. Of course we would only put the national election contests on the ballot – Congress in ’06, President and Congress in ’08.

Here are the results of the 2004 Kids Voting election. I would not be surprised if these results have been “massaged” exactly like the results of the National Election, because these votes were cast on a web based system, rather than on paper. http://www.kidsvotingusa.org/electionday/results.asp

Would our election reform efforts not be better served by establishing a system by which ‘We the People’, on November 3rd, 2006, are in possession of verifiable and auditable paper ballots as a check on the electronic voting systems being put into place against the better judgment of all fair-minded individuals? ‘We the People’ count the paper ballots, we publish the results of our ‘unofficial’ election, we end up in possession of ballots which corroborate the results of the official exit polls, and then we wait for the storm-troopers to drag us away into the night for challenging the authority of the Empire.

Pretty dumb idea, huh?

[ellenfl]

1. i think we should all vote absentee.

absentee ballots are paper. but then, maybe there would be a fire . . .

ellen fl

[emlev]

2. Check out this stuff on "parallel elections"

Is this what you're talking about?

http://www.ecotalk.org/ParallelElections.htm

Google search shows 780 items under "parallel elections," none of which I've read.

The immediate problem that comes to mind when I hear about this idea is that they'd be easy to discredit by ballot box stuffing etc. And someone might want to discredit them.

That problem might be solvable.

Certainly worth thinking about...

[Pooka Fey]

6. Yes, exactly! I'm glad to see someone has the ball rolling already.

I only skimmed the site, but I'll come back and read it thoroughly a bit later.

Thanks for the link!

[Carolab]

3. Not a dumb idea at all. Actually, Lynn Landes advanced this before.

And I think it's the only answer. We need to have our "own" method of voting that forces a hand count.

I floated an idea a while back that we just write in our choices on the ballots, forcing the BoEs to hand count them. I would like to advance making it possible for people to have the option of writing in their choice instead of "circling the oval" or punching the choice on the screen. Of course, this would require getting a write-in option on the ballots.

[claudiajean]

4. Of course, in many states, if you use the write-in line..

...to write in a candiadte that already appears on the ballot, then the vote is discarded as not properly cast, under the law.

[Carolab]

5. Yes, but it's not true in all states.

And, where it's not, it might be easier to change this than to try to get them to buy different machines, or rewrite the legislation to ensure security with the machine counts.

[Pooka Fey]

8. I'm glad Lynn Landes' idea is up for discussion tonight.

I think where Lynn and I are in agreement is that the Parallel Election idea does a complete 'end-run' around Board of Elections.

I don't believe we should give up on National election reform by any means; however we are losing significant amounts of time by trying to compromise with people who either don't understand the magnitude of the problems with machine voting, or are complicit in the fraud.

A parallel election. What better way to demonstrate that paper ballots, hand counted, with observers from all parties overseeing the process - can work?

[NoBushSpokenHere]

7. Very good idea

but......I am sure the storm troopers will arrive.....

I posted on a previous thread that we should make two lines after voting......have a head count.

[Pooka Fey]

9. Storm Troopers and the BusHitler Jungen.

A parallel election would need to hire private security. How sad. However, it would be good to get International Press coverage of the current totalitarian regime crushing and brutalizing patriotic Americans who are trying to ensure an open, transparent, fair and auditable National Election, especially at the same time that they have invaded a sovereign nation in the name of "spreading democracy".

A parallel election would be a non-violent act of rebellion against an oppressive government; like the Boston Tea Party. I'm quite sure that there will be significant opposition. Look at the 2000 & 2004 election 'shenanigans'.

As far as ensuring a fair vote - a parallel election will follow International standards, as opposed to the current National Elections - which did not meet these standards. Any charges of fraud will be answerable (and laughable when compared to voting on Diebold machines) - the ballots are there, in paper, ready to be recounted. Unlike the vapor votes. Re ballot stuffing - voters sign a parallel poll book which is open and auditable - unlike in Ohio.

[Pooka Fey]

10. One issue which I didn't see Lynn's site address was limiting the ballot

to ONLY the National contests; in fact one poster on her site had run for Mayor and didn't trust the results of his local elections, and he was supporting the idea specifically for local election verification.

Personally, (and I will give credit to DUer 'Internuts' for his input on this, even though he drove me crazy in another thread)...I believe it would be impractical to use paper ballots and expect to count every piddling little local ballot initiative and school board election in a timely manner.

This could be addressed by using two separate ballots - giving each voter one national ballot, and one local ballot - or by limiting the "Parallel Election" to those races where the results of the vote can lead to your family members being sent off to die - the National races.