Sad, isn't it?

[BeFree]

The leaders of election reform, gawd bless all of them them and their monumental efforts, have decided that paper ballots cast and counted by human beings are not going to happen.

They even had me convinced.

But what they forget is that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate Federal elections. See link:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

If we all turned our efforts into getting congress to mandate that all federal elections would be done on paper ballots and counted by human beings - no machines - then half the battle would be won.

There are, at most, just three federal office holders elected at any one precinct. So counting just three races is a piece of cake. No need for fancy machines, as the argument goes for convoluted ballots.

It makes perfect sense that federal elections are done one way across the country. And that one way that makes perfect sense is Hand Counted Paper Ballots.

Leaders, please, this is what the people want, help us achieve this monumental goal.

[FogerRox]

1. damn straight

[bleever]

2. Congressionally mandated paper ballots, hand counted.

:thumbsup:

[Peanutcat]

3. Are you freakin' INSANE?!

Sure it's best to have some kind of paper trail, but hand-counting ALL ballots? Counting and keeping rack of every single vote on every single ballot by hand? Do you know how many voters are in large preceincts? Do you know how many votes are on the typical ballot? Do you know that back when all votes were hand-counted, it took DAYS for the results to be known?

[BeFree]

4. Did you know?

The election was stolen in 2004 because they used machines?

That only three races need to be hand counted, and not every little two-bit referendum spread across ballots in order to confuse everybody and make it harder to count ballots by hand?

I don't think you did, but now, you do.

[Peanutcat]

8. Paper trail, paper trail, paper trail

You only need to hand count if there's a discrepency. Where I live, we mark our votes on paper ballots which are then counted by machine. If a problem pops up, then we have the hard-copy paper ballots to check out.

[BeFree]

11. Good luck with that

See the ER Forum for a thorough discussion of that idea. You'll see that dog don't hunt.

[Land Shark]

42. Application of Universal Election Rule of Law: When choosing between

integrity of elections and convenience, always sacrifice election integrity.

We've got elections now where no one has to bust their ass or work really hard (except election day many pollworkers put in long days). What's your assessment of election integrity?

[IndyOp]

44. If a problem crops up? Like if the winner gets 72% of the votes?

Software can be programmed (or central tabulators) diddled so that the winner gets 51% or 54% or 72%...

People will cheat at random audits for lots of different reasons - so their guy wins or so that their election-system is stressed by overwork.

The *gold standard* is to count 100% of the paper ballots -- at which point why bug with the machines? Germany announces the results of phone polls and that tells the voters who won that night, then they have city workers count ballots and report the official results in about 24-48 hours.

:kick:

[Peanutcat]

14. Oh, and . . . . .

How many ballots will there be with your system? A seperate ballot for all major races and how many for the rest? I really don't see how your system will work.

[BeFree]

16. Three federal races

I don't care how you vote for offices in your state, or town, but in federal elections I not only care, but have the right to know how a representative who helps make laws that govern me was really elected.

As it stands there is no confidence in any election using machines. With humans counting the ballots of federal offices, confidence will be restored.

[AndyTiedye]

6. Easily Done

Use optical-scan, so you have preliminary results right away.
Official results should be produced by real humans counting real ballots.
I think we can get enough volunteers from all parties.

[BeFree]

10. My state has a canvass...

...one week after election day and results are not official until the canvass is completed.

I'd bet every state has the same canvass.

[Peanutcat]

12. Yeah riiiiiight

That worked soooooooo well in Florida, didn't it? I like the optical-scan, which is what we have now where I live. Mark your votes on a paper ballot that's counted by a machine. It's so much easier to make sure you voted for who you meant to vote for because you can actually SEE that you voted the way you wanted to.

[Wilms]

17. Yep Peanut.

Faster and easier. That's what counts.

So you can SEE how you voted. Can you SEE how it got counted? Do you have access to audits of the Ballot Definition Settings.

Google it.

I'd write more but it would be faster and easier for me if you did some research.

[Peanutcat]

19. Unless I'm the one doing the counting

I can't see if my vote's counted properly, can I? How so will I know someone acually counted my vote at all? How will I know my vote was counted and tablulated properly? No matter what system you use, there are always going to be chances of miscounts, deliberate or accidental. I mean, you DO know there was voting fraud way back when all votes were hand-counted, don't you?

[Wilms]

20. Yes you can. Chain of custody and public viewing.

It's done in Canada, the UK, I believe, and probably elsewhere.

A panacea? Of course not.

We would do well to brush up on preventing HCPB Fraud.

[AndyTiedye]

23. The Weakness There (And Most Places) is No Hand Recount

Paper ballots won't save our democracy unless we count them.

That means "WE". Volunteers from all parties.
Community-access cable cameras on every aspect of the count.
Video gear is dirt cheap these days, and cable systems
have more channels than they know what to do with.
Let the actual counting of the ballots be televised.

We still get the instant gratification of an election-night result,
unofficial though it may be. It will probably be free of fraud,
because with so many eyes on the final, official, count, they would
know that any fraud would be uncovered in the final count.

And in the case of simple machine malfunction, some results might be
delayed, but with real paper ballots, no votes would be lost.

[eridani]

27. What about only for national or state-wide office?

President, Veep, House and Senate, Governor. That would be easy enough. All the sewer district and school board stuff could be done by opscan--way less payoff for cheating for those offices.

[Peanutcat]

30. More than one ballot?

Yeah, that's gonna make voting a lot eaiser and less confusing.

[eridani]

34. Don't see that at all

What's confusing?

[Peanutcat]

40. Well . . . . .

Instead of one piece of paper per person to keep track of, you'll have three or more. And do you know the sheer amount of paperwork there is to track just one ballot per person? You have to make sure each type of ballot was kept seperate from the others, and . . . . . Oh Lord! the mind boggles! I'm an election judge, and if our paperwork tripled or more, I'd go insane myself! And jsut telling people how the fill out the ballots! With our one paper ballot you tell people to make sure to fill in the ovals, no slashes or x's or checkmarks, just fill in the ovals solidly, and to make sure to flip the ballot over to do the votes on the other side, you tell them and tell them and tell them AND SOME OF THEM STILL GET IT WRONG!!! *whew, glad to get that off my chest* Imagine that times three of more!:evilgrin:

[Steve A Play]

37. I can tell you're not from California!

In Santa Cruz County, we use optical scan units and we routinely receive 3 or more ballots to vote on. In the November 2004 election we had 3 ballots.

Ballot 'A' had the Federal races on one side, (President/Vice President, Senator, Congressman) and State Senate and Assembly races on the other with 3 State ballot measures filling the remaining space.

Ballot 'B' had 5 more State ballot measures on each side.

Ballot 'C' had the 4 remaining ballot measures on one side and a Local School Board race, County Supervisor race and 2 local tax measures on the other side.

With the races broken down in this manner, it's very easy to see who or what you're voting for and it makes hand counts easier because the separate ballots can be counted concurrently by separate counting teams. :)

Think outside the Black Box!

[Stevepol]

39. The problem is many-fold Peanutcat. Here's some things to ponder.

The optiscan machines are programmed JUST LIKE THE TOUCHSCREENS, so they are just as prone to obviously fraudulent results. When Mondale lost in MN in 02 by about 3% after leading by 5% going in, the machine used was mostly optiscan, and the optiscans were the ones in FL in 04 where the results were so ridiculously out of whack with the party registrations. In fact, I believe the ES&S optiscans are more rigged than the Diebold touchscreens, but that's just opinion. Because how the hell can you ever find out?

But the voting machine people vote on isn't the real culprit. That's just the cause of the nation-wide tilt that caused 42 of the 50 states to differ from the exit polls toward Bush rather than Kerry, which given the number of ballots cast is about as possible as winning the lottery three times in a row. The real culprit is the central tabulators where the whole race in a state can be flipped in 20 seconds and leave no trace.

What machines were used in the 05 OH referendum where the results were so out of line with the always reliable pre-election polling that they were described by an editor of the Columbus paper as the equivalent of the shuttle disaster, except nobody is even searching for the O-Ring?

I agree a paper trail could go far toward solving the problem BUT ONLY IF THE RESULTS ARE AUDITED FOR EVERY ELECTION and the paper is the final arbiter. When I deposit my money in an ATM machine I expect not only a receipt but a bi-weekly bank statement so I can verify to make sure the machine isn't mis-programmed. A paper trail is absolutely meaningless at present because audits are almost never done unless somebody can rake up $500,000 or something like that. Audits have to built into the system.

[troubleinwinter]

31. Uhhh... WTF? "best to have some kind of paper trail"!!!???

Voter Verified PAPER BALLOT as THE Ballot of Record.

What is a fucking "paper trail"? Sounds like you have something stuck on your shoe.

[druidity33]

38. communication, not counting

is what took so long in those days. If there are many people in precincts, then there can be many counters... it could be like jury duty if there weren't enough volunteers, or part of a mandatory CIVICS class for all high schools across the nation... plenty of ways to get this done. Other LARGE countries have manual counting in extremely remote areas and still manage. Part of the "i want it now" America... instant gratification. I'd rather wait 2 days and know that it was done RIGHT... then have the results right away and wonder about lawsuits for the next 4 years.

[eppur_se_muova]

43. So we wait days, SO WHAT??

What's wrong with taking the time to GET IT RIGHT? This whole push for getting the vote counted on Election Night is something spawned by the broadcast networks. Other than boosting their ratings, there is nothing to be gained by it. As long as the ballots are never left unattended by watchful eyes, the results of the election are assured. With electronic voting/tallying, there are more holes in the safety net than can ever be plugged.

[lvx35]

5. To me its not that important.

The systems just need to be sane. They need to be inspected by computer science gurus and top schols and get the thumbs up. They need verification like paper ballots that CAN be hand counted...Paper reciepts, you know those things you get from ATMs for taking out $20 but our democracy is not important enough for.

[BeFree]

7. It just so happens that...

...the machines were inspected by 'computer science gurus' and pretty much all of them said: "Don't use them for elections!"

They gave the systems a thumbs down.

[lvx35]

13. I know, like the Johns Hopkins report.

All I'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with using machines in concept, its the implementation. :)

[stillcool]

18. I don't think anyone doubts that it's possible...

to have computerized voting, and have it be accurate. The problem is the companies that own these machines do not have an interest in providing that. The machines are vulnerable at every level, and it's a joke. Anytime, there's an election anywhere in this country....look at the daily thread and see how many errors, glitches, and snafu's are reported, regardless of county, city, or state.

[Wilms]

21. Right.

And as a result, I have No Basis for Confidence in the use of e-voting.

[lvx35]

22. Yeah its crazy, eh?

The corruption blows my mind...I mean we KNEW these things were screwed, but there was nobody there to stop them and it just went through. I never knew things could be so rotten at the core, when I was growing up I really thought there was accountability and oversight in things. I guessed I learned my lesson! :(

[eridani]

29. It is not enough for elections to be accurate--

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/making_democracy_transparent.php

The election fraud debate frames the problem incorrectly. The question should not be whether there is widespread election fraud. It should be: "Why should we trust the results of It's not good enough that election results be accurate. We have to know they are accurate—and we don't.

[AndyTiedye]

26. The Programmers at Diebold Are Not Exactly Computer Science Gurus

Diebold's programmers seem to be rather at the opposite end of the spectrum:dunce:
Their systems crash under heavy load, and seem prone to obvious malfunctions,
like producing more votes than voters -- All Republican, but just a tad obvious:wtf:

If Diebold had competent programmers, we would not have the opportunity that we now
have to retrieve our democracy from their grasp.

[lvx35]

45. hehe. I suppose it the incompetance is a boon! :)

But its also the modus operandi. Centralized software to rig an election is extremely dangerous. By putting "bugs" in the software that can be "exploited" by entities "unrealated" to the company, the wole thing is vastly more safe. Complex rigging systems that evade proof would probably too hard for republican morons to figure out how to use! :)

[troubleinwinter]

33. Huh? I don't want a 'receipt' for my vote. I want my vote counted.

I don't want "like paper ballots". PAPER BALLOTS, period.

[lvx35]

46. Don't blame ya.

My state (WA) has gone to all mail in (paper) ballots. In additional to being immune to this, its easier. I'm just saying the machines don't have to be retarded.

[Wilms]

47. But how is that mail-in vote counted?

With OpScan, I presume.

Exit pan, enter fire.

[lvx35]

49. I'm not too worried to be honest.

The effort was spear-headed by Dems, and we're a blue state now, so I trust they know what they are doing. Of course you never know, but throwing all the electronic voting machines without paper trails out of the state was a good start:
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/s9/index.php?/archives/72-Washington-state-requires-paper.html

[Wilms]

50. OK, so the state is blue.

Were the primaries rigged?

[lvx35]

51. Tha last primaries I was involved in were the 2004

and I didn't do much. I remember feeling like John Kerry seemed bizarrely over represented in the crowd for his actual level of appeal, but I wouldn't call it rigged. However I did get one email detailing misrecorded votes...Some places had been won by Dean and were replaced by Kerry. But that's all I know. Do you have information suggesting rigged primaries?

[Wilms]

52. No specific info.

It's just that e-counting is little better than e-voting/counting.

[GregD]

9. I used to consider myself a leader - here's my opinion

I learned about the issue back in June 2003 when I heard David Dill at a conference. I went home, looked at his site, freaked out, and spent the next many months creating Verified Voting. It was early in the game, not a lot of folks were onboard the BBV issue, and a handful of us spent that summer screaming "emergency!".

But during that process I became frustrated over how horribly broken our system has become, how unresponsive our electeds had become, and despite the fact that we had enough votes to pass HR2239 we could not get the damn bill out of the committee. Fuck Ney and all that blocked those noble efforts. We were right. They were wrong. May they burn in hell forever...

Later, as time passed, I came to the conclusion that absent our winning a larger fight, winning significant election reform would be difficult or not possible. I may be entirely wrong about that - it's just my opinion. That and a few bucks will get you a cup of coffee. Shit, I remember whn the phrase went "that and a dime...".

Anyhow, that's my take. We don't get meaningful election reform, in a form that really makes a difference, until we make the electeds understand that we are the power - that it really is "our country", and not "theirs".

You want paper ballots? You have to make Congress and the White House hear it. And it's not going to be looking to Bev, or Warren, or John, or anyone that is now considered the "leadership" in this fight. Because they are no more, and no less, than any of you. The ONLY difference is the level of suffering, frustration and determination one is committed to undertake while trying to make a difference.

Wanna Be Free? (Sorry about the pun) Don't rely upon someone else who you percevie to be the leadership. BE THE LEADERSHIP.

[EFerrari]

25. Yessir. Amen.

I spent an hour and a half today trying to file a complaint with my state attorney general. Everyone I talked to behaved as though they were my HOSTS.

I pay their fucking salary.

They are not my "hosts" graciously doing me an effen favor.

I try to be patient with people -- but patience is often mistaken for weakness.

And that's why I value Guv's "no confidence" formulation. You can have my confidence when you earn it and not one second before that.

[BeFree]

41. Hello Greg

Long time, no see.

Me be the leader? Hah! herding cats is not in my repertoire.

What bugs me is the the leaders have all thrown away the idea that we can have HCPB. That's bad, and that's the gist of this thread.

What do you think about this idea of federal elections on HCPB? I didn't see where you had an opinion on that. Its what people want, so it makes it a lot simpler to lead, can't leaders see that?

The Shark has been going on about how the 550 audits aren't worth the paper they rely on, so lets not compromise with the machines, lets toss them for federal elections.

There are over 10,000 separate jurisdictions (GAO) that manage elections. It makes sense to me that in order to control how federal elections are handled at each of these 10,000, the process be as simple as can be. HCPB for the three races is the simplest way to achieve that, eh?

[GregD]

48. My opinion? I don't think you want to go there.

But since you asked, here's your daily dose of sour grapes.

I don't think the electeds (or the un-electeds but they are in office anyhow) give a rats ass what we want.

And I don't honestly think it matters how much, or how many of us want anything, including HCPB. When's the last time that ANYTHING derived from "we the peeps" and tendered to "them" that decide on what they will allow us was agreed to and delivered?

Indeed, I don't think it is worth the effort to try to get meaningful election reform passed with this congress, because I don't think they will do it. No more so than the last session of congress was willing to do so. No more so than the bastards are willing to pass meaningful lobbying reform, meaningful ethics reform, or meaningful public health care reform. They don't care!

It looks like a few states are making progress at that level, but at a federal level I don't see things changing until we seat a Democratic majority. If you want to work on election reform, it has to happen at this stage at the state level.

I'd rather put energy into rallying such overwhelming support for grassroots candidates that if they try to steal the Nov 2006 election, so many people will know it is a sham that we can call them on it this time.

And the other thing I feel worth the effort is hitting the streets and demand the bastards step down. Like, why aren't we out there yet?

[BeFree]

53. I agree and disagree

But what do you think of the IDEA of getting congress to mandate federal elections be processed only by humans - without machines? That there be only one way, across the nation, to count the votes for federal offices?

Is it a good idea, or what?

As to the rest of your description, it has much truth to it, but I could disagree.

But, like I say: Its sad, isn't it, that the ER leaders won't lead with what the people want and truly need?

[GregD]

54. There are issues such as language and accessibility

In the process of working on this issue, I got to know my county elections guy very closely. He spoke at length about what it takes to run an election in CA. That's my principal reference.

Depending upon the election, mid-term or presidential, there are a bunch of ballot combinations that are mandated by law. You have ballots that are printed in a variety of languages, others that are printed to reflect party, and so on. In some districts one can sit there with a large number of ballots that need to be available for the voters.

What do I think of HCPB? I'd like to see it. But the resistance to pull that off, from the county all the way up to Congress, is going to be massive. I'm not sure how you get there without changing a lot of laws, both state and federal.

[BeFree]

55. Thanks, Greg

The whole of electioneering is very complicated, indeed. That is precisely why black boxes are so well received by the officals in charge. The black boxes make it easier to handle the mess.

The idea proposed here is one that would cut through the clutter of at least a sub-section of the mess. By peeling out the federal office elections - just three races, at most - and processing those elections the same way in each of the more than 10,000 juridictions, would, I think, help to return some simplicity to the whole process.

All it would take is one simple law from congress.

States could run their local elections as they see fit, but federal elections would become uniform throughout this one nation, undivided, with liberty and justice, for all.

[GregD]

56. Like I said initially

Absent some significant change of Congress, or at least their willingness to listen and respond, we can make all the proposals we want. Getting those proposals adopted is the issue. I'm not sure how that happens at this point.

The bright point is that some Republican races are getting screwed by these machines. The more the folks on the other side begin to realize that these shit machines are failing them too, the closer we get to influencing change.

[stillcool]

15. Martin Luther King Jr....once said...

"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm
Paper ballots, and I will gladly volunteer to count. I don't understand why people think it's so out of the realm to count ballots...??

[EFerrari]

24. Voter verified paper ballots.

:)

[troubleinwinter]

32. Yes. Voter Verified PAPER BALLOTS as the Ballot of Record.

[EFerrari]

35. Kick

:hug:

[nicknameless]

28. K&R

[Kurovski]

36. K&R(nt)