The DFNH Fair Elections Committee is also proud to release the July 2006
edition of "We're Counting the Votes: An Election Preparedness
Kit for New Hampshire Citizens, Candidates, and Campaigns, and for All the
Good and Honest Election Officials, Election Workers, and Poll Workers of New
Hampshire." The Kit can be edited for any locale, simply request the editable
Word version from fec@democracyfornewhampshire.com, and
drop in your own information about your own local laws and traditions. Take back
your elections, starting with the knowledge of how they work. Please download
your copy, read it, and pass it around!
New Hampshire's hand count method for counting votes takes first place in
new report on elections
A recently released report by
the Committee on a Framework For Understanding Electronic Voting, National
Research Council of the National Academies of Science delivers a knockout
blow to today's electronic (computerized) voting industry and the supportive
governmental structures spawned by the "Help
America Vote (sic) Act (HAVA)".
This groundbreaking report concisely and coherently pulls together many threads of this complex topic, addressing the multitude of problems with machine-based voting in a number of ways. Reading the report, one is left with the undeniable conclusion that the only viable way to create security in our elections is through the use of a hand counted paper ballot system.
Specifically, this report states unequivocally that every polling place in the nation should be prepared with paper ballots for hand counting because it is untenable to rely on voting machines for the following reasons:
use them for Nov 2006.
There is nothing sterile or academic about the assessment of the situation
and the recommendations thereof. Unlike other reports about electronic voting,
this Committee report weighed its conclusions based on the testimony of real-world
experts such as Wendy Noren, Boone County Clerk of Missouri, whose dramatic
testimony last February before the Election Assistance Commission pointed
out the chaos into which the HAVA-generated voting industry has thrown us.
The report is groundbreaking too, in that--unlike all other reports of its kind--it actually includes instructions for hand
counting, effectively inserting this time honored method into the public record and discourse on the subject of election integrity.
No longer can computerized voting proponents disregard the hand count methodology as a viable and integral part of any discussion and debate about election administration.
The hand count method, shown below in an excerpt from the report, comes directly from the New Hampshire Secretary of State's office.
Hand Count Method for Counting Ballots
The report includes the following description of handcounting methodology used in the Granite State (the tally method is seen in the Wilton and Lyndeborough videos,
and the ballot pile method in the State Recount video):
Counting paper ballots is inherently manual, but there are better and worse ways of doing it. One common method is based on ballot reading and tally marks. One member of a two-person team reads the ballot, declaring those legal votes
apparent from the voter's marks. The second team member places a mark on his/her tally sheet for the candidate receiving a vote. This method involves
the possibility of a mistake because the ballot is examined only once or a mistake because only one person is doing the tallying. Since this method commonly involves reading through the entire ballot, the ballot reader's eye and
brain are not focused on looking for a single type of data, and thus the reader must expend mental effort to distinguish among the contests in which choices
are made.
At least one state (New Hampshire), in its state recounts, has been using another process that seems to be less subject to error.
This process, based on the use of ballot sorting and piles, involves one member of a two-person team picking up the ballots and placing them in piles corresponding
to each choice in a particular race. The other team member observes each ballot as it is placed in a pile. After the sorting process is complete, one team member counts each pile in stacks of 25 and then the other team member recounts each stack.
This process enables at least two persons to simultaneously examine each ballot at least once, and to keep things simple by identifying choices in a single race at a time. If one person makes a mistake, the other can catch it. This
method is often modified so that each ballot is rechecked during the stack-counting process. Hence, each ballot can be seen two times by each member of the team, for a total of up to four views of each mark on a ballot in each race.
The ballot sorting and pile method, which involves as many examinations of the same ballot as there are contests, is noticeably faster than the ballot reading and tally mark approach.
1 | 2
