I've got an idea

Strong evidence exists that Bush illegally assumed the presidency TWICE because of fraudulently won elections.  If we can trace back the spoiled hamburger to exactly which cow had the disease, don't tell me we can't figure out a system that is honest, verifiable, and transparent. With a little creativity and imagination, we must be able to design a process for honest elections. 

I've got an idea - do you know how you can go to Google maps and see a satellite photograph of your town, and then you can actually zoom right in and see your house.  Why not have everybody who is eligible to vote  be issued a unique number - during an election you go online or on the phone, or the local community center or library,  and place your vote.  A grid of satellites are networked to show in real time every vote being cast along with the location.  There's the roof of my house along with a light that shines and demonstrates a colour or code showing my vote.  All legally eligible voters have one unique number which corresponds with one vote.  This can be verified by the people, by the government, by other governments, by anybody, any time.  Of course you don't have to be home to place your vote, but you do have to have one unique, valid number that can be checked against the result during and after the election. 

I find it hard to believe that in this age where they can accurately keep track of everyone's credit card debt every second, that we are unable to fulfill the criteria of this seemingly far less complex process in a simple way.

by CasaZaza (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments) on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 9:39:18 AM
 

less is more

we don't really need satellites to keep our system honest. We just need the time honored advanced system of checks and balances found in well managed hand count paper ballot elections.

It is the complexity and opacity of high tech solutions that brought us to where we are today. 

by Nancy Tobi (69 articles, 4 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 10:04:53 AM
 

Elections ARE too complex

Some election officials are attracted to the latest bells and whistles.

Also, politicians have added on more and more contests to elections, trying to up their voter turnout. Everytime we add on more "conveniences", we seem to create the demand for more "Technology". Early voting or Vote Centers are an example of "reforms" that drive the push for technology.

Compare to many industries that are always seeking technical ways to do simple tasks.

However, with DREs, the person's intent is less transparent. 

With a paper ballot marked by a voter, however counted, you will be able to see the voters' actual intent with far less need to "interpret".

Some election officials don't like paper ballots because you will always have some that weren't marked clearly enough, and these will have to be examined by a  team to determine intent. They want everything to "match" up exactly. The problem is that touchscreens or DREs don't always reflect the "intent" of the voter, and then we get into the forensic examinations.

The election officials have a sizeable influence in this issue.

Hopefully, people are learning that higher tech is not appropriate for elections. But we didn't get here over night, and we have had paperless voting in some form since the beginning of voting.

The majority of voters likely are unaware of this great debate, and only learn about paper ballots when their jurisdiction changes to them, as happened in NC.  Many of our former paperless DRE counties switched to optical scan.  Those not schooled on the subject thought this was a step back.

Some citizens have learned how nice it was to be able to determine intent when we had recounts in some jurisdictions, and audits.  There was some agony, too when bi-partisan teams had to argue over what exactly the intent was on some ballots.

The audits showed more discrepancies with optical scan than DRES, but when it came to doing the audits, and doing the recounts, it was a lot easier to do on OS, and we knew for sure (99%) what the intent of the voter was on the paper ballot.

While optical scan and DRES both are counting a digital ballot (OS interprets the paper ballot into a ballot image), the OS uses a simple transparent record that we can examine.

by ncvoter (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 93 comments) on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 1:08:20 PM
 

End Run around Hand Counted Paper Ballots

Clearly, before the HCPB movement builds any more steam, the fascists seek to illegitimize them.

I urge folks to run their own paper ballot elections, outside an official polling site. It checks the accuracy of reported results and it trains us in how to conduct an HCPB election.  For the October 06 training manual, see http://www.thelandesreport.com/ClevelandPE.pdf altho we are in the process of revising it for 07.

The government model of election control fails democracy. It's time citizens run what is, after our, our election process.

by Rady Ananda (80 articles, 219 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 576 comments) on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 6:08:10 PM
 

Suppress the Vote not verify it.

In the county I live in we have ballots that we hand mark and feed into a scanner that is supposed to tabulate the votes. The ballot have tear off numbers but we must give it back when we hand in the ballot to be scanned. I thought this is kind of dumb. If we kept our numbers and a recount was ordered we could check to see if our votes where counted as we cast them. This is a republican county and I do not trust the scanners that keep track of how many votes are cast, but not who they were cast for. We have to rely on a computer chip to accurately count the ballots, correctly.

Are the precincts so large that a hand count would go on for days. I think not. And the new touch screen did not work at my precinct,seems no one knew how to turn it on. Now if they could make them as accurate as an ATM and give us a paper receipt I might trust them more. But that is the whole point with the tech people . Design it so poorly no one will want to vote. And this is absolutely a states right issue.

by cluelessfl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 184 comments) on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 11:45:32 PM
 

New Hampshire Ballot

Just wondering, is this an accurate copy of a New Hampshire paper ballot for Nov 2, 2004?

It has 14 contests on it and also has the option of straight ticket voting.

Here is a sample ballot for Durham Co North Carolina  for Nov 2, 2004. (It is typical of other counties)

It has 24 contests on it. 

We have straight ticket voting too, with many exceptions including that it doesn't count for president. Attempts to get rid of the straight ticket law have failed year after year. (There is a lawsuit by the Libertarians that might possibly overturn the straight ticket law.)

Here are just some of the instructions on the ballot, I hope they do better in future:

PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT
ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE
STRAIGHT PARTY TICKET. THEY
MUST BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY.
THE ABOVE CANDIDATES ARE
EXCLUDED FROM THE STRAIGHT
PARTY TICKET. THEY MUST BE
VOTED ON SEPARATELY.
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER

a. To vote for all candidates of one party (a
straight ticket), complete the arrow at the right of
the party whose candidates for whom you wish
to vote.

b. You may vote a split ticket by not completing
the arrow at the right of the party, but by
completing the arrow at the right of the name of
each candidate for whom you wish to vote.

c. You may also vote a split ticket by
completing the arrow at the right of the party and
then completing the arrow at the right of the
name of any candidate you choose of a different
party. In any multi-seat race where a party
arrow is completed and you vote for candidates
of another party, you must also complete the
arrow at the right of the name of any candidate
you choose of the party for which you completed
the party arrow to assure your vote will count.

d. If you tear or deface or wrongly mark this
ballot, return it and get another.

e. If you wish to write in the name of the
qualified candidate, you must write the qualified
name in the blank space provided and complete
the arrow at the right of the name in order for
your vote to count. (NCGS 163-165.6(f))
f. A straight party vote does not vote for
non-partisan offices.

by ncvoter (8 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 93 comments) on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 9:44:39 AM