 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 27, 2008 at 09:42:45
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 7/27/08: by Richard Hayes Phillips Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
I am a native of upstate New York. I have been voting on lever machines since 1972. They may be old-fashioned, but their durability is proven by the very fact that they are still in service. I am not alone in trusting them. So does Bryan Pfaffenberger, Professor of Science and Technology at the University of Virginia, who was awarded a National Science Foundation grant to study lever machines. Pfaffenberger agrees that the reliability of lever machines, which were expressly designed in response to fraudulent counting of paper ballots, "has been proven in a century of service." He concludes that, "the lever machine deserves recognition as one of the most astonishing achievements of American technological genius." I am on record as an advocate of paper ballots, counted by hand, at the polling place, in full public view, on Election Night, no matter how long it takes. I arrived at this position as a direct result of an audit of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, undertaken at an unprecedented scale, under my direction. Rady Ananda, an election integrity advocate and a veteran of the Ohio investigation, is quite correct in stating that "our call for hand-counted paper ballots is directly related to our distrust of computerized voting systems." Pfaffenberger believes "that there would be no such call for paper if the ugly history of fraudulent practices enabled by paper ballots were known." To the contrary, I am well aware of an astonishing variety of fraudulent methods utilized in Ohio, where, in the 2004 election, 85% of the votes were cast on paper -- 70% on punch card ballots, and 15% on paper ballots run through optical scanners. The other 15% of the votes were cast on electronic voting machines.
Presented to the Regional Mensa Convention
Columbus, Ohio, July 26, 2008
These methods of vote rigging are set forth in relentless detail in my book "Witness to a Crime: A Citizens' Audit of an American Election," which comes with a CD containing 1200 photographs of altered ballots and other forensic evidence from Ohio. But this is no reason to abandon paper ballots. To the contrary, it is the very reason to keep them. The existence of paper ballots is the very reason why we were able to prove that the 2004 Ohio election was fraudulent. Electronic voting machines were rigged as well, in Youngstown, Columbus, and Auglaize County, but in the absence of paper ballots, we have only eyewitness accounts and precinct canvass records to tell the tale.
The most important aspect of our proposed solution is that the votes be counted at the polling place. The minute the ballots leave the polling place, chain of custody questions arise, and the opportunity exists for ballot alteration, ballot substitution, ballot box stuffing, and ballot destruction, all of which we have documented in Ohio.
Crime scene investigators, in addition to collecting forensic evidence, look for three things: motive, means, and opportunity. There will always be a motive to rig an election and win the count. There will always be a means – whatever method of voting is used. Our only hope is to stop the opportunity. Breaks in the chain of custody are what provide the opportunity – whether at the factory, or at the polls, or during transportation of the ballots, or after the ballots arrive at a central location.
I still prefer hand-counted paper ballots, but only if they are counted in full public view at the polling place on Election Night. I simply will not defend the use of paper ballots if they are transported to another location before they are counted. I would much rather have lever machines counted at the polling place than any system, paper or paperless, counted elsewhere.
Lever machines are mechanical devices. The voter pulls a lever, which turns a gear, which adds one vote to the candidate's total, much like the odometer on a car. The lever makes a sound which verifies that the vote has been recorded.
With lever machines, three oversight methods are always necessary to protect the integrity of the vote count. Election observers need to see: (1) before the polls open, that the counts for all candidates and ballot propositions begin at zero, and that all the levers are functioning properly; (2) throughout the day, that the total count matches the number of voter signatures in the book; and (3) at the end of the day, that the machine counts are observed and recorded at the polling place, in full public view. Honest elections officials will be doing these things anyway. It is our job, as vigilant citizens, to be sure that they do.
New York State, by law, does not allow post-election recounts. Rather, New York allows a "recanvass," that is, a comparison of the counts that were transcribed in full public view from the lever machines at each polling place on Election Night with the numbers tallied and aggregated at the county level, to be sure that all the vote totals were transcribed correctly. As explained by attorney Andi Novick:
"Since 1896, the Election Law has required contemporaneously created record evidence of the count or of fraud. A verified, completed count, publicly recorded and announced at each poll site on election night, before the aggregate of the total votes is known, is still mandated." It is "historically understood that once the ongoing public scrutiny of the poll site ended and the results of the election night count were known, the count was at greater risk of subsequent tampering."
For the same reason, in the case of hand-counted paper ballots, I distrust the idea of recounts at a central location utilizing an optical scanner, allegedly as a "check" on the original hand count at the polling place. If a discrepancy arises, which count carries the day? How do we know that ballot tampering did not occur after the ballots left the polling place and before they were run through the optical scanner?
In New York State, lever machines have a "full face ballot." Every candidate for every office, and every ballot proposition, is visible all at once. The offices are lined up in columns, and the political parties are lined up in rows, the order of which is determined by the order in which the parties' candidates finished in the preceding gubernatorial election. While this does help to perpetuate the dominance of the two major political parties, it standardizes the ballot layout all across the state. Any error in the ballot layout will be noticed, and the vote tallies will be assigned accordingly. The levers are right next to the names of the candidates. The voter is unlikely to pull the wrong lever by mistake. Nor can votes be switched from one candidate to another, as this would be as difficult as jimmying a mechanical typewriter to type the wrong letter. Nor can votes be shifted by sending the voter to the wrong machine, because the ballot layout will be the same on every lever machine in the district. Even the blind can vote on lever machines, by feel, finding the right columns and rows by counting the number of levers.
"Overvotes" (two or more choices for the same office) are impossible, because the lever machines do not allow it. The voter cannot pull two or more levers for the same office (unless you are supposed to vote for two candidates, as for a local board). I know. I have tried it. Electronic voting machines, which also do not allow overvotes, are nothing new on this point.
"Undervotes" (no choice for the office) are allowed, whether deliberately or inadvertently. The lever machine gives no warning that the voter has overlooked an office. There is a simple remedy for this. One more row could be added to the bottom of the full face ballot, reading "None of the Above" for each office, and the machines could be set up to require the voter to pull one lever in each column before pulling the big lever that opens the curtain and causes the votes to be cast. This would constitute an additional check on the accuracy of the vote count, because the total votes counted in each column should be equal, and it would be immediately apparent if one of the gears was not functioning properly.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 11 comments |
|
Lever Machines: Bravo
This concise description of the lever machines should end all genuine argument. I agree that hand counts of hand marked paper ballots in the precinct immediately after the polls close and before the ballots leave the room is the best method. But lever machines, which I have voted upon, are just as good, and require only basic observation before they are considered reliable. It seems to me that the only people advocating for computerized voting are Republicans and computer programmers who don't think anyone could be morally dishonest enough to steal an election. That there is not a general uproar over the fact the computers will be used to steal this November's election is a mystery to me. It should be topic Number One. by GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 4:25:06 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Bravo is relative
Lever machines are better than a black box- but have no paper ballot.. and are not a sustainable model due to industry " fade"- Allowing the voter to hand mark a paper ballot results in smiley faces and a general lack of reconcilliation- not acceptable. Open source code ballot printers are HAVA compliant - sustainable- and tender perfectly marked and reconcilable paper ballots that can be hand counted or scanned for volume. This system is complete with redundancy, and takes the major cartel players out of the equation. New York has already showed their willingness for this solution by waiving open source certification fees- All good activists please support open source / paper ballot systems- Brent Turner by Brent Turner (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:14:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Who makes the machines?
New York may save the nation by balking in the face of computerized voting, but the rest of us have a question: Are there any mechanical lever voting machine manufacturers still in business? Does any company still build and sell these machines? by GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 4:28:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: no more manufacturers
These machines are so durable that they've lasted over 40 years in NY. When a part breaks down, they can either pick it up at the hardware store or have it tooled. Of course you're right that computerized voting sucks. What we're trying to do in NY is stop the levers from being replaced by computers. That's why the hoopla. What's funny to me, on some of the election lists, supposed hand-count fans are siding with those who want software in rejecting levers. I realize it's a mind twist to be a fan of hand-counts and embrace mechanical engineering, but mechanical systems are far superior to software on every level. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 4:33:57 PM (0+)
|
|
busted
sorry, but I watched a precinct captain, who by law was issued a key to the back of the lever voting machine, manipulate the count simply by rolling odometer-like counters with his thumb, replacing one party's votes with another. Any system can be gamed. the mind of man will not be constrained by locks or walls. The incentive to win must be removed if the drive to game the system is to be eliminated. Prosecutors must not be allowed to gain political advantage by conviction numbers. Officeholders must be accurately audited and prevented from financial gain by making deals. Now that we have computers, we should be able to watch every dollar. Yet the Pentagon admits it cannot account for two trillion dollars. by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:18:20 PM (0+)
|
|
nice and clear, Richard!
Thank you for clearing this up for all of us who are unfamiliar with lever voting machines. It would indeed be ironic if opponents of lever voting played into the government's case to force NY voters to use electronic voting, one of the biggest vote disenfranchising scams around. by Joan Brunwasser (206 articles, 3757 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 751 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:21:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Election "Experts" Can NOT Agree! ? !?!? !?
I have tried to get people to even discuss counting paper ballots by hand and they resist. Many groups who boast "experts" including people in Verified Voters of New Mexico, to many engineers and statisticians, such as Kathy Dopp who all advocate electronic tallies of the scanned votes with audits. Audits are 2% of the precincts. Here in Albuquerque, we have 418 precincts. That means we will have about 8 precincts counted by hand to see if they differ from machine counts. If the other 410 precincts do not have matching machine counts to the actual votes counted, WE WILL NEVER KNOW. Kathy Dopp and the local folks here advocating election reform suggest that people who think that hand counting the presidential and congressional race by hand is not preferable to machine counts with audits. I have been told directly by Dr. Dopp, "why don't you let the experts decide how to do these things? The audit is the best way..." All machine counts are suspect after the last presidential elections because of political manipulations at the polls, not having enough ballots, not having people on the registration books or purging the registration lists, to using faulty machines, and lastly just changing the election results on computers and telling the people to go fish. It won't be any different this election. Corporate America will not give America back to the people. Elections are media circus and sponsored by the people who appoint the winners. The Military Industrial Complex to energy corporations and the broad casting or print media are all incestuously operating together in their own best interests, not the people's, and that won't change till the people demand a separation of Corporate and Sate be amended to our Constitution. Elections are easy to control compared to losing power in the government or the world by losing their power over the US government, just as the first corporation of they New Word, East India Company, controlled England and directed military action against the colonies, causing the American Revolution. What will it take to remove Corporate America from our government, from controlling our elections, equipment, and even counting our votes, to the media both broadcasting and print? Until then kiss your democrassy good bye because elections are theater and soap opera for the gullable and naive. by Casey Reed (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:29:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: not an expert
kathy dopp does not have a PhD; she has a master's degree. and how our votes are counted is not up to experts, altho they can advise us. what matters? transparency for the everyday citizen. Computers count the vote in a non human language, levers count the vote mechanically, and HCPB by hand. computers have been wholly condemned; they cannot be secured; they leave no evidence of how the vote was counted; they leave no evidence of the crime if malware ran the vote. all we're doing in NY is trying to stop computers; levers are much more secure. is it the best system? who knows; it's sure better than software by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 11:25:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Voting Is A Scam
The common refrain: "If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about the outcome." by coyote (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments [25 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 8:38:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Non voting means nothing
Those who want to voice objection don't exercise power by not voting, however, they might conceivably exercise power by mounting a well supported popular campaign to be allowed to vote "none of the above". Only in that way is a vote of dissent recorded. Apathy is not a tactic for dissent. by GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Sunday, Jul 27, 2008 at 9:39:04 PM (0+)
|
|
paper and hand count
In Canada, I believe they vote with pencil and paper, and it doesn't cost a hundred million dollars paid to partisan shills like Diebold. Yeats said: "The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity." If we, the people, don't stand up to the forces of great wealth, corporate domination and exploitation of our lives will continue. The King of England's domination was the original cause of the formation of the US government. A reformation of voting rules that more accurately expresses the will of the people is in order. Instead of the Supreme Court appointing a winner, we should have rules for a run-off. We should enable workers to vote on weekends and 24 hours and make election days a national holiday. But the critical importance of our votes should deserve a hand count, no matter how long it takes. by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:16:16 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
