Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds


By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Become a Fan
  (22 fans)


Copyright © 2007 by Sheila Parks, Ed.D.


Between May 2, 2006 and November 7, 2006, I observed the hand-counting of paper ballots in three elections in two New England states.  The purpose of these observations was to gather first-hand data concerning the feasibility, effectiveness and accuracy of the use of HCPB.  These elections were as follows: 

(1)   Rockport, Massachusetts (MA), on May 2, 2006, Town Election

(2)   Hudson, MA, on May 8, 2006, Town Election

(3)   Acton, Maine (ME), on November 7, 2006, General Election  

All three hand-countings of paper ballots were conducted smoothly and were finished in a timely manner.  This paper describes the various protocols used and presents recommendations for the use of hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB) in the upcoming elections of 2008.  Absentee ballots, provisional ballots and chain of custody of the ballots are not dealt with in this paper, although they are also crucial elements of an HCPB system.[1]


Much has been written about the fraud and error associated with the use of electronic voting machines – both Direct Recording Electronic (DRE’S/touchscreens) and Optical Scan (op scans/opti scans).[2]  Because of this fraud and error, HCPB have been put forth as an alternative to electronic voting machines.[3]  The use of an HCPB system will ensure that each vote is counted as intended and as cast by the voter.  Although HCPB do not address the egregious suppression of the vote (mostly of people of color, elders and low income people), partnering a solution to the elimination of this suppression with the use of HCPB is the only way to have honest and transparent elections.


The jurisdictions that I observed were not selected randomly.  They were places that I could drive to comfortably from my home in Boston, MA.  Moreover, I was interested in observing an election in Acton, ME because the Town Clerk had told me that after the first hand-counting, the ballots would be hand-counted a second time.[4]  I received permission to observe the elections from each Secretary of State, or their assistants, and from each Town Clerk.  For full transparency, I introduced myself as an advocate of HCPB, who wanted to observe an HCPB election.  I was very well received and felt comfortable in all places.  All three Town Clerks were very generous with their time and expertise.


In each of the three elections observed, number two pencils were used by the voters to hand mark their paper ballots.  In each of the elections, the counters worked in teams of two.  In addition, the counters were told that it was the intent of the voter that was to be counted, and when in doubt, the counters called over the Town Clerk or Warden[5] to ask questions about specific ballots and how to count them.  Finally, in each of the elections, the counters were able to hand-count the paper ballots in a short time (see specifics below).


I will first describe the HCPB election in Acton, ME on November 7, 2006 because this protocol used a procedure that would produce the most accurate count of the votes - namely, a second hand-count was done immediately after the first hand-count.   

The ballot box was a plain, wooden box with a slot into which voters put their ballots. There were six teams, of two counters each, doing the hand-counting.  The counters came in specifically to count; they had not worked at the polls earlier in the day.  Each team consisted of a Republican and a Democrat.  The teams first counted the ballots into batches of 50, and then these batches of 50 were counted again.  


The teams then hand-counted the votes cast in each contest for each batch of 50 ballots in the following manner:  One member of the team would read out loud the name marked off for each contest; the other member of the team marked the vote on a tally sheet that corresponded to the ballot.  A voter’s entire ballot was tallied for all of the contests before the counters went on to tally the next voter’s ballot.  The talliers counted each vote by making a hash mark (small, straight vertical line).[6]  After four vertical lines were made, a fifth line was made diagonally through the first four marks.  For each person running for office (and for each initiative), the tally sheet was marked off into five columns vertically and two rows horizontally, providing 10 rectangular spaces in each of which five hash marks could be written – a total of 50 hash marks - i.e., votes - per contest or initiative.  A dark horizontal line separated the names in each contest.  At the end of the counting of all of the races in a batch of 50 ballots, the counters totaled the hash marks for each race on the tally sheet and entered that number on the tally sheet in the “TOTAL VOTE” column.  There was a special sheet for write-ins.


Immediately after the first hand-count of a batch of 50 ballots, a second hand-count, on a new tally sheet, was done of this same batch of 50 ballots by these same counters.  Again, the entire ballot of each voter was tallied before the counters proceeded to the next voter’s ballot.  This time, the person who had read the names out loud marked each vote on the tally sheet, and the person who had tallied read out loud the ballot choices.  After the votes on all 50 ballots in a batch were marked on the tally sheet, the totals for each contest were obtained and written on the tally sheet.  If the totals for the candidates in any contest or for any initiative were not exactly the same on the first and second tally sheets (i.e. on the first and second countings), these contests or initiatives were counted a third time.  I observed such a situation two times.  

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

Sheila Parks, Ed.D.,is now working to stop Fukushima and to shut down all nuclear power plants, all of which are crimes against humanity. She spent many years in the struggle against nuclear weapons with the Catholic Left. Many of those years (more...)
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend

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.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Pacific Ocean Does Not Belong to Japan: It Belongs to All of Us


SCANDAL ABC: A Pile of Truth for David Rosen and James Novak

SCANDAL ABC: Defiance, Ohio and Boston, Massachusetts

SCANDAL ABC: Defiance, Ohio - Is It On or Off the Table?

Down the Rabbit Hole With Democracy and Three Urgent Pleas


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

A participant’s detailed report In 2004 here... by abacus on Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007 at 2:10:45 PM
 Thank you Sheila - now all we have to do is ... by Chuck Garner on Wednesday, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:52:19 PM
The elections observed were in relatively small to... by Kenneth Barr on Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 at 12:22:34 AM