One of the biggest reasons for the push to go to electronic voting is from the disabled. here in NY they are holding up the adoption of new machines with the requirements for blind/hearing impaired etc. They forced us to relocate several polling sites in town as for access,. This was humorus as we only have 1 machine that is (and i use the term loosely) handicapped accessable. When i questioned why didn't we just issue absentee ballots to the people affected, the disability advocates stated that they had the same right to vote on the machines and wanted very much to make that happen. Now I understand the wanting to vote in the same manner (machine ballot) but they ( the advocates and agency's for the disabled )fail to undestand that its impossible to make the machines cover every type of disability.
Scantron is not an option here, its not a full face ballot.
Your not going to make everyone happy no matter what you adopt.
But as a taxpayer making the state buy exotic machines used twice a year to accomodate a handfull of voters seems wrong. Let them vote by paper ballot.
Something to consider:
Many have voiced complaints/concerns about voting machines that don't leave a "paper" trail.
In San Diego, we used the scantron style ballots. Fill in the silly circle and the ballot is scanned and the vote recorded. We didn't get the ballot, it was saved for possible "recount". I spoke with a poll worker and they explained that after the polls closed, on of the tasks was to print out a record of each ballot's vote. So, at least in San Diego, there was a record, and there were the original ballots.
I don't know about the touch screen ballots, but I wonder if they had some type of backup system we are not aware of. Unless you either work for Diebold, or were a poll worker, I submit that NONE of you is qualified to comment otherwise.
Moving on however, I throw this out for consideration. Assuming you were given a copy of your ballot to confirm your vote. We have heard the charges that peopel were "disenfranchised" and they "wanted thier vote counted", yadda, yadda, yadda. I want to know this-HOW DOES SOMEONE KNOW WHETHER THIER VOTE WAS COUNTED OR NOT?
If 10 of us go into cast ballots, it is supposed to be an anonymous process. If 5 votes are cast for candidate A and 4 votes are cast for candidate B, How can we be sure that someone's vote was not recorded? What if one of the 10 voters opted to NOT VOTE for A or B?
We either accept the system we have, or resort to a system where YOUR exact vote is known and associated with you. Perosnally, it's none of anyone's damn business how I vote-that's my personal choice.
This brings up the question: is this the position you like being in concerning your vote? Concerning other people's votes? Votes that may cancel yours? Do you like being told you're not qualified to ask questions, raise concerns?
First of all, I know people working for Diebold won't comment. Corporations just don't do that when there is controversy. Why would poll workers know about the auditing process for Diebolds? They are trained to work the polls. After that, they are out of system.
People discussed the problems with the Diebolds extensively before the elections. The good thing about them: they are quick. You get a count without much effort. The reason why they are quick is that they have no redundancy. The system you described for your vote has a redundancy. The effect of the Diebolds is to immediately destroy perceivable evidence of the vote, compressing it to electrons. With that done, there is plenty of leeway to fictionalize it and lie about it without accountablility. At least with a paper ballot you have a "paper trail."
Knowing whether your vote was counted: You can't. Part of the secret ballot is that once you vote, it is out of your hands, you no longer "own" it. However, you can take measures to make sure the count is correct. When the ballots are first handled, get the total count. Make sure that the tallied votes to candidates adds up to that total votes cast, and account for the discrepancy. This is basic.
But if there's no way to absolutely know if a count is correct, technical advances shouldn't make it easier and easier to cheat. This is counterproductive to say the least.
You tend to skim my posts and miss my points.
If you don't wrok for Diebold, or you were not a poll worker at a Diebold poll, you are NOT qualified to speak about the Diebold machines.
In the typical fashion of many, you did not read my words, or you read them with a prejudiced view and jumped off the cliff to a wrong conclusion.
My only experience with the Diebold was one election and it seemed to work correctly for me.
As for your other point about basic voting accuracy, you AGAIN missed the point. I could go into the voting "booth" and KNOWINGLY cast no vote for anyone. How would THAT affect the totals? The system is geared towards registering votes for a specific vote option. The system does not count "null" ballots in the reported totals.
I'm not seeing anything different, or further, except:
After saying that no one except a Diebold employee or a poll worker is qualified to comment on them, two lines later, you make a comment on them. Perhaps you mean make a negative comment on them? So, Diebolds are good except when proven bad, and may be proven bad only by the elite that you name?
That's a bit elitist on your part. Except you've named other people as the elite, and yourself as their obedient follower. You shouldn't sell yourself into slavery for nothing.
On your last point: if you look at detailed election results, which are difficult to find, there are other "write in" candidates who are accounted for. The number of null ballots aren't given, but I'm certain they are on audit sheets somewhere.
BTW, I noticed that convicted murderer Leonard Peltier got 22,000 votes in this election. To Republicans I'll use that as proof that there were candidates they'd find more objectionable than Kerry.
/Zin
... where the Scantron Ballots were used. The ballots were saved, the individual ballots for write-ins and the write-in's are totaled, and ballots where there is some question about the vote (potential voting for more than one candidate when only one vote is allowed) were individually checked. In most states an automatic recount is required where the margins are within certain limits. Usually, the law stipulates the process required for the recount. There are storage requirements on the length of time ballots are to be kept.
Things like spoiled votes (voters requesting a new ballot because of mistakes) are accounted for and tracked. Unused ballots are accounted for and tracked.
The system seems to work pretty well and it is fairly inexpensive to operate.
Harry
-- Modified on 11/9/2004 5:51:44 AM
desperately want to believe that the only way Bush could be reelected was by voter fraud. Good post, HarryLime.
...the Diebolds are the concern.
And I don't think that anyone here ever said or meant that the only way Bush could be elected was by voter fraud.
It's just one of the ways...
/Zin
... the scantron ballots seem to work well. They are inexpensive compared to electronic voting machines, they maintan a paper trail, and they are easy to audit and use. I see little or no reason to use other methods. Perhaps someone on the board can make a case for EVMs -- I don't see it.
Harry
One of the biggest reasons for the push to go to electronic voting is from the disabled. here in NY they are holding up the adoption of new machines with the requirements for blind/hearing impaired etc. They forced us to relocate several polling sites in town as for access,. This was humorus as we only have 1 machine that is (and i use the term loosely) handicapped accessable. When i questioned why didn't we just issue absentee ballots to the people affected, the disability advocates stated that they had the same right to vote on the machines and wanted very much to make that happen. Now I understand the wanting to vote in the same manner (machine ballot) but they ( the advocates and agency's for the disabled )fail to undestand that its impossible to make the machines cover every type of disability.
Scantron is not an option here, its not a full face ballot.
Your not going to make everyone happy no matter what you adopt.
But as a taxpayer making the state buy exotic machines used twice a year to accomodate a handfull of voters seems wrong. Let them vote by paper ballot.
I have programmed the old lever style machines here in NY for several years. Although Im not a diebold employee I have examined several styles of machines that are up for adoption here in NY. The new computer machines are subject to all the errors any computer can make.But the biggest mistakes are made by people not the machines. Even the old lever machines can break and fail to record votes cast, and the poll workers do not have access to the back of the machine until the poll closes, therefore they have no way of knowing when a machine has a problem.
The computerized machines have problems too. The source codes are not open. I have several reservations about them, but there is no easy solution. Paper ballots have a recountability but then your ballot can be checked "to make sure you voted correctly". Thats why we throw out paper ballots with stray marks.
In my opinion there should be an atm like reciept that is printed out in barcode. It should have a key generated by the voter so it can only be read if the voter approves or is brought into court and given a hearing. This would give the backup I think necessary and make checking the paper feasable but less subject to casual inquiry and fraud.
... I still like the Scantrons over mechanicals or EVMs. I think the issue you raise about
your ballot can be checked "to make sure you voted correctly"
can be handled by having people from the parties observing the counting process.
Harry
For someone who claims "it's none of anyone's damn business how I vote", you let everyone here know you voted for Shrub. Seems like it was EVERYBODY'S damn business. :-|~~~
And yes, we are qualified to comment on the Diebold voting machine & its accountability (or obvious lack of it), especially when Diebold promised to personally deliver the Ohio vote to Dumbya.
Never mind, any response to this "person" is just a waste of time.
KCSHYGUY, you are a perfect example of the point I've been trying to make recently.
-- Modified on 11/9/2004 4:24:10 PM
The perfect example of where to place a dunce cap.
-- Modified on 11/12/2004 2:48:18 AM