The Advertiser-Tribune - Optical scanners may be optimal solution

[Wilms]

Monday, January 24, 2005 — Time: 11:17:48 AM EST

Optical scanners may be optimal solution

-snip-

...no ifs, ands or hanging chads about it.

-snip/more-

<http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/edit/story/0124202005_edtedit0124.asp>

[Carolab]

1. No way. n/t

[Sinistrous]

5. Actually, The Only Way.

Optical scanning of paper ballots, each marked with a pencil by each voter, is the most secure, verifiable method of voting and tallying those votes I can think of.

There are paper ballots created BY EACH VOTER which remain for any re-checking and verification of the tabulated results.

There is no need for computer networking with its inherent risks of hacking and there is a greatly reduced risk of software slight-of-hand, because of the presence of the source data (ballots) in hard copy.

The programming of the optical scanning devices is (or should be) relatively straight forward and easily audited.

This is a simple system, not dependent on the availability of machines at the polling places, and it has an audit trail that was created by the voters themselves.

What the hell more do you want in a voting / vote tabulating system???

[Carolab]

6. I want no involvement of machines, that's what I want.

There is a lot of manipulation with optiscan tabulators, primarily central tabulators because if you were to manipulate the tallies at the precinct level, pollworkers would notice.

So, if you propose to count at the precinct level on precinct tabulators, and then cross-check with a hand count to make sure the tallies match and match the pollbooks, then why not hand count in the first place? Machine counts won't do more than give you ballot and candidate totals. If you want to be sure the votes are tallied correctly for each candidate within that precinct you have to hand count the votes for each.

Other countries do it, like Spain and India. SO CAN WE. Actually, our precinct-based voting system makes it an IDEAL solution.

Read up on what the experts say about "open source" and that it is no panacea. Hacking can still occur with open source as well.

[flyarm]

7. RIGHT YOU ARE CAROLAB..LOOK HERE IN FLA!!

LOOK AT ALL THE ODD NUMBERS HERE IN FLA WITH OPTICAL SCAN..OUR BIGGEST DISCREPANCIES HAPPENED WHERE FLA USED OPTICAL SCAN!! THE NUMBERS MORE THAN STINK!!..HERE WE WERE ALL WORRIED SO MUCH ABOUT SEQUOIA AND THE BIGGEST FRAUD(?) TOOK PLACE WHERE FLA HAD OPTICAL SCAN!!
I WANT NO MACHINES!! NONE... WHERE VOTES GO TO A TABULATOR..ITS ALL IN THE COUNTING AND WHO'S IN CHARGE OF THE COUNTING MACHINES!!
I WAS INVOLVED HERE IN A FLA SEQUOIA TEST AFTER ELECTION IN DEC, AND I WAS TOLD SPECIFICALLY, ITS ALL IN THE TABULATORS AND THE SOURCE CODES, AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE THE CODES, WE HAVE NO ELECTION THAT IS DEMOCRATIC!!
I DID 3 TEST PAPERS AND THE VOTES FOR KERRY SHOWED UP FOR BUSH..AND IT WAS FILMED AND RECORDED AND YET THE FOLLOWING DAY THE PAPER HERE SAID THE TEST WAS FLAWLESS...YEAH SURE!! WELL WITHOUT SEEING HOW THE VOTES WENT INTO THE TABULATOR WE COULD NEVER KNOW THAT!! NOR COULD THE PAPER THAT SAID IT WAS FLAWLESS!!

FLY

[Carolab]

8. Here's how a blogger explains how they vote in Canada.

The key to paper ballot accuracy is *local* counting. Here in Canada, ballots are counted at the polling station at the close of voting, by a multi-partisan committee - I believe each candidate is allowed to provide someone for each station.

That helps in a number of ways:

1. There are relatively few votes at a polling station to count - several thousand, max.

2. There are *many* eyes supervising a *short* counting session, allowing counters and verifiers to remain focused.

In any system where the ballots (in boxes or not) are moved before counting (which I understand is common in the US) fraud is much easier: ballot boxes can disappear or be replaced in transit, centralized counting require much longer attention spans, non-partisan counters are almost certainly not, and so on.

Insist that ballots be counted at the polling station *immediately* at the close of the polls, confirming the electronic result (if tabulators are used).

Anything else and I'm not sure your votes mean anything.

[Wilms]

9. That's beautiful!

I've seen some posts suggesting that some use of Optical under certain conditions, etc...but the Canadian model seems embarrasingly obvious.

I'd love it if the DU Guru's of Voting Systems got together a position paper so we'd all be on a good page on all the issues.
Registration, voting, tallying, etc.

[Andy_Stephenson]

10. Canada Counts ONE office by hand...

all the other elections are counted on optical scans.

Optical scans are the best solution (with propper auditing)

They leave a paper ballot that can be counted byb hand and are the most accurate system as long as there is no central tabulator involved.

[Wilms]

11. Is/should the optical scan be done at the precinct or county? n/t

[Carolab]

12. Precinct. And the tabulating as well.

That's the only way you can have sufficient control. The precinct results can be either be randomly audited or fully hand-counted (because the amounts for each precinct are typically not that large). The results can be signed off on before they are entered to the central tabulators. Then you have a witnessed count and signed, paper trail and ballots to back it all up.

I would prefer hand counts exclusively (no machines), but if the proper process controls are put on it, I guess precinct tabulators with sufficient audits would be acceptable. I'd have to know more. I guess Andy has some ideas on this.

[Wilms]

13. What's a tabulator.

And in which places in the scheme is it employed?

I figured precincts reported to county, and counties report to state. Is that correct?

[Carolab]

36. Tabulators are the machines that scan and total the votes at the precinct.

Then the precinct tabulations are uploaded to the central tabulator. I believe that many/most of the machines also use a cartridge to record the votes and this cartridge can be transported to the elections office for "central tabulation".

[Wilms]

38. Tutorial, please.

So there are PRECINCT Tabulators and CENTRAL Tabulators.

Some questions:

Is the Optiscan a type of PRECINCT Tabulator?

Does CENTRAL mean county or state or some other distinction?

I'm trying to get a picture of the steps through which votes get from the voter to the state's election authority.

[harmonyguy]

40. Central Count is typically County -based.

Optiscan is just a technology. Light (not always visinble) hits paper, and a result is determined depending on how much light is reflected back.

Precinct Count and Central Count are terms to describe where the paper ballots are scanned and interpreted.

Paper ballot/voter marks ballot with appropriate utensil.
-if precinct counted - voter inserts ballot in scanner. Scanner records its interpretation of the voter's selections.
--If error detected - ballot can be retured to voter for correction.
- At close of polls, interpreted data is (supposed to be) printed at the precinct and signed (poll tape), and the data transmitted by modem or carried in a cartridge to a central location to be almalgamated with other precincts.

-if central counted - voter inserts ballot in ballot box for transport to a central location to be inserted into a (typically) faster scanner. Scanner records its interpretation of the voter's selections.
--If error detected - ballot CANNOT be retured to voter for correction.
Central count is typically used for absentee ballots.

Diebold uses the same Accuvote OS Scanner for both precinct and Central Count with some software changes, however also offers(offered?) a High Speed Central Count which uses a different make/model/capacity of scanner.

ES&S and Sequoia offer a variety of higher speed models for Central Count situations too.

Hope this helps.
HG

[Wilms]

44. Very Much. Thanks for that.

The --If error detected - scenario suggests another reason to count at the precinct.

And if it's done at the precinct, a hand-count could be done as well to "certify" the "mechanical" count. Correct?

[Carolab]

47. Nice summary.

To which I add that central tabulators show higher error rates than precinct tabulators (no brainer). Here in Minnesota, we have some counties with only central tabulators, some with precinct tabulators and others with hand-counted paper ballots only. Guess where most of the "errors" showed up (hint, NOT where there are hand-counted paper ballots). We use Diebold Accuvotes but the SOS Mary Kiffmeyer (puke) wants to put in AutoMark for disabled persons.

Ask yourself this: do you want to back a technology recommended by Ken Blackwell and Mary Kiffmeyer? They both idolize Katherine Harris.

[elare]

14. Actually 2 offices are counted by hand

The Federal & Provincial elections are hand-counted, but under our system this does entail only counting one vote per person. Our municipal elections involve several votes (mayor, city counsel, school board, etc.). When I first became eligible to vote, these were also hand-counted but you filled out a number of ballots (i.e. not all the races were on one piece of paper .. there was one for counsel, one for the school board, etc.). In my city, the municipal election is now counted by optical scan, although one counsellor is currently pushing to go back to a hand-count of paper ballots, largely due to computer problems with tabulations in the last election. It seems the computer managed to double-count some of the results.

I believe, though I stand to be corrected, that in our federal & provincial elections, no more than 500 registered voters are assigned to any one polling station. Since there's rarely, if ever, 100% turnout, there aren't too many votes to count at each polling station.

[harmonyguy]

15. Voters per polling station

I'll see if I can find the number.
Our terminology here is a bit different. Surprise, surprise,eh?
I believe that our Canadian poll equates to the American polling station and our polling station equates to the American precint.

I also believe that you're right about there being some reasonable limit on the number of voters assigned to a poll.

Our Federal and Provincial elections can be multiple votes per voter when such things as referenda are involved. Even then, it's still one race per ballot, hence multiple papers.

As I've come to learn, a consequence of our parlaimentary system is that we Canadians keep our elections per election day to a minimum, while the American system has rigid requirements for when the elections will occur, resulting in many, many races being contested all on the same day. If I understand it correctly, changing THAT part of the system ain't gonna happen in our life time.

HG

[Andy_Stephenson]

24. Thanks...my bad...I thought only 1 election

was hand counted. Thanks for the clarification.

[flyarm]

17. AGAIN YOU ARE RIGHT CAROLAB..

MY HUSBAND WORKED IN CANADA FOR 22 YRS, AND WE LIVED THERE AT LEAST 1/2 A YEARS ALL OF THOSE YEARS, I NEVER EVER HEARD OF ANY SERIOUS ELECTION PROBLEMS OR FRAUD IN CANADA ON THEIR ELECTIONS, AND HONESTLY AS A POLL WATCHER AT LARGE FOR EARLY VOTE FOR 2 WEEKS AND THE GENERAL ELECTION, I DO NOT SEE THAT IT WOULD TAKE ANY LONGER FOR THE POLL WORKERS TO COUNT A PRECINCTS VOTES BY HAND THAN IT DOES TO TAKE THE END OF THE DAY COUNTS OFF THE MACHINES, TO DO ALL THE PAPER WORK INVOLVED WITH USIMNG THE MACHINES, THE BREAKING DOWN OF THE MACHINES AND PACKING THEM UP AND PUTTING THEM IN CARS TO RETURN TO THE SOE OFFICES , AND THE COLLECTING OF THE CARTRIDGES AND THE CARD MACHINES ..THIS PAST NOV 2ND IT TOOK THE POLL WORKERS AT THE PRECINCT I WORKED OVER 2 1/2 HOURS TO PACK UP ALL THE EQUIPMENT TO RETURN TO THE SOE OFFICE. THAT PRECINCT HAD LESS THAN 700 VOTERS.
TO HAND COUNT THE VOTES COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN MORE THAN 1 HOUR!!
SO THE TIME OF COUNTING IS A BOGUS EXCUSE..THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE HAVING WITNESSES THERE AND PRESENT FROM BOTH OR THREE PARTIES TO SUPERVISE THE COUNT, AND THAT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT IF PRIOR PREPERATIONS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THE PRECINCT I WORKED HAD A MALE LAWYER FOR BUSH AS A POLL WATCHER AND KERRY HAD ME.
THE BUSH POLL WATCHER DID NOT STAY FOR THE BREAK DOWN OF MACHINES AND THE REMOVAL OF THE CARTRIDGES AND THE CARD IN THE MACHINE...I STAYED THROUGHOUT...AFTER BEING THERE AT 6 AM AND OUR POLLS CLOSING AROUND 8 PM ( PEOPLE IN LINES GOT TO VOTE) IT DID NOT KILL ME TO STAY UNTIL EVERYTHING WAS BROKEN DOWN AND PACKED FOR THE TRIP TO SOE OFFICE.
I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN GLAD TO STAY AND OVERSEE THE COUNT OF PAPER BALLOTS. I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE AWARE OF THE TRUTH THAN I AM NOW! AND I SURE AS HECK WOULD HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE IN OUR ELECTION PROCESS. AS IT IS I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY COMES OUT OF THESE MACHINES!! OR THE TABULATORS!!
IF IT TAKES A DAY, A WEEK, A MONTH TO GET RESULTS OF A HAND COUNT OF PAPER BALLOTS , I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO WAIT FOR THE TRUTH!

THESE MACHINES MADE IT NO EASIER ON AMERICANS TO VOTE THAN IF YOU GAVE THEM A PAPER AND SAID FILL IN THE CIRCLE..SOOOO MANY WERE CONFUSED BY TH MACHINES THE MACHINES WERE NOT EFFECTIVE MANY TIMES, PEOPLE WERE SAYING MACHINES DIDNT REGISTER THEIR VOTE, THE MACHINE '" WATCHER " HAD TO KEEP WIPING OFF THE SCREENS TO SO CALLED MAKE THE MACHINES REGISTER VOTES CORRECTLY.
THE MACHINES DO NOT MAKE IT EASIER FOR HANDICAPPED, I SAW A RETARDED GIRL PULL OUT THE TAPE OUT OF THE BACK OF A MACHINE ( YES THEY STUFFED IUT BACK IN AFTERWARDS AND LET OTHERS VOTE ON IT BEFORE THE MACHINE WAS CORRECTLY RESET) I SAW A WOMAN WITH M.S. WHO STILL NEEDED HER HUSBAND TO VOTE FOR HER, I SAW SEVERAL SENOIRS SO CONFUSED BY THE MACHINE THEY LOST PATIENTS WANTED TO WALK AWAY WITHOUT REGISTERING THEIR VOTES, I SAW MANY WHO'S MACHINES WERE NOT REGISTERING THEIR CORRECT VOTES WITHOUT NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS.
THINK HOW QUICK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TO GIVE THESE PEOPLE A PIEC OF PAPER AND TOLD TO FILL IN THE CIRCLE BY THEIR CHOICE OF CANDIDATE...
WOW IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SO MUCH MORE SIMPLE , EFFECTIVE AND WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THE RESULTS AT OUR PRECINCT IMMEDIATELY.
AS IT WAS THE TAPES WENT TO SOE AND WE HAD NO CLUE OTHER THAN THE NUMBER OF VOTERS PER MACHINE.AND THOSE NUMBERS COULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED BETWEEN THE PRECINCT AND SOE OFFICE ( AS GOOD OLE JEB REQUIRES THE CARTRIDGE AND COMPUTER CARD GO TO SOE OFFICE IN SAME ENVELOPES) OR A VOTE CHANGE COULD HAVE OCCURED AS THE NUMBERS WENT INTO THE TABULATORS.
IT WONT CHANGE WITH PAPER ON THE MACHINES..WE NEED PAPER BALLOTS!! PERIOD THE END..JUST AS CANADA DOES!!

FLY:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :hi:

[MadisonProgressive]

18. flyarm - with all due respect

Could you please stop posting in ALL CAPS?? It is very annoying to people and hard to read. On the internet, ALL CAPS is considered SHOUTING.

Thanks in advance for you cooperation.

[Sinistrous]

22. Amen to that.

And breaking the text into paragraphs now and then would make the posts seem something other than shrieking.

[glitch]

34. This is the only way - it's cheap and efficient and takes the power

away from the corps and back to the people.

Edited to add: If too complicated for some elections, count Fed & State office by hand (these are the people who have the wherewithall to manipulate the machines) and count everything else with optical scan. Automatic handcounts of randomly selected precincts after the machine tally. Pre-certifying the machines before the election should not be the only safeguard required.

[qwghlmian]

23. You know, instead of typing in all caps,

you can go and spend $50 and a day of your time and hand-recount a precinct or two that used optical scanners. Show us there was fraud. See

http://www.recountflorida.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=13&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

for instructions on how to do it.

[flyarm]

45. thank you for your advice!!

but the vote recounts/ tests were done in my area on dec 8th, and i was one of 10 people who gave my time and did a test of the machines. i was also a delegate to the dem convention for my state , and i housed the head kerry campaign field rep for three counties in my home for 7 months, i was a super volunteer and my kitchen table was the kerry campaign headquarters ( for my area ) for many months before the money came in to open an office , i was one of several in my county who did all the communications for all kerry and dem events ,and still am, i did public speaking for the kerry campaign and was a recruiter for volunteers for the kerry campaign( public forums, veterans groups, unions)i was a poll watcher at large and worked 12-15 hours a day poll watching for 2 weeks of early voting, primaries and the general election.
but thank you sincerely for the advice.
fly

[loudsue]

50. Don't worry about qwghlmian, flyarm:

Just another person who goes around trying to tell everybody the work they're doing is useless. qwghlmian keeps trying to argue that TruthIsAll doesn't know anything about polls or statistics, too. He/she isn't real supportive of people on DU in general.

I am truly amazed at how much you did for the Kerry election, flyarm, and I want to thank you, personally, for your efforts! :yourock:

:kick::kick::kick:

[Sinistrous]

21. Yours is an unnecessary complication.

First: Machines in themselves are not evil or wrong. They do, however, provide timely results -- a benefit your ultra-purist stance denies.

Second: The central tabulators should produce and record results for each precinct, giving the same control as the one you stated.

Third: I believe cross-checking would be necessary only on an ad-hoc basis in cases where there is a discrepancy between between the number of voters recorded on the sign-in sheets at a precinct or a significant variance form exit polls.

Fourth: I did not mention open source. However, the fact remains that there is no necessity for on-line, machine to machine tansmission of data, so a major locus of hacking and dishonest programming is removed.

Paper ballots, read by an optical scanner, provide the best combination of security, accuracy, and speed of tabulation.

[Andy_Stephenson]

25. Thank you!

"Paper ballots, read by an optical scanner, provide the best combination of security, accuracy, and speed of tabulation."

With no central tabulators...propper auditing and stringent controls...optical scan machines can be used safely and effectively.

[Sinistrous]

26. In all honesty, I had not thought of precinct level tabulators in

my initial post, but I wholeheartedly support the idea. Now it is my turn to thank YOU.

[qwghlmian]

27. Please explain the "central tabulators" thing -

I thought the ballots are fed through the optical scanner machines to count them in the precincts themselves. If so, what is a "central tabulator"? Is that the computer that sits at county level and adds up all the precinct results?

If so, please explain how it could possibly miscount votes. The precinct workers know what their count was. The total counts are eventually published. The precinct workers can look at the published results and compare them to what they counted in the precinct. If they see a discrepancy, don't you think you'd head about it?

[Andy_Stephenson]

28. The results from the opti scan machines are

transmitted via modem to the central tabulator. In the case of ES&S and DIebold a Dell Desktop computer running Windows XP or Windows 2000...unpatched. All the precinct totals are added up on this computer. This function...could be done by humans...no0 need for a machine to do it.

The Diebold Tabulator...is fraught with problems and holes. It is very easy to change votes on the tabulator. Heck even a nine year old can do it...I know, I taught him to do it.

[qwghlmian]

29. Ok but you didn't answer my question

since the precinct workers KNOW what their results are, if the central tabulation was fraudulent and wrong numbers were published for these precincts, don't you think these precinct workers would let us know about it? Why would you think hundreds of them are keeping quiet?

I am sorry, but the "central tabulator fraud" theory requires too many people (basically all precinct workers) to be complicit. I don't buy it. Don't see how you buy it either. The central tabulator may be unsafe, but it does not really need to be safe, because there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would be able to detect if the central tabulator was miscounting the precincts.

[Andy_Stephenson]

30. "central tabulator fraud" theory requires too many people

No it does not.

Poll workers seldom if ever see the results. Also...in many cases the results of the final canvass are published 10-14 days after the vote. Unless you write down the totals that day...who is going to remember the totals. In Ohio it would only take 11 vote per precinct to swing the election. In the case of Diebold...that system keeps multiple sets of books. Final results can be pulled from one of 3 different sets. Without rigorous auditing noone would ever be the wiser.

Here is a good primer to get started with.

http://www.chuckherrin.com/hackthevote.htm

[qwghlmian]

31. Andy - hundreds if not thousands of poll workers

see the precinct results on the day of the election. You really think none of them write down those numbers and later check them against published results? Even if there is an 11 vote difference, and just ONE such precinct worker reported it, that would be proof because there should be absolutely no difference. Do you know of even ONE such case?

Your theory requires you to believe that out of thousands of precinct workers, not one has written down the results on the night of the election and compared them to the published results. You really believe that? Let me sell you a bridge. Cheap.

[Andy_Stephenson]

32. Well of all the ones I have interviewed...

not one of them wrote the results down.

[qwghlmian]

33. It would only take one

out of thousands. You really think not one did?

And you really think that the "conspirators", who know that just one such person would blow their fraud wide open, would still go ahead with it?

[mirrera]

55. You are missing an important point...

The amount of votes aren't changing, just switched from one column to another. A precinct might know what their count is, but they will not know what the other precincts counts are. When they all come together, unless there is something glaring, there would be no reason to re-count. This makes it very easy to switch a few votes so that where Kerry was expected to win he wins by a little less. If you re-count woops, we bad, he won by a little more. Where Bush was expected to win he wins big...they re-count and he wins by less. That happened a lot. You do that accross the country and you've got your self some "political capital" I am glad Andy pointed you to Chuck Herrin who also thinks Paper ballots hand counted have the most integrity. He lists the priorities like this:

Hand Counted:
Integrity
Accuracy
speed

Scanned:
Speed
Accuracy
Integrity

So we are trading what we all use as the beacon of integrity;
hand counting, for speed.
Then we add back more hand counting to add more integrity.
Why not just hand count?
Because Election officials are made to feel old fashioned by voting machine reps?
We coul keep the cost of the scanner and give the workers a bonus.

Chuck's site has the software on it so you can see how easy it is to hack.

[flyarm]

48. andy a question please??

i was a poll watcher for general and early in fla, now during early we were not given access at the end of the day to see the cartridge of the sequoia machines in soe offices where early took place, but during general we were able to take the morning zero's on the machines and write them and keep them in our own records, during the day , we took the numbers of votes off the outside of the machines and since i was there for kerry , i had to call those numbers in during the day at preset times, but we were not privy to who the votes were for, only how many had voted. at the end of the day, the same was true , i watched as poll workers recorded the end numbers of votes, but they were not privy to who the votes were for, they simply recorded how many votes took place in each machine, not who they were for , they took the total votes that showed on the tape and they signed the tape, two poll workers signed , one the clerk and one verifier. i also wrote those numbers down, but we did not have the count of who got what votes.
now i gave my notes snd records to the kerry campaign as soon as i was done at my precinct, so i no longer have those records, but i dont know if we unrolled the tapes if we could have determined who got what votes, i dont remember...can you refresh me?? but i know the poll workers where i worked did not unravel each tape to look for who got what votes, they simply pulled the end of tape out ( of cartridge ) and signed the end numbers , and those numbers where for how many voted, not for who.
i also recorded those numbers. but i stayed and observed every step the poll workers took until they left with the cartridges and cards from the machines to the soe office.
i do know the clerk at the precinct i worked wrote the numbers down for herself, but those numbers did not tell who got what votes, or how many, the numbers we looked at only told how many people voted in that precinct , that day ..on each machine.
i could be wrong but thats how i remember it...please correct me if i am wrong..this was the sequoia machines. I am going on memory, as kerrys people took all my records..dang i wish i had made copies..i will next time!!
thanks Andy...and thanks for all you do and are doing..you are a true patriot and i am one who sincerely appreciates you, and i sure know how much work you do on our behalf!! i salute you!!

fly:hug:

[TruthIsAll]

53. Whay good is OptiSCAM, if the votes are tabulated by a computer?

THERE IS JUST ONE SOLUTION.
ALL VOTES MUST BE COUNTED BY HAND.
EVERY DAMN ONE.
WITH THREE OBSERVERS TO VERIFY.

NO COMPUTERS.
PERIOD.
ANY OTHER APPROACH IS FRUITLESS.

WHO CARES IF IT TAKES 2 DAYS?

WE HAVE BEEN SHAFTED FOR 8 YEARS RUNNING.
WHAT THE HELL IS TWO DAYS?

[Wilms]

54. TIA, how about optical for a quick "initial" count.

But an official hand-count for the actual certified count?

[Carolab]

57. TIA, I completely agree with you.

But people keep jumping on me, when I say "no machines" and tell me I am being UNREASONABLE and UNREALISTIC because "they" will "force" us to have machines.

WHO IN THE HELL ARE THEY TO TELL US WHAT TO VOTE ON?

SOME SECRETARY OF STATE GETS TO RAM WHATEVER MACHINES THEY WANT DOWN OUR THROATS?

WTF IS THAT???????

[Sinistrous]

59. The beauty of optical scanning is

all those lovely paper ballots - i.e., the paper trail we have all been asking for.

Optical scan totals can be checked.

Extreme positions such as yours put the passage of positive reforms further out of reach.

Stop shouting.

[harmonyguy]

61. Agreed, at least they use a real paper ballot

Optical scan totals can be checked.

Laws, statutes, regulations, procedures need to be changed to require that optical scan processes and results must be checked and audited properly. None of this supposedly-random, do-as-little-as-we-can-get-away-with-and-get-home, rubber stamping of results.

HG

[The Doctor.]

2. Now all they have to do is get rid of exit pols and investigators

will have no idea which counties to recount.

I STILL can't believe Blackwell got away with designating counties that were within exit poll MOE.

Now if they get rid of exit polls, they won't know where to look and the optiscan central tabulators can be hacked with ease.

Thus making people like us, who KNOW GOD DAMNED WELL what happened, look nuttier and nuttier.

- I'll always take the side of the righteous underdog over the corrupt powerhouse.

[KaliTracy]

3. Before Blackwell is supported for his push for Optiscan devices Ask Him

Why he cut 900 precincts in 1999, prior to the 2000 election and over 700 prior to the 2004 election, when there have been over 800,000 newly registered voters in that time.

Ask him why in some areas the ratio of 1 machine per 99 voters was followed (and then some), and why other areas had 1 machine to 250 or more voters? (in a 12 hour day, at 3.5 minutes per voter would be 204 voters -- the 5 minutes per voter scenario would be 144 voters per machine) .

Ask him why he hasn't answered any of the questions that Rep Conyers and House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff asked, or why he refuses to give a deposition, or why he feels he is above the law. Ask him why he can so easily dismiss this Status Report -- that's over 100 pages as "frivolous" http://www.pdamerica.org/field/final%20status%20report.pdf

Ask him if he would have had his children or grandchildren stand in line for 4 hours to vote.

Ask him what happened in Lucas County (several precincts there use Optiscan -- my mom's did)http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/975

What Blackwell has done, and is doing is wrong. Pushing a deadline on Optiscans when he balked at getting a vendor for e-voting http://www.kenblackwell.com/news.asp?formmode=release&id=39 is quite fishy to me. He's trying to take pressure off of what happened and to say he's offering a solution. Don't buy it!

It's not like HAVA was passed yesterday. He had years to make changes -- and the changes he made were in merging precincts, increasing the amount of people per polling place, and making it virtually impossible for every person to vote (changing requirements at the last minute, etc.). Oh, this year, he blamed it on preparing for e-voting hhttp://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/other_stories/multi1/documents/04258174.asp , but that does not tell us why in 1999 -- over 900 precincts were lost. My suspicion is that this was the beginning -- and that the reason we had in 2000, for the first time in 20 years under 65% voter turnout. I feel people saw the lines and walked away -- and that Florida overshadowed this disenfranchisement!

Push on him for Accountability! Don't allow him to feel that his decision is "well made" when it isn't.

BTW: I'm just mad at him -- not anyone here! :)

***
From http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos /
PRECINCT DATA INFORMATION
It has come to my attention that in the 1980s and early 1990s there were little changes to precincts. Consistently Presidential Elections had more turnout (in the 70% range usually) than off-year elections (in the 30%-40% range usually) .

From 1992 on as we added voters to our registry, somehow our precincts began to go down, but the most they declined were after Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's Secretary of State, took office.

From 1980 to 1984 there was an increase of voters by 369,950.
From 1980 to 1984 there was a decrease of precincts by 36.

From 1984 to 1988 there was a decrease of voters by 56,816.
From 1984 to 1988 there was a increase of precincts by 285.


From 1988 to 1992 there was an increase of voters by 261,298.
From 1988 to 1992 there was an increase of precincts by 157.

Since 1992 things started going a little different.

From 1992 to 1996 there was an increase of voters by 300,485.
From 1992 to 1996 there was a decrease of precincts by 602.

From 1996 to 2000 there was an increase of voters by 697,767.
From 1996 to 2000 there was a decrease of precincts by 985.

From 2000 to 2004 there was an increase of voters by 439,482.
From 2000 to 2004 there was a decrease of precincts by 785.

**From 1992 to 2004 there has been an increase of voters by
1,437,734

** From 1992 to 2004 there has been a decrease of precincts by 2,372 -- the most not occurring this year, but in 2000!

I got this all from the SOS website.

1980
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13,332
# of Registered Voters.......5,962,864
Total Votes Cast.............4,378,937
Percent of Votes Cast........73.88%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 328 (This would be the number if voters to precincts were evenly distributed -- in this case would be 328 voters per precinct -- not the real number per precinct, but just for reference -- you'll see why as you get further down.)


1884
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13,296
# of Registered Voters.......6,332,454
Total Votes Cast.............4,664,223
Percent of Votes Cast........73.66%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 351


1888
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13581
# of Registered Voters.......6,275,638
Total Votes Cast.............4,505,284
Percent of Votes Cast........71.79%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 331

1992
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13,738
# of Registered Voters.......6,536,936
Total Votes Cast.............5,043,094
Percent of Votes Cast........77.14%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 367

1996
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 13,136
# of Registered Voters.......6,837,421
Total Votes Cast.............4,638,108
Percent of Votes Cast........67.83%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 353


Non-Presidential Election 1997
Precincts Reporting……………………99.98%
# of Precincts ………………………… 13124 (Precincts reporting 13100??)
# of Registered Voters………………6,943,831
Total Votes Cast ………………………. 3,163,091
Percent of Vote Cast………………………………45.46%
Actual Voters/Precincts…………………………241


Non-Presidential Election 1998
# of Precincts............... 13,079
# of Registered Voters.......7,096,423
Total Votes Cast.............3,534,782
Percent of Votes Cast …..49.81%
Actual Voters/Precincts…………270
(Lost 57 precincts from 1998)

Non-Presidential Election 1999
No precinct data
# of Registered Voters.......7,146,895
Total Votes Cast.............2,467,736


2000
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 12,151
# of Registered Voters.......7,535,188
Total Votes Cast.............4,795,989
Percent of Votes Cast........63.6%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 394
(Lost 926 precincts since 1998 (no precinct data 1999))


Non-Presidential Election 2001
# of Precincts............... 11,844
# of Registered Voters.......7,153,796
Total Votes Cast.............2,574,915
Percent of Votes Cast........35.99%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 217
(Lost 307 precincts from following year)

Non-Presidential Election 2002
# of Precincts............... 11,756
# of Registered Voters.......7,113,826
Total Votes Cast.............3,356,285
Percent of Votes Cast........47.17%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 285
(Lost 88 precincts from following year)

Non-Presidential Election 2003
# of Precincts............... 11,488
# of Registered Voters.......7,138,493
Total Votes Cast.............2,649,482
Percent of Votes Cast........37.11%
Actual Voters/Precincts...... 230
(Lost 268 precincts from following year)

2004
Precincts Reporting.......... 100%
# of Precincts............... 11,366
# of Registered Voters.......7,974,670
Total Votes Cast.............5,722,211
Percent of Votes Cast........71.75%

Actual Voters/Precincts...... 530
(Lost 122 precincts from following year, 786 since 2000)

[RaulVB]

4. If you are a Republican, sure! (n/t)

[Amaryllis]

39. Chuck Herrin is a republican. So are a number of the people who post on

here. Theyk aren't all corrupt and evil !

[BeFree]

16. The basic premise is flawed

The idea that control of how the votes are counted should be taken from the eyes of many and given to the eyes of a few computer tech's, is what is wrong with opti-scan.

Look, we get no cooperation from election officials: That means we should not trust them. Besides, all they have is faith in machines, the majority of them have no knowledge about the machines, by law, they aren't even allowed to look inside!

Our message must be clear: Hand counted paper ballots.

[NationalEnquirer]

19. Overall , it probably makes the most financial sense as well.

So it costs "alot" of money to hand count ballots.
This is money "saved" over the costs of expensive counting machines.
Money "saved" over lawsuits because of suspicions generated by said machines.
Money WELL SPENT in my opinion.

[Andy_Stephenson]

20. OK so we go all hand counted paper ballots...

explain how we count King county Washington...a county with up to 1000 or more splits in an average election. Since you have thought this all out please let me know. I have struggled with this problem for quite some time and have not come up with a solution. Obviously you have the solution...so please let me know. I would love to get on board with all paper all hand counted. But unless we have a solution to the problem of counting complex elections it will never happen.

Andy

[harmonyguy]

35. About those splits...

....is that where the electoral district for one race does not quite equal the electoral district for another race?

I'm thinking here something like a city council seat whose ward straddles two or more state assembly districts and/or two or more (potentially different) congressional districts?

Or is it something else?

If I'm right, wouldn't it take some major constitutional wrangling to get National, State and local races (even the one for dog-catcher ;-) ) moved to different days?

HG

[Andy_Stephenson]

46. Absolutely right

HG.

Throw in Dog Catcher, sewer district, waterdistrict, initiatives...etc etc etc and you can see the elections become complex very quickly.


claudiajean may correct me but I think King County hass the most complex elections in the country

[BeFree]

37. Solution

Simplify elections. Precinct level counts are, of course, the only way hand counting can be successfully used.

When there is a 'split', the precinct lines are usually on the boundaries, if they aren't, they should be.

One way we've allowed ourselves to be drug into this mess is through the design of complicated elections. The officials use that complication to blow us off and incorporate the use of confusing tactics, and now machines, to further remove citizens and their damned prying eyes from the process.

I know, simplifying elections is but another task we must tackle, but through the use of paper ballots, and getting more citizens involved, we can do it all.

Any other questions, Andy? I'm glad to see your interest is still here.

[Amaryllis]

41. Andy, please explain splits! Don't know what they are.

[Amaryllis]

42. Question for all of you, especially the Canadians:

This is great info. I'm working with a group in OR on reform and we are trying to figure out what to do about the tabulator issue, and if hand counting will work with these incredibly complex ballots with many races, ballot measures, etc. all on the same ballot, making for sometimes thirty or more items on one ballot. Can we do hand counting with this kind of situation? Do we need to have multiple ballots? Help!

[harmonyguy]

43. I've voted on as many as eight paper ballots in one election.

It was a local election with Mayor, Alderpeople, school board, and a whole bunch of questions.

Each ballot paper was color coded.
Easy to vote and concentrate on what you're deciding, and easy to sort into piles for counting.

HG
edited for typos

[Wilms]

52. Is using multiple ballots also a way to handle "splits".

[harmonyguy]

58. Don't see why not.

While I prefer one paper ballot per race, it may be more practical to have 'most' of the races on one ballot paper, and the 'split' race handled on another ballot paper.

Sure, you may end-up with a handful of ballots, BUT you also might see voter participation rates in the 'bottom of ticket' races go higher. Instead of one packed full ballot, the voter can see, recognize and comprehend the lower number of choices on the sheet before them. DO I have any scientific evidence to support that? Of course not - but it sure makes sense to me.

HG

[Wilms]

60. I'm concerned to see what Conyers/Dodd have got.

They've introduced legisltion I haven't looked at yet.

[GetTheRightVote]

49. That means that Canada is using the same method we did in the last Century

Why did we ever leave it since it worked well for us up until they changed our election process. We need to go back to it again.

:kick:

[eridani]

51. Another advantage of optical scanners--

--they shorten the lines at rush voting times. I saw this for myself on 11/2--when the privacy stalls provided were all full, people just wandered off into the school library stacks to fill out their ballots. Other kinds of machines make people wait until the voters ahead of them are all finished.

[pkanalyst]

56. Concerning Sandusky County...

This is from my neck of the woods. Barbara Tuckerman (a local democrat) failed to mention in the A-T article that they did have problems in their county. She makes it sound like everything went perfect. Remember this article from the Toledo Blade:

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041119/NEWS09/411190386


excerpt:

Recount confirms loss for Sandusky (County) treasurer


FREMONT - A final ballot count yesterday by the Sandusky County Board of Elections confirmed the narrow defeat of county Treasurer Anna Senior, but the results are close enough to trigger a mandatory recount next week.
Elections Director Barbara Tuckerman said the addition of provisional ballots and the removal of about 2,600 ballots that MISTAKENLY WERE COUNTED TWICE Nov. 2 resulted in a 40-vote victory for Republican challenger Irma Celestino, who edged Ms. Senior, 13,647 to 13,607.


There is always the possibility of human error or tampering--optical or otherwise!