When computers fill out your ballot FOR you and voters "verify" it...

[Land Shark]

...that means that the incidence of election fraud/error on DRE voting machines (thus altered) will be at least equal to the percentage of the time store cashiers tally up your purchases incorrectly or else give the incorrect amount of change, whether that be on purpose or by mistake....

Any voting "system" that allows a machine, a computer or another human being to fill out the ballot on the voter's behalf is still VERY rich with possibilities for error, irregularity, mistake, cheating, shenanigans, and fraud.

Yes, a paper ballot filled out by the machine is an improvement over paperless, but unless we are clear about the sources and nature of the real problem, we will back ourselves into "reform" traps that we may never be able to extricate ourselves from because after these "reforms" the system will seem so much "fairer" to many....

When in fact, it won't necessarily be fairer at all. It will be about as accurate as a retail cashier with an expensive drug habit, assuming for the sake of argument that control of the world's richest country and only superpower is a prize that, like an addictive drug, some people might really crave.

[judy]

1. I think that this might be possible,

as long as the voter verified ballot is then placed into a sealed box, and that box can be recounted by hand if requested.
$$ should be set aside for hand recounts.

Since the tabulators can also be hacked, if n numbers of citizens of a State, or County request it, hand recounts should be mandatory, thus the computer only helps people write more accurate ballots, but do not participate in 100% of the counting.

We will not be ready for 2006, unless we demand paper ballots and automatic transparent hand recounts (fat chance!), I expect another Republican landslide in 2006.

That said, I hope I am wrong....

[Carolab]

2. Yes. I don't know why a group of citizen volunteers could not be allowed

to hand count the votes in addition to the machine count, in order to ensure a match. It could be done throughout the day at each precinct polling place, with a group of observers from each candidate, just as they do in Canada.

[Wilms]

3. I think the point being made here has to do with ballot generation.

Before it's counted, regardless of method, it has to be filled out (in?).

If that's done by machine, there is the chance that the voter will not actually verify the printed ballot. (Like not counting your change when the cashier is addicted to crack.)

Kind of like unintentional voter-assisted voticide.

[BeFree]

10. VOTICIDE!

Ain't that the truth. Hell, the voters are half dead anyway, and the one's that don't even bother voting are totally dead.

That leaves about 25% of us still kicking.

But ask most those 25% about a stolen election and they look at you like you are dead.

Well, we are dead. Dead in the water. Up the creek without a paddle, so to speak.

We can't even agree which way we want to go, eh? And the clock is ticking. 2005. 2006 - boom!

[Land Shark]

12. Maybe you should try this approach:

I don't know if you are doing this or not, but if you have a potentially controversial conclusion, that should be at the END of your argument, after you've marshalled your facts and argument, and not at the BEGINNING.

If you say right out of the gate the "election was stolen" the citizen with less information immediately perceives a lack of support for that conclusion and starts to experience doubt. On the other hand, if you've given them the facts, they can then more accurately assess the strengths and weaknesses of your ultimate point.

[BeFree]

16. You make some good points

But my conclusion IS at the end.

We are dead in the water, and we can't agree on which way to go from here.

Not that I blame anyone here for that situation, just calling it as I see it.

Well, we will be somewhere come the 2006 election.

[Wilms]

17. Perhaps we're not dead in the water.

The discussion and ideas presented and refined here are evolving as is each of our awareness and understanding of this rather complex set of issues.

These technological, legal, and political considerations play into one another such that this evolutionary process in which we're engaged may provide the better overall approach.

Right now, I'm trying to trust in that.

[BeFree]

18. We are dead in the water

But at least we are still floating!

Pardon my lamentations, Dear Wilms, but reality is what it is.

In my view we have a small window of opportunity to become unified and defeat this Godzilla at our door.

We lack a leader, and we lack a clear message. We know where we want to be: paper by hand, but we don't know how to get there.

We'd best get it together, eh?

[Wilms]

19. Look at what's happening in the states.

Paper is getting stronger and stronger. The electonics will continue to screw-up, even if they aren't rigged.

And we did all this without leaders??? Well, great! I like it even better.

[rigel99]

20. I trust in Landshark's trust

there is huge progress...

legally, legislatively and grassroots wise on election reform.

For example, in Georgia, our recent open records request yielded a copy of the Diebold contract, this can be used to really nail them on how the contract contradicts Georgia election code.

there is progress.... to outside observer's snail's pace, but it only takes 4 people in each county to have a meeting to get rid of DRE machine voting......

[Land Shark]

4. People will take care on the first (screen) copy of their ballot ONLY

and will breeze through the second, if they check it at all.

There are other ways to set it up, but if the voter is voting first through the touch screen and then asked to review a paper trail or paper ballot or what have you, that is very far from a rigging-proof system.

Electronic voting DREs are already Bottlenecks that create lines, so if you add on top of that an additional time requirement to review a paper version of the votes or ballot, that will both increase wait times as well as pressure (whether internal to the voter or external to the voter) the voter to rush through the "official" paper version, likely missing any mistakes.

And provides wonderful opportunities for Ohio-like machine allocation games in order to suppress turnout....

It would be an interesting exercise: a person could probably rig the election for MORE fraud with a paper audit trail on top of a DRE than with a paperless DRE. (people won't check the paper very thoroughly, and at the same time the public becomes far more gullible and accepting of whatever numbers are reported because there are "verified" paper trails....)

I'm not going to insist that fraud would be at least potentially HIGHER with a paper trail, but I would insist that any reduction in fraud or irregularities with a paper trail or paper ballot printed AFTER the touch screen selections will be much less of a reduction in irregularities than you'd think.

[Wilms]

5. I appreciate you pointing this out. n/t

[Amaryllis]

6. E-voting and counting is illegal to begin with! Secret vote counting is

illegal. When we attempt to make an illegal system more secure, we are in effect legitimizing an illegal system.

[Wilms]

8. Whoa!

You're right. And that's deep. And...here we are. :shrug:

[Chi]

9. Question

Heya Amaryllis (waves)

Thats a poignant statement, and would be very useful in conversations!

Where is secret vote counting stated as illegal...constitution, B.o.R.'s?

I am NOT challenging, I just need to site the source (and personally verify) in order to use the point 8)


Thanx in Advance
Chi

[Amaryllis]

7. kick

[garybeck]

11. and additionally, voters are not even going to verify the ballot

if we are referring to pending legislation, it's important to recognize that only the paper audit trail, not the actual ballot, is being verified by the voter.

in the DRE scenario that is still allowed in Holt's and other pending bills, the ballot is an electronic ballot and it is not verified by the voter. the voter only verifies the paper record which is only used for recounts and audits.

Everyone needs to be aware that these "reform" measures are not about voters verifying their ballots.

Because of this and the other points you make, I agree 1000% that "after these 'reforms' the system will seem so much "fairer" to many"

when in fact it will still be easy for the DRE machine to cast an UNverified electronic vote that is completely separate from the voter verified paper.

[Land Shark]

13. Yes, think of the cashier at the retail store

that is an interface or a barrier between you and your paper receipt. (1) errors in translating your input (price tags) occur by the cashier and/or cash register (2) the cashier may give you the wrong change.

Perhaps 2% or so (maybe more) of people walk out of the store without catching errors in their "paper trail" receipt. Same would likely be true of elections, only there is no "returns and exchanges" office for elections, once you walk out it is FINAL.

As stated above, with a paper trail and especially with a rigged system (the problem of the corrupt and perhaps drug addicted cashier) it may well be possible to cheat EVEN MORE than if there were no paper receipt at all, because then people would watch much more carefully and do their own addition and checking, not relying with faith on the machine and the process...

[garybeck]

14. the big danger is

that people will look at the paper record and assume that there is something to ensure that the machine cast the same votes as are shown on the paper.

there is nothing to ensure this!!! In fact, the system could be set up to continue to steal and switch votes just as it was before. the paper receipt is farce! It only gives you a false impression that your vote is being cast correctly.

The only thing that the piece of paper does is ensure that if there is a recount your vote will be counted correctly. It should be called a "recount receipt". So you can go home, and hope for a recount, so then you will know your vote is being cast correctly.

but until recounts are mandatory (and I mean more than 2%) the paper receipt is extremely misleading and will give people a false sense of security, while the thieves are still open to do whatever they want just as before. They'd only get caught if there is a recount.

I wonder if it's better for people to have a realistic view of a worse situation, or a false sense of security on a slightly better situation.

Gary

[Land Shark]

15. A false sense of security is worse than a bad realism

because "pain" is a valuable signal that tells you something needs to change in order for you to survive. The rare people who can't feel pain live dangerous and often short lives.

Information on problems is the feedback that allows improvement. False senses of security prevent the process from working.