Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Problems/Irregularities/Voter Fraud with the Optical Scanners

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 01:57 PM
Original message
Problems/Irregularities/Voter Fraud with the Optical Scanners
I have read information on Kos and here at DU regarding utilizing optical scanning equipment as a 'remedy' for the electronic voting machines.

Unfortunately, this is in no way a remedy.

Optical scanning equipment has been proven to be as easily manipulated/programmed as the electronic voting machines. Florida was one of the states that for the 2004 election, used optical scanning equipment as a primary method of ballot tabulation.

Fair elections continue to resort back to the simplest of procedures: paper ballots and the tabulation of those ballots at the polling locations where the voters voted, followed by a posting of those ballot results at the polling locations at the close of the election.

If anyone has access to references and links regarding the problems/irregularities that have ocurred with the optical scanning equipment in Florida along with other states, please post it here.

I have included links to articles regarding optical scanning problems during the 2004 election.

About 600 Medford ballots cast in November ignored
http://www.wisinfo.com/newsherald/mnhlocal/285285292773...

Counted votes at the core of democracy
http://www.al.com/opinion/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/bas...

Election study finds widespread ballot-counting problems
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MISCOUNT-EL...

Errors in Skagit vote count point to statewide problem
By JAMES GELUSO http://www.skagitvalleyherald.com/articles/2004/12/02/n...

3 more counties report errors
http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2004...

Computer glitch blamed for miscount in JP voting
By Anna Mathews for the Carroll County Star Tribune. 10 November 2004.
http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=3889

San Francisco Finds Fix For Election Day Tech Snafu
http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=4745

Scanning Problems in Counties
http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=3994

Turnout in Ohio largest in decades
Polls packed despite glitches, delays, drizzle
Toledo Blade.

http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=3799

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Doctor. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good resource... Thank You. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Volusia had the most publicised problems, with major problems with the
memory cards. Remember that there was fraud in Volusia in 2000 that ended up costing Gore the election, though it was found out about later. That was fraud regarding substitute memory cards that also happened in some other counties, like Brevard I think.
Of course, more than 100,000 more tried to vote for Gore in 2000 than for Bush in Florida so the Volusia fraud wasn't the only factor in the stolen election. Many more were documented in the 2001 Media recount.
For 2004, see http://www.flcv.com/volusiao.html
and the BlackBoxVoting site which is dealing with the 2004 alleged fraud, and another local group in Volusia with a suit, that hasn't been heard. But not all the wrongdoing in Volusia was Repubs it seems. Rumors of all kinds of things going on there on both sides.

Two other counties I'm aware of with reported optical scan problems in 2004 in Florida are
http://www.flcv.com/orangeo.html
http://www.flcv.com/duvalo.html

likely more, but I haven't looked at the rest. There were problems with the optical scan accumulators that were supposed to read the ballots all over the country. Look at machine problems in optical scan counties(search for machine) in most states
in: http://www.flcv.com/summary.html

also votersunite.org messups by vendor has lots of documentation



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtLiberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Regarding those minus 16,022 Gore votes in the 2000 election...
I know it was Diebold. Was it opti-scan or DRE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Optical scan and it was
based on a memory card problem. Optiscans have problems. But the fact that there is a paper ballot left to HAND COUNT makes it far safer than any DRE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Recounts are a joke . A dog and pony show. Republicans love recounts
Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 05:41 PM by shance
They distract, buy time and have repeatedly shown to be stalling tactics with no recounts ever fully enacted.

When has a legitimate recount occured?

They havent.

Ohio was never recounted and Florida wasnt either. The Secretaries of State both REFUSED to allow the recounts. Remember?

Recounts need to be what they used to be. The most extreme exception to the rule of legitimate elections. We need to deal with the core problem and not alter and try to prop up and heal the symptom.

We need preventative measures and transparent means and community involvement. We have to figure out better ways to make this a reality in my opinion. Paper ballots and one day results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Explain to me how we count
Edited on Mon Apr-18-05 06:21 PM by Andy_Stephenson
King county Washington. The most complex jurisdiction in the country. We have up to 1200 splits. It took King County nearly a month to count just one race. So explain again how we count King County by hand? Optical scans can be used safely. The audits MUST be mandatory and MUST be carried out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Im going to wager they've done it before Andy, just like
every other complex county and country for that matter. What makes their system so complex that they couldn't count votes?

Im interested to know why it took King county a month to count one race. Sounds like the problems were with King county and not with the ballots.

Was there a problem finding people who could count or were the Republicans stalling and fighting the count?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
44. Optical scan; memory card switch
same kind of thing noted for Volusia in 2004, which is what the current suit there is about. They had a huge amount of memory card problems in 2000 and 2004; what holds the precinct totals.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. I think optical scan with mandantory hand recounts in a random sample of
precincts is a reasonable system. But the sample precincts must be chosen randomly, and be enough to insure reasonable sercurity.
The compiler software should also be open source programming and audited before and after(compare for sameness); easy to do.


and more precincts or all could be hand counted if there appears to be a reason, unusual results.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andy_Stephenson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Your right on that count.
I found the irregularities the day we were looking at the poll tapes, in the elections office. I have said it a thousand times...It is not a partisan issue. It is a we the people issue. We need to deal with it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks** Im looking specifically for opti scan problems/irregularities.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. opscans a joke
Make it happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
10. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
12. Morning coffee kick***
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. good point on opscans............... BUT...the problems or ballot spoilage
rates are a known factor. ANd you cant say that about DRE's

YOu can quantify and classify the probs w/opscans. YOu can point to specific rates of ballot spoilage.

YOu cant do that w/DRE's.

And with many states and COuntys in fiscal deficit...........
Election Oficials want to get that HAVA money while the getting is good.

ANd since the NEo con weapon of choice is the DRE..DEny your opponent his 1st choice of weapon. They hate paper ballots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. You CAN provide evidence a vote was actually taken with a paper ballot
Edited on Mon Apr-18-05 02:57 PM by shance
You CANT do that with DRE's.

It's harder to shred tangible evidence a ballot or get rid of boxes of ballots than delete and/or reprogram votes from an undisclosed location.

I like the term ballot 'spoilage'. Did Katherine Harris originate the phrase?

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TruthIsAll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
14. OPTISCAM!This is an analysis of Touchscreens vs. optiscanners in FL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. TIA, this is a damned weird discrepancy--touchscreen voting giving...
...Kerry the edge, and a big skew to Bush in optiscan voting, in FLA. What do you make of it? The only explanation I can think of is opportunity--somehow (maybe because of notoriety) the opportunity for fraud on the touchscreens was less compared to the opportunity for fraud on the optiscans. (--would need to do a study of the political control of the counties and their voting systems, and of security issues). The TS vote is likely closer to what the real vote was. I can't recall Kerry's exit poll number in FLA, and but I remember that it was close and Kerry won. The TS stat gives Kerry a 3% margin (which would only include the Democrats who made it to the polls past Jeb Bush's barriers to voting by Democrats--Kerry's margin was probably 4% to 5% without the Voting Rights Act violations.) In any case, the optiscan vote is ridiculous. Any ideas why?

If the fraud was by central state electronic vote tabulators, I wouldn't expect a discrepancy on touchscreen vs. optiscan. It would have to be at the county central vote tabulator, or precinct, level. (Right?) Presumably, touchscreens are far more prone to fraud (no paper backup, less fear of detection). That leaves...opportunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LatePeriduct Donating Member (660 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. If it wasn't on either of those areas, that leaves only one......
One answer that could sum up these problems and has the highest percentage of doing so...

The optiscans were served just like the iVotronic that are in Miami-Dade, and thousands of undervotes were recorded. Deliberate corruption in the registries forcing no votes for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Would you explain please.
A bit confused here**

How do 'undervotes' actually occur, and how does the recording of undervotes actually create or force a no vote result for president?

Thanks LP :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Don't worry about Tardy Spit Glands
Two definitions of an under-vote of which I'm aware:

a. No vote in a given race.

b. Not enough votes in a race where the voter gets to select more than one candidate.

b is interesting. Unilect's "Patriot" DRE, de-certified (but, now perhaps about to be re-certified) in PA, considers case b an under-vote. But in the case of a, it has another name. And is treated differently. That was part of what got them into trouble.

http://www.dos.state.pa.us/dos/lib/dos/20/shamos_report...

Solicit more advice. I could be missing chunks.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Here's a few more conditions.
c. The ballot is marked but the machine doesn't read it.

d. The ballot is marked, and the software has been tampered with and :grr:


Don't pay attention to the "registry" talk, above. It's discredited, at best.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kip Humphrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. OptiScans: DREs in sheep's clothing
Truth is OptiScans and DREs function remarkably the same:

Both "interpret" ballot entries and "derive" data records which are centrally tabulated - Hidden Ballots, Secret Counting!

Both must be completely reconfigured for each use (election), configuration which is highly susceptible to human error or intentional mischief. Centralized GEMS remote configuration inflates the impact/effectiveness of human error and intentional mischief.

OptiScans DO have paper ballots, making machine audits possible. But currently deployed systems are audited in a "Test mode", and, therefore, are of highly questionable relevance in checking the reliability and integrity of production runs during actual voting. Non-interventionist production audits are required to assure the machines function within specifications

Furthermore, if the paper is not counted, its usefulness is limited to that of rolls of small disposable perforated squares.

Recommending a system based solely on the possibility of hand recounts of paper ballots ignores the reality of recent years:
Recounts halted in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico.

As a movement, we are young. We cannot and should not "settle for" any system that facilitates fraud. EIRS contains numerous incidents of OptiScan "irregularities". If we opt for OptiScans, we are opting for future fraud with a feel good paper ballot that does nothing.

OptiScan = OptiScam
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Thanks for the info Kip. You obviously have researched the issue. What do
you think are our best options for implementing fairer elections?

I think any election is prone and/or vulnerable to fraud. However, the DRE's (electronic voting machines) and opscans take the ease and availability of fraud (with NO visible trail) to a whole new dimension.

You are right however about recounts not happening with paper ballots. I think that is where we have to get out in our neighborhoods as activists and try to promote organizations like Moveon and/or DFA or whoever to initiate nationwide canvassing on promoting fair elections and community controlled elections.

Would love to hear your thoughts as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Dont mean to speak for Kip--but Paper hand counted
Right now the tactic is to show them DRE;s are 3 times more $$$$ than Opscans.

Get election officials off the DRE bandwagon first--then start talking how bad Computerized vote counting is in general.

But to get your foot in the door the cost issue does work

fight fight win win
\
Roj
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Cost for Purchase
Cost for Storage

Cost for Calibration and Maintenance

Cost, Cost, Cost (to the democracy).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
26. You can do all that with Op Scans too.
Edited on Mon Apr-18-05 08:05 PM by Bill Bored
Op Scan paper ballots are inherently voter-verified.

Op Scanners can alert the voter to over- and under- votes and allow the voter to correct them. Hand counting alone does not.

Ballots MUST be machine-readable so disabled voters can use ballot marking devices, required under HAVA. So paper ballots must be scannable. The issue is how to count them.

The scanners can be:
1. precinct count, with totals posted locally before any central tabulation
2. tested at the precinct before and after the election with hand marked paper ballots,
3. randomly audited up to a 100% hand count if necessary to determine the winner of any race with mathematical certainty.

If you want to hand count the paper ballots, then do it! But meanwhile, a system that is accessible to the disabled is required by HAVA and Op Sans with ballot marking assist devices are a MUCH better alternative than DREs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Great marketing. However Im more concerned with correct tabulation
and transparent processing of the ballots than anything else.

We don't HAVE to use anything and these excuses being used to bring in scanners and electrical equipment for the disabled are frankly attempts to ward people off from debating the usage of such equipment.

If you could prove to me and to all American voters that the opti-scan could not be programmed and/or manipulated to create and promote a certain outcome, you would have an interested party.

In case you haven't read some of the significant accounts of tallying done by the opti scanners in Florida, I would recommend you do.

It's your future at stake as well as mine. We are all in this together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Your assessment of the myriad of excuses is correct
In Canada (and in many other countries) we have much stricter laws and enforcement of those laws with respect to enfranchising the voters (especially the disabled) yet we still use the most transparent, most understood, most accessible, least vulnerable, least cost method of voting -- pen and paper. The unofficial results are reported within a few hours of poll closing.

Complexity of ballot design is the most oft cited reason for technology in the precincts. Think outside the diebold box people!... There is absolutely no logical reason why the presidential vote can't be separated from the county clerk, dog catcher et al contests and voted for by paper and pencil ... but plenty of illogical reasons abound.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. That makes sense Ice, although you haven't explained how the disabled
will hand mark paper ballots.

Having these races un-separated introduces a number of risks, particularly if such options as straight party voting can be used to manipulate races on the ballot other than the one being voted on at any given moment.

Now my question is: In your parliamentary system, do you actually vote for a person for PM, or just a party? And what about local races such as Dog Catcher? Are they hand counted as well? How far down the ballot does the straight party choice go? At what point do you actually vote for a person and which of these are actually hand counted?

These details are not well understood by those of us who don't have a parliamentary system.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Answers to your questions:
We have very strict legislation with respect to security, confidentiality and accessibility.

The disabled can vote:
a) by mail-in ballot (called "special ballots" here);
b) through an sworn-in assistant at the regular poll;
c) mobile poll (yes, we come to you! - to collect the votes of elderly, disabled or sick persons or those confined to health care facilities)

It is actually a little more complicated than what I have stated, but in a nutshell "access is guaranteed".
Canada Election Law and Policy: http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&documen...

"Do you actually vote for a person for PM...?",
The short answer is ... some people do -- those electors that are in the PM's riding/district do. You see, our PM is just a another member of parliament as far as the general population is concerned. It is the party members that elect him/her to be leader of that party. Canada is divided into 308 federal electoral districts; local candidates from each of the parties compete for a riding. The candidate with the most number of votes wins that riding seat. The party with the most number of seats governs the nation. Thus, we do not vote directly for the PM, rather we vote for local representatives of a party.

Now, about the local races -- dog catcher etc.
We have 3 levels of government here - federal, provincial and municipal. All three levels of government conduct their elections on different days. For the most part, the provincial and federal elections are conducted in very similar manners -- paper and pencil. The ballots are counted by hand in the precinct/poll AND in public. The results are then faxed to both the district level and the HQ level where they are aggregated. Most precincts have their votes counted within a hour. Unofficial results for the entire country are usually available within a few hours of poll closing.

However, at the municipal level, some regions use opscan equipment while others still use paper and pencil. The ballots for the municipal government are more complex thus for that reason alone many are using vote technology in the polls (precincts). We don't have straight party voting in the municipal elections because the candidates for any given race are not party-based. All run as non-partisan independents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. The way I'm reading it, the procedure for disability voting lacks secrecy.
This is upsetting to me because I feel the general ignorance of the disability communities needs puts us at a disadvantage.

Blind or sight-impaired voters present no (real) problem. There are ballot-markers for the blind. So their need is not the issue.

As best I can tell, the only problem is for SOME "Mobility-Limited" voters. There is no machine that I'm aware of that can SECRETLY handle the completed ballot. THAT'S the rub.

I advocate a ballot marker that shuttles the completed ballot through a separate "ballot-verifier", and then into a lock-box.

But there isn't one on the market. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Unfortunately wilms, for people who are unable to control
Edited on Tue Apr-19-05 02:47 PM by Iceburg
their hands/arms, or unable to use a mouth-operated device well enough to mark an x, the secrecy of the vote is lost. The assistance of a trusted friend/family member to mark the ballot is the only option for for the severely disabled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Then we should come right out and say that.
We don't.

Why? One reason may be because according to HAVA...denying any voter secrecy IS ILLEGAL!

This is the one issue that that can be held over our heads, and the vibe on this board seems to suggest ignoring it is considered a reasonable strategy.


Two other problems for me.

a. We fail to identify and help address/correct a problem that represents the only claim that can be loosely made in favor of a DRE.

b. Our response to the issue can be interpreted as being ignorant or disingenuous.


Whether it's what I suggested, or other ideas, let's advocate a solution. We can dampen the arguments against us by pointing out that an appalling number of polling places aren't accessible to wheel-chair users (INCLUDING ONES THAT WOULD PREFER A PAPER BALLOT AND MARKER).


Thanks, Burg. I feel better now. (Rant off.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. The Burg is COOL!
Edited on Tue Apr-19-05 11:32 PM by Bill Bored
Ice that is!

My solution:

Let them eat CAKE.

If these good folks insist on DREs, then let them have 'em.
One per polling place, just like it says in HAVA. Just count all the VVPARs 100% by hand.

Turn the argument on its head:

OF COURSE the DREs can not be verified. No one can prove otherwise.
So, if we have some people who need or insist on having them, then by all means do not deny them the benefit! But at the same time, MANAGE THE RISK! Count all the paper records by hand 100%.

Everyone who is able must hand mark a paper ballot.

This short circuits the whole argument of whether to use DREs or not. To each their own, but don't tell me you can verify something that's not verifiable. That's absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. I don't have to read them; I've WRITTEN ONE!
It's hypothetical of course, but you might be able to add it to your list soon. Stay tuned... Of course the initial focus will be on the DREs but they often use the same election management system, and THAT'S the problem! I'm glad people are starting to think about this instead of just the hacking of tabulator totals after the fact which is a crude attempt at election fraud that can actually be detected fairly easily. I'm glad Bev Harris brought it up, but there are much more subtle ways to switch votes that need to be publicized.

As far as what we HAVE to use, explain how the disabled will not be disenfranchised by non-machine readable ballots. How will they mark and verify them? You may choose to gloss over this, but they can lobby as loudly as the next guy and they have.

Not having recently fallen off a turnip truck, I am aware of how the proponents of e-votin' have cynically been using this to promote their agenda. But we need to be able to answer them and the best answer is Op Scan ballots with accessible ballot marking devices.

How these ballots are counted can be open to interpretation. Personally, I believe if there is enough auditing of both the ballots and election management system, and public testing of the scanners with actual hand marked ballots, they can be safe. This is next to impossible with DREs. Open s/w can help too provided that some impartial expert will examine the code line by line and flowchart it. But the testing is actually more important.

Then we need to work on the recount laws. Putting all the eggs in one basket (machines vs. no machines) won't work in many jurisdictions. In those that insist on machines, we need to be able to audit and recount the vote manually more easily. Then it's just a matter of money, and getting the CANDIDATES (e.g., John Kerry) to ASK for the recounts.

Your efforts to discredit the machines will be helpful in getting these laws passed, or getting the actual recounts in court. Educate the candidates and get them to acknowledge the problem and they will act. You are preaching to the choir here. You need to preach to the John Kerries of the world!

But right now, because of the lure of HAVA money, it's unlikely that you will be able to stop all machines, so go with the lesser of the evils, which is precinct count Op Scan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-18-05 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. If we get Hand Counts we can still use an OpScan to check Under/Over-Votes
Add Open Software to your list of "Scanners Can Be", and I'll feel a tad or a chad better.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. yeah what he said---LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. Agreed nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
33. What about stickers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Bumper stickers maybe -- that's about it!
Edited on Tue Apr-19-05 11:53 AM by Bill Bored
I don't think stickers should have been used. If the voter messed up a ballot, they should have been given a new one.

What does Ohio law say about that?

Were the Op Scans precinct count or central count?

If precinct count, no stickers. The voter is given a new ballot if the scanner can't read the first one. Have you researched that?

If the ballot isn't scanned at the precinct, then they have no opportunity to correct it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-19-05 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Um, the law says no...
Had that been the only problem even in Clermont. You have copied ballots, stickers on only top elections, making bottom of ballot very heavy on votes...you did read up on Clermont?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
46. I think there are several possible problems that need to be dealt with
precincts is a reasonable system. But the sample precincts must be chosen randomly, and be enough to insure reasonable sercurity.
The compiler software should also be open source programming and audited before and after(compare for sameness); easy to do.


and more precincts or all could be hand counted if there appears to be a reason, unusual results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC