Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When optical scan malfunctions go undetected or unreported or uncorrected...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 10:28 AM
Original message
When optical scan malfunctions go undetected or unreported or uncorrected...
...the voters who attempted to have a vote counted on them have no recourse.


Just wanted to say that.

Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. yes and when the errors are outside the moe for triggering a recount a paper trail doesnt matter
Edited on Tue Apr-21-09 10:39 AM by bullimiami
thats why every election needs to have paper trails and hand auditing to verify accuracy.

often these 'malfunctions' are deliberate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ha! Voters have no recourse when the scanner errors ARE DETECTED!
Edited on Tue Apr-21-09 12:10 PM by Bill Bored
Scanner jockeys know full well that no one wants to do recounts, except for a few REALLY close elections in places like MN.

The reasons are really VERY SIMPLE: The apparent winners want to win; election officials want to TRUST software to count votes; and once the paper ballots leave the poll site, they are no longer suitable to be used as evidence unless they've been observed continuously.

The fact that some states may have liberal recount laws for elections with razor-thin margins doesn't buy us much. Such elections are rare and the recounts always leave the voters questioning the validity of the results, usually along party lines.

Sure there should have been a recount in FL in 2000 -- should have been. The punch cards should have been up to par too, but the vendor, Sequoia Voting Systems, is alleged to have decided that it was more important to sabotage that election to create demand for e-voting -- to create the Help America Vote Act.

But the reality is that neither election officials nor the courts seem to want to do recounts, except occasionally for a small number of ballots allegedly cast by dead voters or voters who didn't know how to mark them.

If there is a need for recounts, they should be done at specific polling places, on election night, after a discrepancy is identified in the electronic count or in ballot accounting. This of course means there have to be some election-night tests at the precinct, which have yet to be devised, to trigger recounts at the precinct level. And they have to be cheap and easy for poll workers and watchers to understand.

It might be easier to have continuous observation of the voted paper ballots until some humans get around to counting them sometime after the election. Oh, but that's audits and recounts, and no one wants to do them right -- almost forgot!

Of course, early and absentee voting need their own set of checks and balances, which also have yet to be devised. Scanning the ballots over and over again is not necessarily one of them, but it might help in some cases.

No simple answers to all this at this time, I'm afraid, but it shows why the lever voting system is the best one yet to be devised. If properly maintained, it provides accurate counts on election night without out a lot of work or specialized expertise. That's the best we can hope for until someone comes up with a "better" idea. And here's a flash for ya: if they do, it probably won't use paper as the ballot of record.

We'll see...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
4. Now I doubt that many thinking Minnesotans are happy to have replaced their levers.
It's possible Franken would have been seated by now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I've seen election integrity activists gush over the MN recount exclaiming that it ain't "too shabby", and "inspirational, even". :eyes:

I am mystified as to why.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Thu Oct 30th 2014, 01:00 PM
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