EC delay if votes still uncountd? Post-EC challengs?Best vote method?

[oscar111]

seminewbie asks on behalf of all similar newbies---

Can the EC be delayed if , say, Ohio or NV still counting?

When is the #$%&!! EC?

Can legal challenges still be brought after the EC meets?

Kos says Provisional ballots yet uncounted in OH. You put stock in his view they may elect Kerry?

BIG THEORY TYPES:
Longhairs, what is the most foolproof voting method? I would guess paper, with voter signature, into clear plastic boxes, watched by all parties till added up, and still watched 24/7 for weeks by all parties in warehouses, in case of recount.

Paper never destroyed, held forever in archives for historians. Smithsonian has far more frivolous items.. some a waste of tax dollars.

I thank you in advance on behalf of all us ignorant newbies,
oscar

[Zan_of_Texas]

1. foolproof

what is the most foolproof voting method? I would guess paper, with voter signature, into clear plastic boxes, watched by all parties till added up, and still watched 24/7 for weeks

Having studied it for 20 months (but having no longhair), my opinion is paper ballots. Glass-bottom boxes with a lock, in clear view of everyone. You could generate the paper ballots with a word processor-type-computer, for readability, if you insist on computers. But, no counting by computers unless it's just for ballpark numbers. Better to not count votes by computers at all really, because the programming is nontransparent and non foolproof.

Count the votes IN THE PRECINCTS night of the election, where anyone can watch. Videotape the whole thing -- in fact, you could videotape the area outside the polling place all day, to make sure there was no obvious intimidation out there. In rural Maine, a representative of one party counts. Then, a representative of the other major party counts. Then, they tell each other their totals. They agree. No problem. (In Canada and many places in Europe, they vote by paper ballot. They're done in a few hours, even in big cities.)

For this to work, precincts need to be manageable size. In Oregon, they've gotten very large because of the mail-in system -- they would have to be downsized again.

Post the results on a big poster at the precinct. Everybody signs it.

Additional signed paper copies go to central counting place.

Random, robust audits. Checks of the tabulations.

Lynn Landes at www.ecotalk.org was the first one to promote some of these ideas to me -- check out her many writings there. She has filed suit federally on this issue.

Ellen Theisen at www.votersunite.org has also written about paper ballots. Some activists attempted to get paper ballots for President, US Senate, and House of Representatives this time, on an emergency basis.

Dan Wallach, Rice professor of computer science, likes paper, but also likes optical scan. Of the technological ways to count votes, it seems to have the most possibility for accuracy BUT I would caution that without hand recounts and audits, there's no way to tell if the computer that's counting the scanned ballots is counting accurately. And, some of the people analyzing Florida are finding odd results for the optical scan counties -- real odd.

Look at this for lots of info on the Florida 2004 results -- especially in Part II -- the navy background title, look at the optical scan numbers. If the numbers are accurate, somebody's got a lotta splainin' to do. http://www.eriposte.com/election04/2004_results_1.htm

[mackdaddy]

3. Paper Ballots, not just a paper trail

I agree, going with human readable paper ballots is the surest way to go.

If it does have to be done on a computer I really like the approach that the "Open Voting Consortium" http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/ is using.

They are working on an internationally usable system which has facilities for alternate languages and special needs voters built in. It is an open source set of programs which can be run on standard PC's with a printer and a bar code reader.

One computer is used to do the on-screen candidate selection which prevents over votes, and flags under votes. Once the voter is satisfied with their choices it prints a plain text ballot, with standard bar codes encoding the machine readable version of the ballot. The voter verifies the paper ballot, and then submits it for scanning into the tabulator, and the final locked storage box. The ballot scan is verified on screen, and can be automatically read back via a computer voice for visually impaired voters.

The ballot can always be hand re-counted, and the voting machinery is cheap and readily available and upgradeable.

Someone could still screw with the bar code encoding or tabulator reading of the bar code, but the program does have some built in integrity checks.

They have a neat on line simulation of the process to try out a sample voting session, and you can print out your sample ballot.

Of course the only way I could see our crooked politicians in DC going for this is if the software would run on the crap hardware Diebold and ESS has already foisted on so many counties.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi mackdaddy!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Rjnerd]

2. Adding the signature takes away the secret ballot

Something always of value.

But you have the right idea - paper, with multi-party chain of custody. You can use machine counts of the paper, with limits. The limit is that you have to spot check a randomly chosen percentage to make gaming the scanners difficult. (always the case, even with hand counting). The results have to be posted in public at a point as close as possible to the spot where the initial count took place, so that anyone can take their adding machine, and do a hand tally. No counting on results from a modem connected central tabulator.

To appease those that accuse (with minimal evidence) us of encouraging vote early, vote often, take a tip from the club scene/third world, and stamp hands with a non-washable dye. This will make "day of" registration much harder to game, and thus less objectionable.

Other structural changes: Establish hard limits on number of voters per polling location (or at least number of voting stations/checkin stations per 100 voters). 8 hour waits are an insult. Selective 8 hour waits are doubly so.. Anyone in a supervisory position in the election process cannot be affiliated with the campaign committie of anyone on a ballot they supervise. You want to be in charge of Ohio voting, then if you want to work for a campaign, let it be Penna governor, just something not on any of your ballots.

Oh yea, get rid of things like felon exclusion, except for those currently confined. If you have paid your debt to society, you get to rejoin it, and that means voting. I might be convinced to exclude those currently on parole, but that makes it too easy to punt the eligible. (if you must punt current parolee's, it should take a fingerprint match to remove you from the rolls, a name or birthdate aren't sufficient)

[Zan_of_Texas]

4. Good points.

No more exclusion of former felons.

Statutory numbers, or ranges, of population per precinct across the entire state. Of course, if people don't have to wait for a machine -- VOILA -- they just have to wait to check in and get a ballot.

And, let's make some new jailbirds -- those who who deny people the right to vote, or steal their votes -- by any number of the tricks and schemes reported for the November 2004 election, from tearing up voter registrations, to distributing leaflets in the inner city telling Democrats to vote on Wednesday (day after the election), to ....it goes on and on. And, stealing thousands or millions of votes hasn't been proven - yet -- but should be a felony.

I'm not sure I understand the reference to a signature above -- I meant SIGN the poster stating the precinct's totals -- election officials and counters should sign it. Not individual voters sign their votes.

[Zan_of_Texas]

5. Oh, and a couple of more things.

Ban straight ticket voting -- meaning, no hitting one lever to do so -- certainly, anyone who wants to check all the boxes can.

I've seen report after report of straight ticket voting "quirks" and crazy rules in many states. This seems to cause confusion, chaos, and lead to many instances where the voter couldn't possibly know the rules, plus the programmers can't seem to get it right (by plan or by chance).

Also, this study shows that in Ohio, an estimated 1 in 20 voter registrations did not get registered correctly. Something needs to happen there to get this stuff right.

The study:

DESCRIPTION OF THE CLEVELAND STUDY ON REGISTRATION ERRORS

http://www.caseohio.org/CaseOhio/Registration_Problems_Study.htm

(my note- apparently the study was completed after the registration deadline of October 4, 2004, but before the November 2 election)

A new study projects that 10,000 votes may be compromised in Cuyahoga County and some 35,000 votes statewide because of clerical and voter errors, unless we take immediate action.
Earlier this year, volunteers for the Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition began hearing from some citizens that they had never received confirmation of registration from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.

MORE