I FOUND IT!!!!!(Voter Verification Website), USE THIS

[Tiggeroshii]

https://www.votenow2006.net/index.asp

Great News! www.VoteNow2006.com can provide a place where every citizen can record their vote in secret and the actual totals of elections can be verified independently. What was missing in verifying the results of the Ohio Election was the ability to match the vote with the voter. Exit polls are just anonymous and do not record the actual citizens that were disenfranchised. With the voter’s permission, VoteNow2006 can provide the candidate with an affidavit from each voter that they voted for them. The affidavit matches the vote with the voter and that is the piece of information that will make sure your vote gets counted because it is a paper record that can be audited.

HOW IT WORKS

Cast your vote on www.VoteNow2006.com to show your intent that you are voting for your candidate. VoteNow2006 will never disclose your information. Candidates only will be provided with the raw numbers and not the voter’s identification.
Go to the Polls and cast your official ballot.
In the event that it is determined that the voting machines in your district have provided incorrect tabulations or it is suspected that the votes have been purposely manipulated, the candidate will contact VoteNow2006.com. VoteNow2006 will then automatically contact you by email or by phone (if a person does not use email) and ask you to contact your candidate to let them know you voted for them.
Once contacted, you will decide if you wish to contact your candidate via email or in writing to let them know that you voted for them.
By contacting your candidate, you have the power to potentially bring about a recall and to have the results verified because the candidate will have affidavits to verify the correct vote total.

[insane_cratic_gal]

1. What if people lie?

Freepers try to purposely discredit the site by giving incorrect information?

This only works if we want a system that is fair, I'm afraid there is not a whole lot of value to this system. It verifies nothing, except what a person says they voted for. Just like Electronic voting it can be tamper with by simple dishonesty.

But it's nice to see someone actually trying to find independent ways to the e-voting crisis in the US. Now if congress would set up independent labs to test ALL electronic voting machines (a non partisan computer engineer geniuses) that would be fantastic, but Diebold will never open their software up to independent examination.

[magellan]

2. Sad but true

I had thought of suggesting something like this last year, but the flaws were readily apparent. Just look at any online petition or poll -- there's no way to verify who interacts or how many times.

The best idea is to go back to hand-counted paper ballots. Yes, even there fraud can happen, but it'll be far more contained with the number of eyes watching every step of the process.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Are you saying that the people in charge of the site will lie about what

your vote says?

[magellan]

5. No, it's the visitors who may lie

The site has no way to verify who you are or how many times you've registered your vote, under different real names, including your neighbors, parents, out of the phone book, etc.

[skids]

8. Yeah -- not as bad as it could be...

...they do at least check the poll books to avoid trivial corruption, and they seem to do some session logging. But far from perfect.

I'm always suspicious of sites at first due to the propensity of people to put stuff up simply for social network data gathering. I'd like to see independent verification that this site is really Clint Curtis's or he endorses the admin of it. Also a formal data privacy policy does not seem to have been provided.

Needs some vetting.

[magellan]

10. Another problem

With only somewhere around 80% of Americans online (I think that's the last statistic I heard), and many of them only using the internet for email and a quick tool around through AOL space (my parents are prime examples), how likely is it that enough Americans would know about and use this tool? Which makes it even more likely that some clever fraudster could log votes in his neighbors' names, pretty confident they'd never come out to register their real votes themselves.

It's a commendable idea, but it just won't work.

[skids]

11. It won't be a complete success...

...However with so many precincts in the country there are fair odds that a few will be sufficiently and honestly represented and that those who submitted will also follow through and provide affidavits-- a precinct-wide local campaign/promo of the site might improve those chances.

If it catches even one fraud in the act, I'd say it would be worth it.

[magellan]

14. Agree with the sentiment

I just doubt there'd be enough genuine online participation to catch any election fraud. And it would probably take weeks if not months to weed out the fraudulent entries.

It'd be much simpler, and easier to apply oversight, if we reverted to hand-counted paper ballots.

[drm604]

4. K&R - I'm a little skeptical about the utility of this website

but I think this at least deserves a K&R because, if nothing else, it's a good starting point for discussion.

[eShirl]

6. sounds like it has all the legal weight of an online petition (n/t)

[lynne]

7. A recall based on what people post on the internet??

I sure hope not! The internet is notorious for false postings as well as duplicate postings. Note that internet polls are never accurate for that very reason.

You can't compare the vote info provided to this site vs. your individual vote at the polls, which renders it useless as concrete evidence of vote manipulation. A waste of time and bandwidth, IMO.

[drm604]

15. I think the idea is

that people who use the website and who, according to the poll books actually voted, could be contacted after the election and provide sworn affadavits.

The thing is that this could be done even without the website. Simply contact everyone in the poll books and find people who are willing to swear as to how they voted.

The utility of a site like this would be that it gives a list of people who have indicated that they may be willing to swear out an affadavit. But that doens't require recording their vote, just their name and contact info.

I think this may be the germ of a good idea, it just needs some work.

[ClintonTyree]

9. There are a great many people without internet access.........

or the ability to navigate their way to a site like this. Those voters would be disenfranchised once again. Just saying.

[zanne]

12. The candidates have to register with the site...

If they don't, your vote means nothing.

[momzno1]

13. volunteers to do exit polling that is not biased would be better

I have a scenario in my mind with a brief anonymous exit poll on paper with the goal of ensuring voting accuracy. Who wouldn't respond to this poll? Everyone wants their vote to be counted and people are not going to lie if they take the time to do this.
We cannot depend on Zogby or other polling agents as seen in the last election- they were quick to cave in when the discrepanies were showing election fraud.
2 or more volunteers per polling place - bipartisan, if you will- and we would have a MUCH better idea if we are being collectively SCREWED>