Electronic voting machines and voting legitimacy

.

At last you're starting to see the facts.

Dan

.

And, I have another concern about something that was proposed for electronic machine voting, the idea of giving the voter a hard copy of his cast votes.
Why? Something that I have not seen mentioned in the media discussions of that yet. If someone were to "round up" a group of people, offer them something for voting for "X" and then take them to the polls to do so, how would the person(s) who organized those "round up(s)" know what they actually did in their voting, which is supposed to be secret? Such a hard copy could be used as "proof of payment" for the payoff for those vote buys - no proof, no payment.

Hi, Roger.

I actually had an interesting experience back in 1992 -- I went to the county HQ to drive voters to the polls for Clinton, but instead got assigned to the Courthouse for the day to help with the vote count. The problem with the pencil system you mention is that it's very easy to get an "overvote" -- two candidates marked for the same position, which kicks out the ballot uncounted. I was one a team of three (me for Clinton, one for Bush, and one for Perot) who decided what to do with half those ballots. Our team worked very harmoniously and in a non-partisan fashion to ascertain the voter's intent. Usually that was quite clear, as one circle would be completely filled in, and the other would have the tiniest possible "hesitation mark" where the pencil had rested while the voter thought, so in those cases the faint mark was erased and the ballot sent through again (no votes are registered in any race for a "kicked" ballot). If we couldn't decide (typically one filled in circle, the other filled in with an X through it -- but which did they mean to count, and which to negate?) then we'd erase both votes and send the ballot through again. (The pencils provided in Texas booths aren't equipped with erarsers -- don't ask me why! The instruction is to get a new ballot if you make a mistake...)

Two problems -- first, the other team (there were two) worked in a much more acrimonious and partisan fashion, with lots of 2-1 votes and some "vote-swapping," which was offensive to me. Secondly, in its 2000 selection of Bush, one SCOTUS criticism of the FL recount was the lack of a uniform statewide standard -- and we didn't have one either.

Supposedly the glory of the electronic machines is that (like the mechanical machines that are no longer made), they prevent over-voting. But then there's the hacking/fraud issue, absent a paper trail.

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Well, mismarks may be a problem on hand marked ballots, but it's better than no trail at all, and that is what pure electronics give you.

The eraser question sounds dumb, but then maybe the thinking was that erased marks would cause the very rejects that you referernced.

Interesting that the machine will take a no vote (after you erased both for that particular office) while rejecting a double vote. Correct philosophy I'd agree.

Couldn't these be made so that there would be an immediate evaluation as to validity when the voter fed them into a slot in combination electronic tally / collection bin? A reject then could have the voter get a new ballot and try again.

As far as one standard, sounds great, when in the US has there been one though?

BTW, Scotus ruled on the validity of ballot count, it DID NOT SELECT Bush, that term implies a complete invalidation of the election. I know the ABB crowd feels that way, but everyone doesn't. I bet there are even some that will vote against Bush that aren't rabid about he lost the 2000 election. The system did the best it could with multiple cluster foulups.


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com