Paper trail, please.

[paultakeda]

Why e-voting machines require a paper trail (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html)

I doubt this affects the outcome (that would only be the case if they discovered the "glitch" in many contested precincts in Florida, since Ohio was largely paper-based) but this will be an issue as this country continues to modernize its election process.

Speaking of which, California e-voting machines will have a paper trail requirement by the 2006 elections.

[Anonymous]

Why e-voting machines require a paper trail (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html)

I doubt this affects the outcome (that would only be the case if they discovered the "glitch" in many contested precincts in Florida, since Ohio was largely paper-based) but this will be an issue as this country continues to modernize its election process.

Speaking of which, California e-voting machines will have a paper trail requirement by the 2006 elections.

People can call me a conspiracy theorist or crazy or a poor loser but this is one of the
reasons I think the election was B.S. How many other precincts had similar errors
that we haven't or may never hear about? I've heard stories of voting machines having negative 27 million votes and then they "fixed" the problem. Then the stories of the machines throwing away votes because the memory was full. The poll volunteers were told the machines could hold 10,000 votes but could only hold 3,000(my numbers might be off). The problem wasn't caught right away, how many votes were lost? Yes, Republican votes were lost too. It doesn't some how equal out though.
Consider that most of the black-box voting machines were in what were thought of as Democratic territory while Republican precincts got the also unrealiable but easier to track punch card machines. Also consider the chief executive of Diebold, Walden O'Dell, was a huge contributor and fund raiser to the Bush campaign and said he was, "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Ohio will also require a paper trail in 2006. Why did they want to wait when we were about to have "the most important election in our lifetime" (as this Presidencial election was often refered to).

People don't usually come out in droves, in record numbers, to go with the flow, to support the status quo. Usually people only do this when they are angry or unhappy with their current situation. I suppose there is a chance that people were so overwhelmingly happy with the way things are(which no polls reflect) that they came out of the wood works to give Bush another four years. just like those 4,258 "people" from suburban Columbus.

"I hear that Diebold has been working on a great new machine that not only accurately counts votes, but makes cappuccino and grills hot dogs while the voter chooses the Republican that will win or which Democrat they will throw their vote away on," announced Vice-President Dick Cheney at a fund raiser in Cleveland, Ohio, a key state in the coming election. "If that's not a damn good voting machine from a damn good company, I don't know what is."

The United States of America, proof positive that democrazy works. :tdown:

[madajb]

People can call me a conspiracy theorist or crazy or a poor loser but this is one of the
reasons I think the election was B.S.
You're a conspiracy theorist and a crazy, poor loser.
-ajb

[Monster8V]

You're a conspiracy theorist and a crazy, poor loser.
-ajb


The sad part is, he's not alone.

I blame it on the space aliens and the lack of alumnium helmets for the entire public. What, you dont have one yet? :rolleyes:

[Anonymous]

The sad part is, he's not alone.

I blame it on the space aliens and the lack of alumnium helmets for the entire public. What, you dont have one yet? :rolleyes:

How can you guys look at all the issues/problems of these voting machines and not for a second wonder whether there could have easily been foul play? I think the sad part is that there aren't more people willing to ask questions. Do you just ignore all the odd things that are poping up? I'm not saying yank Bush out of office if there is evidence found of fraud. I'm saying lets find out why the odd occurences seem to point in one direction. If there was fraud lets find out ways to make it more transparent.

So you guys believe that 8 million more people came out to vote for Bush this year that didn't vote for him in 2000. The great thing about winning the popular vote is that it makes it harder to question the electoral.

Are you guys confident using e-voting machines with or without a paper trail?

[Anonymous]

You're a conspiracy theorist and a crazy, poor loser.
-ajb
more
conspiracies (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm)

But I agree with Fox's Dick Morris on this one, at least in large part. Wrapping up his story for The Hill, Morris wrote in his final paragraph, "This was no mere mistake. Exit polls cannot be as wrong across the board as they were on election night. I suspect foul play."

another (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-38.htm)


and another (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1105-25.htm)


one more (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-36.htm)
one more more (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/03/electronic.voting.ap/index.html)
http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif

[madajb]

So you guys believe that 8 million more people came out to vote for Bush this year that didn't vote for him in 2000.

5 million more people voted for the Democratic candidate this year, and that includes the 3 million that voter for Nader last time, what's your point?


Are you guys confident using e-voting machines with or without a paper trail?
Myself, I'd prefer an optical scanner system with onsite verification.
I think the push towards touchscreen is just a way for companies to make more money from the govt. by selling them overpriced and underperforming machines at a hefty markup.
But that does not mean I think there was fraud.
-ajb

[Tom]

I love how you're twisting Dick Morris' statements to suite your paranoid theories. If you listened to his whole statment, he theorized that Dems knew where the exit pollsters would be. His notion was that the Dems would load the pollsters with people claiming to have voted for Kerry. The early exit polls would then be so disheartening that the Republican's would stay home, since their candidate's fate was already sealed.

Did you ever think that more people voted for Bush because they like him better than Kerry? Or, is it just unimaginable to you that you're now part of the minority.

A lot of conservative talking heads are touting the fact that Bush got more votes than any Presidential candidate in history. So what. The country has a larger population than ever before. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Look, the election is over. Kerry conceded. Can we move on now? No matter how much you dislike it, Bush is going to be POTUS for the next 4 years. Both sides are guilty making ridiculous accusations against the other regarding election fraud. Maybe it makes you feel better to stand on the corner and yell "CHEATERS!!", but I think it's entirely unproductive.

[bugzy]

i definitely think there's issues with the whole system in general

beyond this election ... i definitely feel like i distrust the vote system ... and electorial colleges etc etc ... just so many things that could sway the voting systems ..

i am very happy there are more people actually coming out to vote now though ... i just hope there is efforts to keep the voting system honest and representative of the people

i honestly dont really care much about the whole bush/kerry thing ... as i said ... as long as the system stays honest ...

if more people voted for bush, then im all for it since the people choose ... as long as its honest

[madajb]

Well, the system has always been corrupt to some degree.
The political machines in NY and Chicago.
Trading whiskey for votes in the South.
Vote buying in Kansas City.

The idea is to get it "honest enough" for the majority to trust it.
-ajb

[Anonymous]

I love how you're twisting Dick Morris' statements to suite your paranoid theories. If you listened to his whole statment, he theorized that Dems knew where the exit pollsters would be. His notion was that the Dems would load the pollsters with people claiming to have voted for Kerry. The early exit polls would then be so disheartening that the Republican's would stay home, since their candidate's fate was already sealed.

Did you ever think that more people voted for Bush because they like him better than Kerry? Or, is it just unimaginable to you that you're now part of the minority.

A lot of conservative talking heads are touting the fact that Bush got more votes than any Presidential candidate in history. So what. The country has a larger population than ever before. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Look, the election is over. Kerry conceded. Can we move on now? No matter how much you dislike it, Bush is going to be POTUS for the next 4 years. Both sides are guilty making ridiculous accusations against the other regarding election fraud. Maybe it makes you feel better to stand on the corner and yell "CHEATERS!!", but I think it's entirely unproductive.

The line with Dick Morris's quote was from the article I linked. I didn't twist his words but I did put his name in bold so I guess I was misleading when I did that. I'm guessing you probably didn't glance much less read the links that I posted though. I understand, I did name the links conspiracies afterall.

Yes, I find it hard to believe that more people like Bush better than Kerry. Like I said in my first post, people don't usually come out in droves to support the status quo. I've always been part of a minority so it isn't so unimaginable for me and I know what you meant.

I know the election is over. As I said in my second post, "I'm not saying yank Bush out of office if there is evidence found of fraud. I'm saying lets find out why the odd occurences seem to point in one direction. If there was fraud lets find out ways to make it more transparent." I want to know if there was fraud. I don't want Bush removed because of it but I want it to be known that fraud did occur, that certain parties are willing to go that far, that the results being touted by Repubs are misleading, and most importantly that we need to make the process more transparent and trackable for future elections.

[paultakeda]

Countdown with Keith Olbermann (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/) brings this problem to cable news.

(click on video, use IE as the browser to play video -- MSNBC and all that)

[paultakeda]

FYI -- the news report brings two issues that need to be addressed:

1. Access to vote counting was restricted in Ohio because of a possible "terrorist warning". Exactly what are the ethics in limiting press access where previously such access was granted?

2. Diebold touchscreens lack a paper trail, but what about the optical scanners used for paper ballots? These do have a paper trail, but are they used to verify? It doesn't look like a system is in place to confirm an optical scan's accuracy.

Point 2 may not matter for optican scans, as this can be considered a stop-gap tech while touchscreens are the future of voting in this country. The paper trail remains a problem. If not a paper trail, then an independent ballot storage of some sort with a different way of tallying should be developed. Tallying from both systems should then be compared for consistency before the numbers are released as official.

Disclaimer: I couldn't care less about the election results at this point, my primary concern is to secure the election system such that it accurately reflects the votes of the people. Having no paper trail, no redundant tallying system, and poor network security is an invitation for disaster.

[allizard]

Can someone tell me why there are so many types of voting machine?

I actually preferred the good old punch card. Works for me.

[paultakeda]

Primarily because each state is responsible for its own election process. Elections are not national at the core, they are state elections held on the same day where each state votes to see to who its winner-take-all electoral votes go to.

As such, each state decides how to conduct its election.

With the advent of computer touchscreens the loss of hard, physical evidence of a person's ballot is now an issue.

Punch cards technically suffer a higher rate of inaccuracy, but cards could always be counted again and again, and someone can check it manually if need be.

Stored votes in a database, however, are prone to post-voting glitches and are far more susceptible to fraud.

[allizard]

Paul, that's not the answer I'm looking for.

Let's just take out electronic voting machine for a sec.

Why can't we select one manufacturer to produce the voting machine for the entire country? Here in Orange County we use a bunch card system that use a slider to punch a hole in the card. The design work flawlessly. Other county use a push pin system that you push thru a hole and we all know what a bloody mess it was in Florida 4 years ago.

I guess the only reason that I can think of is we don't want to monopolized the voting system with one company.

[paultakeda]

When I voted by touchscreen for this election, this was the procedure:

1. Confirm identity by submitting ID and proof of residence
2. Wait
3. Receive flash card (credit-card sized plastic with embedded gold solid-state memory)
4. Insert flash card in machine
5. Vote
6. Confirm ballot
7. Remove card and hand to volunteer

Between 6 and 7 should be the following steps:

Insert card in read-only ballot reader machine that is not in any way connected to the voting machine.

Confirm ballot choices
A paper receipt prints out and the card ejects, drop paper receipt into a slotted box and the flash card in another slotted magnetically shielded box.

Multiple companies can make voting machines provided the ballot data is stored in a standardized format (XML, comma-delimited, whatever).

Selecting one manufacturer for the entire country removes the right of a state to choose the election format and also means the elimination of free enterprise.

[madajb]

.
Selecting one manufacturer for the entire country removes the right of a state to choose the election format and also means the elimination of free enterprise.
Not to mention a homogeneous environment increases the chances that fraud and error will be widespread.
-ajb