Would you sign an affidavit saying who you voted for?

[garybeck]

I was just thinking, what if at the next election, we got many people to sign affidavits saying they voted for whoever, right outside the polls, and we had enough of them to prove the ballot counting was wrong.

Would you sign your name or is that giving up your privacy?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I'm conflicted, but I think I would.

My problem, of course, is the idea that they could use that to round us all up and hunt us down.

Yet, in the interests of preserving what little Democracy we have left, I'd do it.

[rumpel]

24. ...that pix is yuck, he is already yucky as is

:)

[rumpel]

26. I would, too.

[babsbunny]

2. YES!

YES! I wish there was a way to have the American People tell us who they voted for the last election!

[Old and In the Way]

8. If I were Howard Dean, I would do precisely that.

Assuming Howard does in fact become the DNC Chair, I'd start an immediate campaign to "Recheck the Vote". Get the grassrtoots involved with a hi-level advertising / grassroots campaign to ask people, via signed affidavit, on who they voted for. Open it up to both Reublicans (if they care to respond) and Democrats. In this survey, and in addition to this question, I'd ask;

(1) Do you support SS privitization?
(2) Do you support a deadline to remove the troops from Iraq?
(3) What is the most important issues that Democrats should focus in on in 2006.

I'd like to see start this in the states where election fraud is most likely and expand it on to the entire country is the results dictate.

Maybe we did lose. If so, we have work to do. If we didn't, then this election is a fraud and this administration should resign immediately. And a polling of the Party members, though signed affidavit, would present the information to the Democratic leadership, undistorted by the lens of the corporate media.

Secret Ballots + Republican Voting Machines + Republican Control of the Process + Republican Media Validation = Republican Victories.....forever.

[garybeck]

12. my thought was

to have it more secretive, because if the repubs know about it, they'll try to thwart it.

what if we were able to determine several key counties and precincts across the country where we suspect there will be fraudulent activities. The democratic party could contact people in those areas ahead of time and there could be a lawyer at outside polls waiting for them with the affidavits to sign. Then when the numbers are announced, the hope is that we could prove fraud by having more affidavits than the reported results.

Another way is to be less secretive and just have the lawyers there, like exit poll workers, in certain areas. This would serve more as a preventative measure than a safety check.

[Old and In the Way]

17. Well, we should do that and why don't the Democrats subscribe to the

exit polling data, anyway? It's insane that they'd allow the Republican corporate media to dictate the data they alone are privvy to (who bets that Karl Rove has this data?). Democrats have to be able to do their own analysis, independent of what the media would like us to believe.

But, I think we should start validating this past election result. If nothing else, it will make our case for election reform a lot more persuasive if we can prove that our legally binding repolling agrees with the exit polls and not with the "official" results.

This would also show the rank-and-file that the leadership is protecting the Democratic Party franchise in a pro-active manner and that they are paying attention to the priorities of the Democratic voter, going forward.

[RNCPsychiatry]

3. probably not

[orpupilofnature57]

4. And the bumper sticker on my car is a good clue!

[zann725]

22. LOL! Thank you very much!

n/t

[BOSSHOG]

5. No problem signing such a document

All my fascist neighbors know I vote straight Party Democrat and that I wish they would move away so nice homosexual couples who respect their neighbors rights would move in. My name is proudly attached to LTTE's and I don't give a flying dog fuck about "who" thinks about "how" I vote. I spent 24 years supporting and defending; I'm always hankering for a smack down with some neanderthal, american hating bush supporting moron. I hope this answers your question, and thank you very much for asking.

[findTruth]

6. Yes. I will do it.

[meganmonkey]

7. I absolutely would

I will act like we have a free and fair democracy, whether it's true or not. We legally cannot be persecuted for voting a certain way, and I don't like to act like a victim if I am not. I know that sounds rather absolutist of me, but it's how I feel.

[abbiehoff]

9. My vote is certainly no secret.

I'd be thrilled to verify it to ensure it being counted.

[Chi]

10. It is giving up your privacy, but I would sign.....N/T

[TR Fan]

11. What's the implication of this that differs from simple exit polling...

other than coverage. What would be the penalty for refusing? What would be the penalty for lieing on the affidavit? How would you even prove that someone did lie? Would you associate the vote, however it's done -- paper, electronic, punch card, etc. -- with the voter? If this is what you're proposing, you're effectively calling for the end to the secret ballot (something I would very much oppose). If it's not, then there is no effective way for validating/enforcing an affidavit and, again, other than deriving a bigger sample, it's no different than exit polling.

[garybeck]

13. an affidavit is a legal document

they carry more weight in the court of law than an exit poll.

I think it could be done in a certain amount of secrecy. Just because the names are collected doesn't mean they would be made public.

Anyway, it's just at thought. I'm not a lawyer. But I know if we had more definitive proof that the vote counts were wrong, we wouldn't have people like Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders continuously saying in the press that there's not enough evidence.

gary

[TR Fan]

15. Yes, but

how do you enforce it? In order to prove that someone lied on the affidavit, you must tie the individual's actual vote to his/her name. Therefore, you're giving away the secret ballot, something that has been fundamental to our concept of democracy for centuries. Bad, bad idea.

And again, what if someone refused? Would you make this a pre-requisite to voting? Because, if you let them refuse, then the counts become meaningless.

[garybeck]

36. I don't think you understand my idea

it's not to do a "more official" exit poll. And there's no reason to have to try to disprove someone's affidavit. In fact the affidavit is assumed to be true.

Simply stated, it goes like this.

The "official" results say that a certain number of people voted for Dem candidate.

We have X number of affidavits, MORE than the official number. So it's not based on sample size, like exit polling. It's a hard number of signed affidavits, higher than the official vote count.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe this would be proof that the vote tally was wrong, even in a court of law.

Gary

[texpatriot2004]

14. Absolutely! No problem here. n/t

[Darknyte7]

16. I don't see the point...

You could sign an affidavit, but unless you voted absentee, one could never prove, or for that matter disprove, that you did voted the way you said you did.

[Old and In the Way]

18. The point is, if people think there is election fraud, why would they lie?

What are the Bushbots going to do? Lie and say they voted for Kerry? It will only make our case more convincing, if flawed.

If there was systematic fraud committed, I'd bet it was committed against registered Republicans who voted for Kerry. Those would be the easiest votes to scam. I'd love to see how that segment of the voting population actually polled. If they are as scared shitless as the rest of us are of where this boyking is driving this country and, if they thought their vote was stolen, it might provide the motivation to sign the affidavit and attest to their vote. I suspect Bush Republicans won't bother....but Bush Republicans lying about voting for Kerry would be counter productive to helping their cause. They'd certainly attest to voting for Bush....as I would expect.

Sure, this whole exercise might be a task of futility, but it might also provide some honest insight into what really happened on 11/2 and what has to change in order for this crime from ever occuring against the majority again.

[Darknyte7]

31. Well let me put it like this....

Affidavits are legal documents in which the signer swears under oath before a notary public or someone authorized to take oaths (like a County Clerk), that the statements in the document are true. Affidavits carry weight in our judicial system because there is the presumption that the declaration(s) made in the document where made under penalty of perjury. The problem is here.

Because the voting system in our country is conducted by a secret ballot, after the fact there is absolutely no way for anyone to prove or disprove a voters declaration about who they voted for. So why would a court accept an affidavit that cannot be proved one way or another? The answer is that they wouldn't. The result here is that there is no legal reason to execute an affidavit declaring who you voted for.

Sorry guys, but I just see it as an empty gesture.

[glitch]

19. In a heartbeat - I think it's a good idea. I also would like to see

precincts canvassed for affadavits concerning THIS past election.

[Im with Rosey]

20. "they" already know who we are

Bottom line is anything that can be proven has my support. I still think we must prove how the fraud took place in '04, then we can figure out how to prevent/minimize it in the future. I'm not worried about anyone knowing how I vote, I think the first time I emailed DoJ confirmed my political affiliation! Is that someone at the door?!:tinfoilhat:

[sepia_steel]

21. I absolutely would. eom

[mirrera]

23. Yes I would!

I am proud of my voting choices. I could care less who knows...
Jeez with the petitions I have been signing I am an open book. I think this one area wher our privacy is So important protects them not me. They are not concerned with my privacy in the Patriot Act!

[Sydnie]

25. Yes, I would n/t

[L. Coyote]

27. I Write in your own name in an obscure race.

That way you can make sure your ballot was counted.

My Repug Congressman was unopposed, so I got one vote for Congressman!

[mousie]

28. Yep, I would

or whatever else it takes to put an end to election theft!!

[MissWaverly]

29. Yes, I would

but I think the real answer is the cut out the fat, have low carb voting machines, isn't there a way that when a person votes that 1 vote should be registered, I'm convinced that when I voted on the rigged machine, it registered 5 votes to Bush, to my one vote for Kerry. Can't we have a way of making sure that 1 person = 1 vote and not 1 vote and 5 defaulted entries.

:tinfoilhat:

[Paligal]

30. What difference does it make? They say "people lie"

As far as I can see, it makes no difference what anyone signs. They will just say that people lie, as they did with the exit polls that didn't match the result...right? Am I missing something? You think they will actually cross check all the exit polls?

[flyarm]

32. definitely yes! n/t

[Rocky Top]

33. Yes. I will do it.

[Darknyte7]

41. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Land Shark]

34. You might still be able to preserve secrecy

Have the affidavit refer to a secretly cast ballot that is put in with all the rest. Only the first few voters have any risk, and then only if the process is interrupted and a process of elimination used. The affidavit can say the secret ballot is true and correct, how sure their memory is as to each recalled vote, and whether their vote would change if there was a revote today (might want to ask this question first, to capture the protest votes if any, then go on to ask about historical memory and how sure)

So, I think you don't need to force disclosure, you just need to reproduce an honest election on paper and add an affidavit on top for later use in court if needed.

So, if you are careful in the end your number of affidavits is exactly equal to the number of votes collected. Accounting for each ballot.

Then, if anyone objects, ask them HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN SIGNING A POLL BOOK UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY ON ELECTION DAY AND THEN CASTING A SECRET BALLOT?

The objections, if any, would then be to our election systems as a whole even when properly run. And if you don't like that, take it up with the Legislature, partner!

[L. Coyote]

35. Many people would, but

the slightest refusal rate would invalidate the idea.

An affidavit would be worthless, since you can never prove someone lied.

[Land Shark]

37. I respectfully disagree Coyote, all data measuring methods

have refusal rates and here we are (hopefully) approaching a participation rate of 90%. We need a professional opinion on the impact of a (relatively low) refusal rate before dismissing the idea.

Remember, good investigation and problem solving keeps all doors open until they are truly closed through the full logical or scientific process. We don't close doors based on the existence of a possible or even a probable problem. (Or if we do, it is with full awareness that we are cutting corners and refusing to look under that particular rock for some reason deemed good)

[slackmaster]

39. Why use a poll with a 90% participation rate when you have one with 100%?

I am very familiar with statistics and probability. 90% is overkill for a sample set, but it's still not as good as using all available data (i.e. the actual votes).

[slackmaster]

38. No way

Let's concentrate on making sure the actual votes get counted right, not some cockamamie scheme to try to pass off a smaller sample set as more representative of the will of the people.

[Land Shark]

40. Of course, Slackmaster, but we're talking about MORE evidence

for PAST ELECTIONS. This is the only way to do that "right" at this point.

As to 90% vs. 100%, of course we want 100% and would try all out for that. The question is, what is the result or effect if our best efforts produce 90%?

[slackmaster]

45. It would be written off as a partisan effort to steal the election

I'm talking realpolitik here.

Most people find the statistical evidence that recent elections have swung more strongly to the Republican side as compared to straw polls and exit polls than did earlier elections to be either a reflection of some kind of failure of the polling process (i.e. not a real problem), or a deliberate attempt at demagoguery by snowing people with numerical manipulations they lack the math skills to understand, which have been performed against suspect data sets. In the end it comes down to people believing what they want to hear, and that cuts both ways in every two-sided dispute.

If Side A wins an official election count by a razor-thin margin, then side B comes along and says "OUR survey shows the election was rigged", you know very well what Side A is going to say.

We should focus on improving the accessibility, security, and auditability of the only polls that legally count - The elections themselves.

[garybeck]

50. i'm not talking about a smaller sample

i should have explained my idea a little more completely

my thought was to secretly pick a few precincts throughought the country that are small enough were they could get most or even all the democrats to sign affidavits.

let's say there area a 100 registered democrats and 92 of them agree to do it.

then election day comes around, they vote, and the official results are released, saying that the precinct got 78 votes for the Democratic candidate.

I would think that is some pretty good evidence of a problem.

so it's not to have everyone in the country sign an affidavit, or to conduct another exit poll. it's about going after and finding proof of fraud, in a few isolated places were it is suspected it will happen.

[Blue_In_AK]

42. Absolutely, no question n/t

[SharonRB]

43. I would

I don't make any secret of my politics.

[Laurab]

44. It'd be giving up my privacy, but I'd do it

in a heartbeat if it would help us to have transparent elections. I'm proud that I did not vote for the chimp in chief, and I would do whatever it took to ensure our next president isn't appointed. I don't think it's realistic, I don't think it would work, really, but I'm open minded, and would have no problem with doing it myself.

[IndyPriest]

46. I would. But I don't think enough others would to make a difference.

[JoMama49]

47. How 'bout if we all make a quick copy of our paper receipt and

hand it to the exit pollsters? I made a copy of my absentee ballot showing I voted for Kerry, and I STILL have it. Perhaps I'll frame it!

[sharman]

48. Why not do it for the 2004 election?

The voters are still around.

Also, there's a way you can do it without violating the privacy of the ballot box, the same way they do absentee ballots.

Ask everyone to sign and affidavit that they marked a piece of paper with their choice for president, then separate the affidavit from the piece of paper.

[livvy]

49. Yes, I would.

When I vote for someone, I have a reason. I've done the research, and have made my decision. I don't see it as privacy issue. It's a stating of what you believe or your opinion. Things that a person wants to keep private usually involve the possibility of embarrassment, humiliation, or intimidation. Opinions about the best candidate should be easily supported by evidence one can support.