Different Color Ballots, How Clever !!

[kster]

http://www.swissvs.org/

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Hand counting ballots...how clever!!

[The Deacon]

2. No

Counting ballots at all - how avant-garde!

[autorank]

14. Welcome to DU!!! As Condi would say, "How quaint."

The Busby-Bilbray election had 150k or so ballots. Just over 70,000 were NOT assigned to any precinct in the June 6, Canvass (www.electionfraudnews.com). The Registrar responded to Attorney Paul Lehto's noting of this sloppy practice by pulling the .pdf of the canvass...but we were too quick. It's on the site above. It's like asking your teenager to clean his/her room and having them come back and say look, "I've done 1/2 of it, the rest is a mess though, can I have my allowance." But then again, some Registrars of this country are at about the level of the hypothetical teen.

Welcome!!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. actually, the canvass PDF is still available

Go to the past elections page http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/voters/Eng/Epast.html , download the June canvass PDF file in ZIP format http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/voters/Eng/archive/200606cvpdf.zip , then extract the file "50TH CONGRESS SHORT TERM.pdf". Whereupon one can see that there are over 76,000 absentee votes. Which is, indeed, very much like asking my teenager to clean her room.... :shrug:

Anyway, still waiting for a report: how many different votes do the Swiss cast on those colored ballots?

[kster]

4. Instead of a Ballot, Ballot packs, with 4 to 6 different Colored Ballots

How easy would that be to sort and count the ballots.

[Kelvin Mace]

3. Still dodging the question

The Swiss have very simple ballots, which are easy to count, unlike the USA. They are uniform throughout the country, unlike the USA.

[kster]

5. Whats the question?...nt

[Kelvin Mace]

6. You were given criteria

to show that HCPB are possible in the US. You were asked for a SINGLE example that met the criteria. You gave me a list of dozens, yet provided no proof they met the criteria. You harp on the Swiss, yet they do not meet the criteria set. Your list mentioned the Italians and the Irish, who I know from personal experience don't meet the criteria. Then you pretend you don't know what the question is when you have been rebutted repeatedly for failing to provide any factual proof to back up your conjecture.

[kster]

7. Your talking about your thread, I'm sorry

I got out of that thread because it was to depressing, you keep saying That Americans "can't" count the ballots by hand, because the ballots are to complicated, I needed to make a more UPBEAT thread because I BELIEVE that Americans CAN DO anything.

How about this, this thread shows different color ballots, How about we give the voters a ballot pack with 6 different colored ballots in them, if a single ballot would have had 24 races on it, we split the races up, and put 4 races on each different colored ballot.

It sorts your complicated ballot up into easy to sort and count ballots.

[LuckyChoice]

8. I support your focus

on your own thread, rather than wasting time with some who have their mind made up and show little understanding of, or interest in, the positive possibilities.

Counting votes is not a complex task. Skillful management is needed to organize all the preparations and avoid the pitfalls of historical problems.

Your example of the colored ballots is a terrific one--it focuses on solutions. This is the kind of thinking that will bring us better election systems.

[Kelvin Mace]

12. Right, it is a great system

for the Swiss.

I am asking for one example of HCPB that meet the outlined criteria. All you folks can give me is fantasy, wishful thinking, and non-applicable examples.

[LuckyChoice]

17. You cannot

or will not see the relevance.

There is no point trying to explain it to you as you have your own agenda. That's fine, but it makes having certain discussions a waste of time and energy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. actually, it would be an excellent exercise

to attempt to explain it to Kelvin. Better yet, see if you can actually implement it somewhere. Trashing the skeptics doesn't seem especially "positive" to me.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. My agenda is the truth

it is the same agenda I have advanced on this board for almost three years. I am not some recent arrivals spouting nonsense.

Either you have facts, or you don't. You and the rest of the HCPB have yet to advance a real solution.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Sorry that reality depresses you

I thought you were interested in a solution. STubborn insistance that "America can do anything" is the kind of thinking that has made us reviled in the world, and given over for people who believe we can damage the planet with impunity, because we'll figure something out later.

[kster]

16. Must count the votes with a machine, must count the votes with

a machine, we are to stupid to count the ballots by hand, we are to stupid to count the ballots by hand.



WATCH US!! The rich kids are not going to be counting my kids vote, in the future, with their secret vote counting machines, COUNT ON IT!

[Kelvin Mace]

24. The only person who has ever said "we are stupid"

is you.

And then you bring kids into again, which has nothing to do with the discussion. You have no plan, you have no legislations, you have no facts. Just a mantra.

[kster]

26. The Kids are a pretty important part of this, for me,

and Yes, I will repeat it over and over, if it helps to motivate people into realizing that there is another way to count votes, other than being beholden to the SECRET CORPORATE VOTE COUNTING MACHINES.

What reason do you want us to stick with these secret vote counting machines? Is it because you think we just "can't" take these companies out, or just because you think that the American people just "can't" no way no how, count the ballots by hand?

[Kelvin Mace]

29. I have stated the facts

I can't help it that they upset your reality.

[kster]

31. Keep stating them, this is getting easy........

"What reason do you want us to stick with these secret vote counting machines? Is it because you think we just "can't" take these companies out, or just because you think that the American people just "can't" no way no how, count the ballots by hand"?

[Kelvin Mace]

33. I want HR-550 passed to put a stop

to "secret vote counting machines". You cling to the idea that 100,000,000 ballots are going to be acccurately and fairly counted by hand.

I have worked to pass this legislation. You have provided ZERO evidence your system is feasable or better other than "I say so".

[autorank]

9. The Swiss take direct democracy seriously. Excellent post K&R

They also know how to count. The Swiss vote four times a year and they vote on major proposals. They bypass Congress as implementers of new programs. Thus, kster's excellent post shows that they are to be studied seriously, paritcularly in how they handle paper ballots.

They've had to learn cooperation due to their location between The Holy Roman Empire (Hapsburg), German states, France and the Lobard region of Italy. They didn't have time for ambiguity and unclear results of their voting. They're a wonderful example of full pulic participation and their voting is a serious matter.


The Popular Vote



Direct democracy means that popular votes are more important than elections. In contrast to other countries, it is not the members of parliament who decide on most issues in Switzerland, but the electorate by their participation in the relevant popular votes. People therefore depend much less on the elected members of parliament than they do in countries without the tool of direct democracy, and elections are of less significance.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. This has absolutely nothing

to do with the question at hand. So, I must assume that the HCPB advocates on this board have no real world means of carrying out their goal.

[autorank]

13. Now who could object to my post?

[Kelvin Mace]

23. Those of is the reality-based community

[eridani]

18. With 7000+ ballot formats in my county--

--we'd need that many different colors.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. actually not

I think the concept is different colors for different races or sets of races.

Umm, I guess that would facilitate having multiple teams counting at a polling place simultaneously. Otherwise, not a big win. AFAICT no one has tried to figure out how this might actually work.

[Kelvin Mace]

22. Just another bit of distraction that no one has bothered

to work out.

[kster]

25. According to the pics it looks like the Swiss got a color coded system,

maybe we could ask them how it works. Just a thought.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. yes, by all means, you could ask

If you want to make this happen, then I would think you would want to know everything you can figure out about what is working already. You seem so passionate about this issue, I find it sort of unnerving that you don't seem to know ten times as much about it as we do. If this is going to be your issue, you should own it. Someone has to -- why not you? (Of course I don't mean "own it" in an exclusive way.)

[kster]

32. "about it as we do" WE? Do you have a mouse in your pocket

who is this "we" you speak of.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. anyone who has disagreed with you

That would most conspicuously include Kelvin Mace, WillYourVoteBCounted, eridani, and me. We don't have all that much in common besides (1) lacking your confidence that nationwide HCPB is feasible (although our opinions are palpably not identical), and (2) raising issues that you haven't demonstrated the ability to address authoritatively. Either you don't know nearly enough, or you can't hear the objections clearly enough to know how to go about responding to them. Sorry, that's where it is.

[livvy]

35. As Sgt. Oddball put it so succinctly in "Kelly's Heros"....

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty, always with the negative waves."

Why is it so repugnant to you and your merry band of naysayers to explore alternative possibilities? This should not be a personal issue. Yet, in thread after thread, I see too much of this.

I respect your right to have doubts, but instead of distracting with a string of "negative waves", let the explorers do their thing.

I try to follow these threads, and think about possibilities/ideas to contribute, but it's like sitting in the yard trying to read a book with a fly biting my ankles. I pack up, and head for the house to avoid getting bitten. That solves the problem of the fly bites, but the book doesn't get read.

Every "think tank" needs the devil's advocate. They are an important part of the process, but when their arguments cause too much of a shift in focus, it becomes detrimental to the purpose and the process.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. hello? reality check

There is no "merry band of naysayers" here. If you actually read the posts, you will see that the four people I mentioned in the previous post don't agree on all points about HCPB, much less anything else. The "naysayer" rhetoric, as far as I can tell, is an excuse to avoid engaging specifics. Your message is a perfect case in point, because it doesn't have an iota of substance about HCPB. If you don't care about the issue, then what are you doing on this thread?

I am urging, nay begging kster to explore this issue more thoroughly. WillYourVoteBCounted supplied a veritable road map of issues that need to be explored, and Kelvin and eridani have elaborated on many important points. Now kster, or whosoever will, needs to go do the work. There is no point in kvetching about our negativity; we are not the obstacle to change.

[livvy]

37. I have read every single post in this thread.

I am currently at the site in the OP doing some reading.
It's because I care so much about election reform issues that I bothered to post at all.
I rarely kvetch.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. fair enough; please note that this is the worst thread of the bunch

diva77 started a working thread (as is evident from the title on), and it has some good content. kster started a polemical thread (the title purports to knock down an opposing argument), then spun off another polemical thread (same tell-tale sign), then spun off another polemical thread -- and still seems to have simply no clue why anyone would think it is hard to implement HCPB in the United States, given that the polemics don't address the concerns. So, several of us are frustrated with kster.

I am not out to smash HCPB, or even to rag on kster. I am making a good-faith attempt to explain the source of the frustration.

[livvy]

39. Fair enough back at'cha. I will have to read through diva77's thread.

I'm still doing some reading on the Swiss system, but will look through that thread later.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

57. its not "Can you HCPB", it's "Can you get people to agree to "HCPB"?

Like you said, only Diva has come up with a thread that made a real
effort to examine the HCPB from the different angles.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x444116

I can take an interest if someone is willing to get their hands dirty
and actually do some research, preparation, studies, and address the
arguments that will be faced.

Like you said, the "100% HCPB is the only way, nothing else and now" proponents:
-should know 10 times as much as we do in the way of
-scientific studies, arguments against (so you can rebut), arguments for (obvious)
-cost studies (no one has done one yet of net annual expenditures)
-time studies,
-ballot styles and our current method of voting
-localities in the US that do hand counting and how they do it
-comparing time needed to report official results with HCPB verses with electronic methods

I see that Diva has neglected her thread, after I posted alot
of testimony and studies etc from where we presented this idea back in December
of 2004 to our legislators.

I hope she follows through.

In NC we had Chuck Herrin, (who is a tar-heel and a republican!)
who scared the you-know-what out of our lawmakers with his testimony.
Chuck is a very creditable expert and also very fascinating speaker.

I would say that we are lucky if 1% of the public even knows there is a problem
with voting, and several of us have worked our asses off for years on this issue
trying to get the word out to the people in our state!

We have come along way over the years, but we have a long ways to go.
I do see us making progress more quickly now.

But HCPB - I have yet to see any proponents come up with the sort of
research and reports that are needed in order to gain any ground.
Nor the groundswell of regular citizens to support it.
I have offered what I can, and if I see more, I will pass it along.

However, it politically wasn't going to be an option in NC, so instead
we achieved the best we could. To be purists would have meant to lose
it all and have 100% paperless even after a real disaster.

[kster]

58. Thats a long winded bunch of nothing

We can count the ballots by hand, and we will count the ballots by hand, WATCH US.

[Kelvin Mace]

67. Right...

Which election? 2020? 2036? The Tri-Centeniel?

[diva77]

71. oh, my, did not mean to be neglectful

I've had many fires to put out on many fronts and keep having to deal with flareups. I did post to try to stir up citizen interest with hcpb houseparties. Someone has requested the election data that you suggested I should collect, so I am trying to keep my head above h2o here! I hope you will continue doling out info. (and appreciate the info. thus far)

can never have enuf people working on this stuff :crazy:!

[Kelvin Mace]

46. As I said earlier

I feel like I am having an argument with Intelligent Design advocates. They keep telling me that "common sense" dictates HCPB must work better than machines, despite HARD evidence that says when you are counting as many complex ballots as we are, this just.isn't.true.

I laid out the criteria in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=444974&mesg_id=444974

This is how election are conducted in America right NOW. Theoretical suggestions of how they might be conducted after the passage of a currently non-existent bill is not dealing in reality, it is dealing pretty baseless conjecture.

Giving me examples of a system used by the Swiss that involves a COMPLETELY different voting structure does NOT meet the criteria above. Telling me that we MUST "protect the children", is not a valid scientific argument, nor is claims that "America can do anything." Saying I am calling Americans "stupid" (especially when I have said NO such thing) also is not providing proof.

[eridani]

28. OK In a non-presidential year primary in my county

There are 5 legislative races, 2 propositions and 11 judicial races. What 18 different colors would you recommend? And what color scheme would your recommend for the more complicated presidential year general elections?

The only way this could possibly work is if we were to have four colored paper ballots for President, Governor, Senator and Congressperson andleave the rest to opscan.

[kster]

30. Red for legislative race, White for the propositions, Blue for the

judicial, unless you think its to complicated for us Americans to sort and hand count 11 judicials races , then divide the judicial races up, white for 5 of the judicial races and green for 6 of the judicial races.

So I would say Red, White, Blue and possibly Green. Four counting teams. When the propositions are counted that team, helps finish the count on the legisative race, and when that race is counted all teams converge on the judicial races, unless the judicial races where divided, in which case the counting should be done around the same time, All counted by the people for the people.

[livvy]

40. Some info and links.

Here is some info I've collected after looking at the site, and doing a small bit of Googling.

Swiss Voting offers a full report, but it runs $495. There is a mini report at the site, but really only gives a bit of background info, and a table of contents of what is available in the full report.
The site states that although the process appears cumbersome, it is based on simplicity, and was designed for US circumstances. There is one ballot per issue. The ballots are color-coded and notched.
The Swiss vote 3-6 times per year. Their options for voting are by mail, at the polls, absentee, and they have tried e-voting.
Switzerland is about the same size/population of Indiana. So in our case it would be like having 50 Indiana state votes, which would have to be compiled in national elections.
After instituting this type of system, the Swiss found it increased voter turnout, reduced lines at the poll, and virtually eliminated uncounted votes. Counters are randomly recruited. Ballots are either hand-counted, auto-counted (like a bank counter), or weighed by a precision balance.
Polling station counting takes 3 hours or less.
The company claims it would be very cost effective, being 10x less expensive. In 2004 the cost per voter in the US was $25-$40. For the Swiss it is about $2/voter. (I don't know where they got these stats from.)


Here is a portion of an article from 2004
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Swiss_wants_to_improve_American_voting_system.html?siteSect=105&sid=5246762&cKey=1096525695000

September 29, 2004 - 5:58 PM
Swiss wants to improve American voting system


After more than 1,500 hours of research of the electoral systems of Switzerland and the US, Fehr’s Basel-based company is offering a package to would-be clients.

“Our main product is a report with examples of exact cost calculations and comparisons of how the system works in Switzerland. Our second product is our logo, which polling stations can use as a quality label if they follow our rules, and we can also do consulting,” he added.

The first rule of the Swiss Voting System is that voters should be able to cast their ballot at a polling station or send it in by mail.

A second standard concerns secrecy and security, while the third rule governs the right of access to information.

To obtain a Swiss Voting System certificate, it is necessary to publish the results from individual polling stations or servers in cases of electronic voting.


Here is someone that might be worth contacting for more info about the system. The article gives some info about how it works, also.

http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2005/01/02/news/news02.txt

Swiss voting leader visits Boulder (Colorado)
Sunday, January 2, 2005
>snip

Pezzillo said he heard of the Swiss system for the first time when Fehr found his e-mail address on the CVV Web site and sent information. Pezzillo and his wife went to Switzerland during the Thanksgiving season, where they met Fehr and witnessed the Swiss system in action.

"They held a national election the weekend just after Thanksgiving," said Pezzillo. "They had a mayoral runoff election in the little village I was staying in. The family we were staying with was voting, so we saw the process of voting both in the home and when we went to the offices of SVS."

The Swiss system uses color-coded paper ballots. For example, 2004 voters might have received a blue ballot for County Commissioner races and a red ballot for Colorado amendments. Pezzillo brought samples to a December Boulder City Council meeting hoping the city might consider using SVS or another hand-counted system in future elections.

Each type of color-coded ballot would also have a thumb index notch in a different location. Pezzillo said the combination of colors and notches would make it easy for election judges to sort ballots.

>more

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. nice job of bringing out some of the nuances

It seems to me that there's a distinction between what happens in Switzerland and what "Swiss Voting System" advocates or markets. That's not a criticism of SwissVS, just something to keep in mind.

For instance, you say that there is "one ballot per issue," which I suspect is true in Switzerland. But the system proposed for Boulder apparently would place multiple related races on one ballot. That's a necessary adaptation to the U.S. context. But if there are five races on a ballot, the ballot will presumably take five times as long to count.

I don't know how many different local and canton officials the Swiss typically vote for in any given election. That's a crucial fact that no one here seems to have posted, although available evidence points to 'substantially fewer.'

"After instituting this type of system, the Swiss found it increased voter turnout, reduced lines at the poll, and virtually eliminated uncounted votes." I can't figure out what time period you are describing here or what source(s) you are citing. Switzerland has unusually low turnout, which isn't to say that it couldn't be even lower.

Mail-in voting seems further to complicate matters; this is where the issue of "ballot styles" kicks in, no matter how the ballots are actually constructed. Sorting the mail-in ballots into precincts (or at least into styles) adds some complexity and expense, and reduces transparency -- no matter whether the ballots are then hand-counted or machine-counted. Of course one can have hand counts without mail-in voting, as Bill Bored has pointed out.

[livvy]

43. Some of the info you asked about came from the business site.

Here's a snippet from that site:

Although the voting system and the number of voters per polling station in Switzerland is similar to the U.S.A., the Swiss voters have a clear advantage. Because of the simplicity of the paper ballot system in Switzerland:

o one never encounters lines at the polling stations.
o one minute is the average time for casting your ballot at a polling station.
o unaccounted votes are unheard of.
o the total vote tallying time per polling station is never longer than 3 hours.

Not many people like change. This is especially true in regard to changes in voting like the change from mostly voting at the polling station to mostly voting-by-mail. In Switzerland, the same problem arose 20 years ago, when we changed our system from polling station based to mail based. But if you look now, about 60 % of the rural community votes by mail, and the difference is even larger in the cities. There 92 % to 96 % of eligible voters now vote by mail. If the government switched back to polling station based voting now, the voter turnout rate would probably decrease dramatically to a turnout rate of 20 % or less. (According to Wikipedia 25-45% of voters typically vote, but the number goes up to 60% for controversial issues.)

There are hundreds of different voting systems all over the world. In order to decide on the best voting system, the voters’ satisfaction is the ultimate measure. The Swiss certainly have made their choice and they absolutely agree with the Director of Elections for Washington State when he said about Vote by mail: "The voters like it".
http://www.swissvs.org/ (It's in the WWWWW section)

Obviously, they are a business, and like all businesses claim to be the best, have the best product, and so on. It would be interesting to chat with the guy from Colorado, to see what his impression was.

There was info in Wikipedia on the types/numbers of elections, etc. Perhaps because the vote more frequently during a given year, the number of referenda/candidates in each election is limited? Just guessing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

Here's is a description from the link above about the ballot issue/transparency/sorting. In our union elections there are two envelopes. The outer envelope has our name on it. The inner envelope (where the ballot is) is unmarked. One group removes the inner envelope and passes it to another group. The first group records the receipt of the ballot by checking off the names on their list. The second group opens the inner envelopes and counts the votes. It sounds like this is the same type of thing per the description below. If the outer envelopes were marked with the precinct number, they could be sorted fairly quickly.

"Mail-in ballots

Voters are not required to register before elections in Switzerland. Since every person living in the country (both Swiss nationals and foreigners) must register with the municipality within two weeks of moving to a new place, all citizens are already registered and do not have to reregister if they wish to vote. The municipalities know the addresses of their citizens, and approximately two months before the polling date they send voters a letter containing an envelope (with the word "Ballots" on it), a small booklet informing them about the proposed changes in the law and, finally, the ballots themselves. Once the voter has filled out his/her ballot these are then sent back to the municipality in a return envelope provided in the package. Initially, when the ballot is received by the voter, it is labelled with an address sticker with the voter's address; the address sticker is removed and affixed to another corner of the letter, thus revealing the postal address of the voting office."

I'd love to look at the whole program, but it's too pricey for my budget.

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. OK, let's see

I don't think I will be shelling out for that program either -- but I'm sure we can find some Swiss to ask a few pointed questions. Just a couple of small points.

The one minute per voter stat actually isn't encouraging because it tends to imply a short ballot. (I think you're right that the various candidate elections are distributed around the calendar, which would help to keep the length down.)

Via the wiki talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Voting_in_Switzerland there are two pictures of parliamentary ballots: a party list, and a free list.


A party list could be voted very quickly, or customized to taste. I looked at a web site for Zurich; they appeared to be voting for Justices of the Peace, who seemed to amount to a City Council. They don't seem to have the sheer variety of elected offices that we do, although that could vary from canton to canton or from municipality to municipality. They also don't seem to have the weird overlapping geographies that we do. They do have the basic federal structure, but I don't see anything analogous to congressional districts / state senate districts / state house districts / county legislature districts / city council districts, the stuff that tends to play into those nightmarish permutations of ballot styles.

I'm curious, in the cities, where and how exactly all those mail-in ballots are counted (and/or sorted -- the reference to a precision balance is interesting; there was a bit of discussion of that on DU maybe last fall).

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Also, according to the article

the Swiss votes 3-6 times a year.

[livvy]

52. I wondered that too.

Where do they return the ballots to? In my district, all the ballots would have to go to the city office. There are 12 or 13 precincts in my city, so if the envelopes were marked with the precinct, that wouldn't be a big deal as far as sorting them. The only reason in a city my size for sorting would be for statistical purposes, I would think, as initiatives would apply to the entire city. I also suppose the counting, just like the tabulating is currently done, would be done there also.
For large cities, couldn't it work the same? It would just have to be a larger facility, with lots of worker bees, instead of a smaller group.
It seems to me that such a system could work, with modifications. I would think it would/should/could be piloted on a small scale, like I suppose the folks in Boulder had in mind. Once any kinks were worked out, it could be applied on a larger scale.
But that's what the developer of the system states, that the system is modified for US elections. So maybe it's already got some of the kinks worked out.
Sure would be interesting to look at the whole report.

[OnTheOtherHand]

63. a few thoughts

You are probably right about sorting, although it isn't necessarily a function of the size of your city -- there is no inherent reason why your city can't fall into multiple CDs, statehouse districts, whatever. I think in some jurisdictions they sort into as many groups as there are ballot styles, and report the results accordingly. In Ohio, at least, it's not all that uncommon for an individual precinct to have multiple styles because a district line runs through the precinct. Stuff to keep in mind. Certainly there is nothing to prevent any jurisdiction from sorting into as many 'piles' as necessary.

It seems to me that absentee voting poses an inherent problem for the goal of transparency, regardless of whether the ballots are hand- or machine-counted. Well, I would go even further: I think transparency is an inherent problem, period. Do we have high confidence in the results of the Mexican election? As I understand it, the counters were supposed to be chosen at random, and there were supposed to be observers from each party present at each precinct. On paper -- no pun intended -- it seems about as good as it gets. In practice? well, it's almost impossible to know. Even a full hand recount wouldn't settle all the questions. I'm not trying to be nihilistic here -- and I'm certainly not suggesting that Mexico would have been better off voting on paperless DREs!

[kster]

42. Thank you, heres more from your link

He admits that some Americans might think it is arrogant to receive recommendations from abroad, but he insists that Switzerland can provide valuable input on how to improve the US system.

He claims that although the voting system and the number of voters per polling station in Switzerland is similar to the US, Swiss voters have a clear advantage.

There are never queues at Swiss polling stations, the average time for casting a ballot is one minute, unaccounted votes are unheard of and the total vote-counting time per polling station is never more than three hours.

“Switzerland is known for accuracy and reliability in its products and services. Like its chocolate, army knives and watches, the Swiss voting system is also highly prized by the people of Switzerland,” said Fehr.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Swiss_wants_to_improve_American_voting_system.html?siteSect=105&sid=5246762&cKey=1096525695000

[Kelvin Mace]

44. Here is the key sentence on why the Swiss systems works

The Swiss vote 3-6 times per year.

That means that their ballots are simple and thus easy to count.

Unless you plan on a similar change to the American voting system, the Swiss system will NOT work.

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. we're trying to fill in details

Am I right that the geographies are neatly nested, instead of crazily overlapping as in the U.S.? My impression is that they don't have national districts at all -- rather, single lists. Some of the cantons may have separate districts, but that's not a big deal as long as there aren't many permutations of districts.

I guess some folks actually do propose reworking the American political system to make it hand-count-friendly (although I don't think I've seen that argument here).

To my way of thinking, the most effective way of establishing whether HCPB is viable is to figure out specifically what would be entailed. As you pointed out earlier, there are estimates that hand counts might require a million counters per election. Well let's suppose that that's true, and that the tasks are set up not to require much training, and that the system is designed in such a way that we aren't too concerned about screening individual counters. (Of course, those design features may actually affect the number of counters needed.) Well, then, how long do we need those one million people for? Not that it should be up to the skeptics to quantify this sort of thing; I'm just curious.

[kster]

49. Kelvin Mace, now you are coming around

" The Swiss vote 3-6 times per year. That means that their ballots are simple and thus easy to count. Unless you plan on a similar change to the American voting system"

Then something like the Swiss system will work, that would be a simple thing to do, to give the American people the confidence, that their vote was counted and tabulated correctly.

Soon enough people will know and understand that the vote counting machines will never be able to be trusted, the machines put the vote count and tabulating into the hands of to few people.

You and I both know that.

[Kelvin Mace]

50. I'm afraid I disagree

Soon enough people will know and understand that the vote counting machines will never be able to be trusted, the machines put the vote count and tabulating into the hands of to few people.

Only a SMALL fraction of the electorate are educated on this issue. "Soon enough"? Define "soon". It will take years, probably decades to force the American public to a system like the Swiss, if it can be done at all. Christ, we can't even get rid of the Electoral College which has caused problems for over a century, and you think we will get people to ditch the current primary/general election system in favor of voting 3-6 times a year?

The Swiss system works for the Swiss, smaller country, smaller electorate, markedly different electoral structure and a VASTLY different culture. Switzerland is a federation of autonomous cantons. Women only got the right to vote in Federal elections in 1971, and were kept from voting in one canton in local elections until 1990. (Please ponder that for a moment. In a modern, Western country, it was illegal for women to vote in a canton's election until 1990)

As stated before, I LIVED in Switzerland for two years and have relatives there. The Swiss look upon the American electoral system with abject horror, as it affronts two things that the Swiss hold most dear, order and conformity (To this day, many Swiss still frown upon marriage between people from different canton's).

To their considerable credit, the Swiss have the only direct democracy in the world. ANY citizen can challenge ANY law passed by the government. All they have to do is get 50,000 signatures within 100 days of the law's passage and the government MUST hold a referendum vote in which a SIMPLE MAJORITY defeats the law.

If we had that kind of system, we would never be able to leave the voting booth.

[kster]

51. Do you see any possibility of hand counting the votes in America

we didn't always have the technology to count votes with machines, Maybe we have to look back at how our grandfathers or great grandfathers hand counted them, or we can just keep telling ourselves that we can't count them ourselves, and leave the vote counting up to corporate Americas secret vote counting machines.

[Kelvin Mace]

53. This issue was addressed several time

Lever machines were introduced in 1892, and have grown ever since, becoming more neccesary as the population grew.

I have seen no method to count by hand which meet the needs of the countries current electoral system.

[kster]

54. HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THIS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x445245

[Kelvin Mace]

55. Small state, unreliable news source

same bogus claims that you can count one hundred millions ballots the same way you count a few thousand.

Nothing new or useful.

[kster]

56. Have you ever watched Debbie Downer on Saturday night live

Just curious.



Debbie Downer is a character played by Rachel Dratch on the television show Saturday Night Live.

While her opinions and pronouncements are all negative in nature, Debbie Downer is especially concerned with the epidemic of feline AIDS, which is, as she puts it, "the number one killer of domestic cats."

Spoiler warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Downer

Do you know who she reminds me of?

[Kelvin Mace]

59. Well, I don't know if you are old enough to remember

A skit from the early days of SNL in which Belushi is running a tape store at a mall. Trouble is, it is Scotch Tape, not something sensible like music tapes. The skit is painful in that the people have their heart and soul in a business that is doomed to failure.

[livvy]

60. I disagree, if only from the perspective that it can be done, now, ....

in a lot of places. Not every polling place is in a huge metro area. I'm guessing, but I'd think there are more polling places in smaller, do-able areas. Just considering what I've read, I would think hand counting could be done in my city, with a voting population of around 50,000, and I don't think it would take that long.
Here's some data from my city on the 2004 election. I had mentioned before I thought my city had 12-13 precincts...whew...very bad guess! (Need to do more homework)

VOTES PERCENT

PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 26) . . . . . 26 100.00
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 47,531
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . 36,202
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 76.17

That's under 1400 ballots per precinct (36,202/26 = 1392.3846)if divided up equally. With a sort method, even with multiple issues/candidates, I can see how it would/could go fairly quickly. The sorting and counting could go even faster if there were multiple color-coded ballots distributed. That would eliminate re-sorting for each issue. Sorting would only be done once.
I don't know if this will make sense to you, but I just thought of it as an example. I'm a teacher, and when I have multiple page tests or assignments to check, I do it by each page in a set. I check page one, fold the paper to set it up for page 2 checking, and set it aside. Once I've checked everyones page one, I work on the second page, and so forth. I've found this is much more efficient, and I make fewer checking errors than when checking each packet in its entirety. I can really haul through a set of papers this way, when they are pre-sorted and re-sorted, because I'm only checking for a small set of data. It would be even faster if I only had to check page one, and passed the set to a helper, who was responsible for checking page two, etc.
My point is that I don't see hand-counting as necessarily a daunting task in many currently existing situations. I also think it could be done in larger precincts, but might require some reorganization, and/or larger numbers of worker bees. I'd have to think about the exact how's to make it work, or do more research.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. OK, I think precinct size is not the main issue here

Ballot length and complexity also factor in. Those New Hampshire ballots in the videos look pretty simple (but by no means trivially simple -- they probably have 12 to 15 items).

I don't have any fixed opinion about what size or kind of jurisdiction hand counts Could Not work in. You potentially can have some friendly conversations with your City Clerk (or someone in the office) to help you figure out the time and cost of implementing HCPB, as well as to judge the intensity and rationality of any resistance. Your city is a long way (in several respects) from King County, WA, but as far as I've been able to figure out, if it were to adopt HCPB, it would be the largest jurisdiction in the country to do so. (I welcome correction on that point.)

I really do think there is a need -- or to put it more positively, an opportunity -- to do some work that can't be done on-line, or under the artificial time pressure of needing a snappy comeback. It could be fun.

[livvy]

64. Agree. This is hard to do online and....

there are many issues that are involved.
I do think it would be interesting to talk to my City Clerk. I've met her once, and sent her some info on possible problems with the op-scan machines we use throughout MI. I had hoped she would drop me a note back, but she has not.
Been nice discussing this with you. I'm sure we'll cross paths in future threads.

[Kelvin Mace]

62. Everyone keeps saying it can be done

and I keep asking for an example of where is has been done according to the criteria I outlined here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=444974&mesg_id=444974

No one has come up with an example.

If you don't see HCPB as a "daunting task" then it should be no problem convincing everyone to switch to it, since it will save loads of money and be so much more accurate. Of course, we are still waiting to see actual proof of this.

Let me know how your local BoE responds to your suggestion.

(BTW, I have yet to hear from ONE HCPB advocate about their conversation with their BoE and how their plan for hand-counted elections was received. If you are not willing to pitch the idea to them, how will it ever get adopted?)

[livvy]

65. These were your criteria.

Show me a county or country which:

- Has at least 200,000 voters
- Has ballots styles and races as complex as the US (50 different ballots styles, 25+ races)
- Has results within 48 hours
- Has elections that are honest and accurate
- Has paper ballots that it counts by hand

I guess the closest I've seen, but I admit I haven't looked very long or hard, is Switzerland. They have 5.6 million eligible voters. Their ballots are not as complex as they vote more often, and races/issues are broken down on separate ballots. Ballots are counted by hand, machine, or scales. I have no proof that their elections are honest and/or accurate, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are anything to the contrary. I don't know how long it takes for their results to be certified.
However, because I cannot or have not found the information that fits your criteria does not mean that it HCPB cannot be done, nor does it make any difference as whether it should be done, if that's what it would take to have honest and accurate elections in this country. I don't know that HCPB is the answer. I don't think it is a magic solution to all the election integrity problems we have in this country. It is however, an interesting (at least to me) avenue to explore.
Of course it most likely would be a daunting task to convince my City Clerk to adopt HCPB. She is most likely secure in her op-scan world, has confidence in the integrity of the machines, feels she is doing a good job (and she does seem very competent), and has worked her tail off getting this system to work. I'm sure the old saying "why fix it if it ain't broke" would cross her mind more than once.
I may some day talk to her about HCPB, but I'm not "there" yet. I'm still exploring the issues, and thinking about it myself. I feel it has promise and possibilities, and could possibly be a part of much needed election reform.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. You have to dig down to the Canton level

and find out the size of the precints before you can make a comparison.

Also, close is not enough. As I pointed out, the Swiss system if VASTLY different from ours, and they don't have complex ballots.

I agree that HCPB is an interesting avenue to explore, but advocates on this board are saying it is the ONLY wa,y and opposing critcally needed legislation that could make our elections SUBSTANTIALLY more accurate and honest.

I, and other proponents of HR-550 (and NC 2,223) have put forth our bill, with plenty of evidence to back up our claims. The HCPB advocates on this board have offered nothing more than wishful thinking. How long do we wait for them to craft a solution, test it, and then start the long and laborious process of writing a bill, finding a sponsor, and getting the support needed to pass it? We could be a Bush Dynastic Dictatorship by then.

550 exists NOW and needs support. Nothing in 550 outlaws HCPB. If someone comes up with a miracle solution that allows us to use trained cats to count the ballots in less time than it takes Paris Hilton to get naked, well nifty kittens. Then they can implement their system and save the tax payers tons of cash and be proclaimed saviors of the Western Lands and awarded condos in Rivendell.

So, unless someone has such a system, they are harming our chances of clean elections by opposing 550.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. by the way

I sort of misread KM's response to you the first time; I'm sure he would agree that not all HCPB advocates are opposing HR 550. There are a few folks who do link those positions very vociferously. No need to rehash all of that.

I suspect that you will get to a point where you have some specific questions to talk over with your City Clerk, and that will probably help to build a working relationship. Whether or not that leads to HCPB, it will probably lead to something good.

Oh, I'm too sleepy to kick the house party thread, but I was going to suggest that you might want to pick Nancy Tobi's brain before deciding what would be worth testing. I think she somewhere posted some pretty detailed info about the difference in time between two approaches to counting -- I don't remember whether there were specifics on accuracy.

[Kelvin Mace]

74. Agreed

not all HCPB advocates oppose 550.

[kster]

69. They will keep fighting HCPB, but it is coming,

it is the only way to have a ligit Democracy, they know it and we know it. All they have is long winded "try and discredit" HCPB posts, I think its best to let them think its working.

We are coming to get the machines. They just have to realixe it.

[Kelvin Mace]

75. And when was the last time you went

to make your proposal to your local BoE? What did they say?

I can guaran-damn-tee that no proposal will ever see the light of day when all its supporters do is talk about it and wait for other people to do the hard work.

[Febble]

70. It might be worth bearing in mind

that excellent though the Swiss system is, in some respect, lack of federal control of the democratic process meant that until only a few years ago, women in Switzerland didn't have the vote.

Sometimes legislation at federal level is a boon to democracy.

[kster]

72. But,Could the swiss sytem work in the great USA?

Just curious.

[Kelvin Mace]

76. No.

Next question.

[kster]

77. WAAAAAAH Wahhhhhh!

[Kelvin Mace]

78. You've done that joke

and still have failed to produce any evidence to back up your claims, nor have you produced any evidence that you are actually doing anything to further your own goals.

[BeFree]

79. Yeah, kster

Take that!

The great and mighty Oz, (er, kelvin) has spoken!

You will never get free and fair elections again because the machines now rule and your foolish quest to retain power in the hands of the people will fail! Fail, he tells you, Fail!

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. "he called the Enterprise a garbage scow!" n/t

[Kelvin Mace]

82. One more time

besides bloviating here endlessly, what are you doing?

[kster]

83. Yes, lets audit the secret vote counting machines,

that will take the secret out of the vote counting, these people are something else!

[kster]

81. Nor have you.....nt

[kster]

73. kick.nt

[kster]

84. Kick.nt