BBV : A Compromise?

[BeFree]

The only correct course is one set on paper ballots.

So, the response will be: "Who's gonna count all those paper ballots?"

I offer up this compromise... Scanners count the ballots. Not just any scanner, mind you, but a scanner that has an open source code. An
open code that can be freely examined by you, me, or anyone else, in order that it be verified to count votes as cast.

Enough with private companies having almost complete control over how the votes are counted. We have to take back the count using paper ballots scanned by machines that are public, and locally operated.

One nation, and just one way to count the votes.

[ClassWarrior]

1. If it means people instead of machines...

...I'll gladly take a day or two off each year to help count.

NGU.

[wlubin]

2. I don't see a problem with hand counting. It just may take a week, but

that is ok. And maybe we should pay hand counters a decent wage, take it out of federal taxes, or maybe state taxes. For those of us who need results the same day, we could use exit polls to give them a good indication of who won the election.

[rockymountaindem]

3. Or like in Canada

where they have representatives from each party watch the counter count the ballots by hand.

If you've got 10 people standing around watching someone count the ballots, nobody can cheat.

[ahyums]

4. what I don't understand is that here in Britain we have general elections

every four or five years, we get turnouts of 75% or so, which means that somewhere between 30-40 million people vote, all the ballots are paper ballots all are hand counted and we normally get the results in the same night, starting 3 hours or so after the polls close. There are never ever any lines before the polling station, everyone who wants to vote can vote and if recounts are needed they are done on the same night and are fairly painless. Why on earth can that not be replicated in the US? it must simply be a question of money as far as I can tell.

[drm604]

5. ahyums, They don't want paper because then

they couldn't manipulate the vote.

[4democracy]

7. Germany uses paper ballots, hand counted, they use exit polls

and know the results within hours, based on the highly accurate exit polls. They then verify those exit polls with a full count that takes several days.

[Kellanved]

10. no, it is exactly as it is in Britain

The exit polls are not used for any official result. The result is published after all votes are counted, usually around midnight on Election day. The three weeks to the "final final" result are used to determine the actual winners (list based election), count absentee ballots and to rule out irregularities /formal protests.

[demobabe]

9. Oh, it's no question of money...

Elections in the US used to be a lot like what you described. Half the time you didn't bother watching more than the first few results come in as you knew who was going to win. Now it all comes down to these exceedingly close horse-races so the election can be sold as a product so CNN will continue to have viewers. This is all smoke and mirrors, plain and simple.

The Help America Vote Act was passed in 2000 allocating BILLIONS of dollars to states to upgrade their voting technology to avoid repeats of the 2000 Florida election.

So here we have all these fancy machines, computers that can count lickety-split, early voting, absentee voting, and yet we still can't get voting right. Why is this? Just look at the folks it benefits and you'll find your answer. Follow the money. They like it this way, and aren't about to give it up.

[Quick n Low]

6. Look no further than The Open Voting Consortium.

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org

[demobabe]

8. Good thinking, BeFree

We *sort* of have what you're talking about in a number of places across the US. These are the optical scan machines - yes, the same ones which we're questioning the results from in Florida. You get a ballot, fill in the little ovals, and run it into the machine. Proprietary? Yes, they are... Open Source a good idea? Definitely.

But there is a bigger problem that isn't going to be solved with a paper trail and Open Source code, and this was demonstrated quite well in the 2002 Alabama Governor's election: political corruption.

The election results were in, an official count had taken place, and Gov. Don Siegelman had been reelected. Then in the middle of the night, an unofficial recount occurred behind locked Baldwin county courthouse doors in the presence of Republicans only.

The results of the recount? There was ZERO discrepancy between the two counts for all the other candidates on the ballot, except for Don Siegelman, who lost over 6000 votes. Election results were certified before Wednesday noon (specifically against Alabama law) and rushed to the Montgomery courthouse. Bob Riley was declared the new governor.

They said there had been a power surge that affected one of the machines. But if this were so, why did it only affect Don Siegelman's total number of votes? Were there 6000+ votes for him on one machine in the tiny community of Magnolia Springs? I've been to Magnolia Springs: they have a fair amount of expensive homes there; in the most Republican county in Alabama in an area of affluence, I really don't believe there were even 6000 voters, let alone Democrats - that would have flocked to vote on one machine in the local church.

Siegelman decided against pursuing the recount as the courts were packed with Republicans, and they'd already shown they'd break the law to install their guy. It would be better for Don to come back at a later date.

THIS is what we're up against. Even when you CAN show a clear pattern of computer voting fraud, if the rest of the system is broke, it doesn't bode well. Take a look at where all the judicial elections are going, all across the country. Even the lowest courts are being packed with these law-bending Republicans.

The crisis with electronic voting machines is just a reflection of our current state of government. Until we can find a way to repair the overall system, anything we do to fix electronic voting may be a moot point. Not that we shouldn't try; small methodical steps are indeed the only way to effect change on a large scale.