All you people screaming for handcounts, recounts...

[TreasonousBastard]

and perfection in vote tallying...

Have any of you EVER worked the polls? Counted ballots? Been an election inspector? Been a pollwatcher?

Have you ever personally counted ANYTHING? Been a cashier or bank teller cashing out? Been a manager or auditor recounting the cash that was cashed out?

How about your vast knowledge of sampling? Got an advanced degree in statistics? Is part of your job analyzing sample data and writing reports?

Let's hear about your vast experience in these matters that convinces us that these screeds and demands are not just blowing smoke and gas.

And, yes there are times when recounts are needed and yes, there are polling places that are problematic. But, realistic solutions, please.

[niyad]

1. and just what would your "realistic solutions" be?

oh, and by the way, I was responsible for 7 MILLION dollars a day, so yes, I DO know about cashing out, balancing, etc.

thanks for the snark.

[TreasonousBastard]

29. Then you know about audit trails...

and the many ways they can be implemented. You also know about human error and how machines are usually a lot better at simple counting and calculations.

So, are you screaming for hand counts or just chiming in? If so, why?

(This may not have been directed at you.)

[niyad]

33. tell me, who pissed in your cheerios this morning that you think it

necessary to assume that, a) everybody is SCREAMING for handcounts, and b) that those of us who want verifiable paper trails are idiots who don't know what the hell is involved?

what, exactly, IS your problem with hand recounts? afraid your candidate might lose? did you oppose the recounts in florida? are you happy with the cretin currently squatting in the people's house?

[TreasonousBastard]

49. Apparently, I didn't make myself clear...

I didn't say everybody is screaming for handcounts, just a few. And, as you should know, and audit trail is not necessarily a paper trail. Even if there is an actual paper trail, it does not require the intial hand counting.

I don't have a problem with hand recounts or random spotchecks but I do have a problem with an initial handcount. Handcounts went out of style because they were error- and fraud-prone. Counting is something machines have always done better than people.

[Stevepol]

66. "An audit trail is not necessarily a paper trail..."???

Huh??

What pray tell do you audit? Cyberspace? Your fingernails?

And you're right that computers do a good job of counting IF THEY'RE PROGRAMMED TO DO THAT.

Computers are also the ideal device for stealing elections IF THEY'RE PROGRAMMED TO DO THAT.

I don't think this is difficult to understand.

[roguevalley]

68. I have done elections. Personally, recounts are good. One must

assure people things are fair. Really. Its called democracy.

[endarkenment]

2. Much better to leave it to diebold.

good point.

[Jane Austin]

7. We count the cash drawer every night and it has to match up with the

retail invoices.

Our bookeeper stays late to find the last penny.

[KittyWampus]

8. My Dad had stories from when first married and Mom worked in bank. She stayed late to make sure $s

were right.

[KittyWampus]

3. All you people who can't grasp that without random hand counts, there's no transparency or integrity

to our voting process really need to get a clue.

We're supposed to just accept some numbers because a hackable machine says so?

Or because it gives us a "reciept" (ballot) even though those ballots are not hand counted and the totals verified?

[TreasonousBastard]

32. Random checks are good, and realistic. But...

the entire world is turning away from paper. You don't get your checks back any more, if you even write that many checks. You buy something online and the best you get as a receipt is an email with a number, yet you trust that.

That nasty Diebold makes many of those ATMs that give you money and play with your accounts almost flawlessly.

So, why shouldn't voting be as advanced as Wal-Mart's cash registeres-- largely untouched by human hands they happily tally sales, cash, and deduct inventory.

And they have an audit trail.

We WILL be voting elctronically eventually, so the point is to do it accurately. If a simple cash register can handle the job, why can't a voting machine?

[karlrschneider]

35. Diebold can't steal your money without you noticing. Votes are different.

...

[backscatter712]

40. That's a damned good question.

Makes you wonder about Diebold - they make ATMs and bank equipment that process billions of dollars of transactions a day with few complaints, then they turn around and make voting machines with next to no audit trails. Activists and officials had to scream loudly and repeatedly for the Voter Verified Paper Trail printers, while Diebold whined repeatedly about how it'd cost too much money, while making ATMs with paper trails every day.

The fact that Diebold was capable of making a more secure system than they did makes me look at them with a very jaundiced eye.

Like I mentioned further down in this thread, there are ways to do it right, like http://punchscan.org/ . The fact that governments refuse to give even a cursory glance at Punchscan says quite a lot about the level of integrity they want in our elections. :(

[HeraldSquare212]

4. It's all about money

Increase the number of workers so mistakes aren't made (the big work comes in a rush at the end, to my experience).

[Bonobo]

5. One question:

If the shoe had been on the other foot and your candidate lost suddenly, in the face of a dozen polls that showed she should have won, in a state where demonstrably flawed and vulnerable voting machines were used... and where the polls on the other side were not wrong AND where the exit polls cannot be used to prove anything since they are "adjusted"...

What would you say?

PS Who is your candidate?

[TreasonousBastard]

34. First, I don't have a favorite any more...

since mine dropped out. And my attitude would have been the same anyway.

As far as New Hampshire goes, it appears that my initial opinion of there being no real problem seems to be about right.

[Bonobo]

45. Opinions. Don't. Matter.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. so you are in favor of letting the GOP steal the election again?

The price of fair elections is eternal vigilance.

[mdmc]

9. let diebold do it

:shrug:

[Laurab]

10. There IS a realistic solution.

Don't use voting machines with proprietary software to count our votes. Outlaw them. They are easily hacked and cannot be trusted.

Anyone who has a problem with recounts should work on getting that done, rather than lecture people who want to make sure we have open and transparent elections.

[TreasonousBastard]

38. That I agree with. I spent two years...

with a small company programming cash registers with integrated payroll. Started to integrate inventory but we went out of business.

One thing I learned is how simple a program that just counts stuff is-- a few pages of QuickBasic code and it was done. Even had them phoning it all in to the home office. And the data was backed up.

The only reason these companies are using proprietary code is for added value to turn a $300 PC into a $6,000 voting machine.

[Ken Burch]

11. And the reason YOU are taking this so personally is....?

n/t.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. Probably owns stock in Diebold or E.S. &S.....

and is watching those stock prices tumble...


just a guess...

[TreasonousBastard]

39. I have spent quite a few 16+ hour days...

as a poll inspector and have some idea of how to run a polling place. I suspect many of the handwringers haven't and don't.

[Ken Burch]

47. I'm pretty sure none of the recount advocates are attacking you as an individual

And you can't entirely blame them, given recent history, for having some trust issues with the vote counting process.

[TreasonousBastard]

51. As I have my own issues, but my objection is not to...

cleaning up the process, but to kneejerk calls for hand counts.

[TreasonousBastard]

50. Just really, really getting annoyed at the...

idea going around that the only way to get an honest vote count is hand counting paper ballots.

No one has properly explained why, after years of getting away from that, we should go back to the most error-prone method of tallying. Just the ever increasing mantra of "hand count" without any serious discussion of what that means.

[Jane Austin]

12. Although I didn't go beyond trigonometry,

I like numbers and their relationships.

When faced with a list of numbers, I try to add them in my head first, just to see if I can do it. I check myself with a calculator and I'm usually right.

It's kind of fun and keeps the old synapses open.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. Well, first off, I don't recall anyone

SCREAMING for anything.

To answer your questions:

Worked polls: Yes
Counted Ballots: No
Election Inspector: No
Pollwatcher: Yes
Counted anything: Yes, many.
Been a cashier cashing out: Yes.
Been a manager: Yes
Been an auditor recounting the cash that was cashed out: Yes.
Sampling: Yes
Advanced degree in Statistics: No, but I passed it with an "A"
Part of your job analyzing sample data and writing reports: Funny, that's EXACTLY what I do.

So, do I pass your purity test?

Look, I don't know what has gotten your panties in a wad but confidence in the electoral process and the guarantee that any election can be validated with a recount of PAPER BALLOTS is integral and fundamental in the Democratic process. It's the backbone of our Democracy. Opposing this process by someone who is supposed to be a Democrat is simply mind-boggling.

[TreasonousBastard]

42. I am not opposing anything but...

kneejerk bullshit about how to run an election by people who apparantly know little about it except what they read somewhere.

[Zorra]

14. Yes, and it was my responsibility, and no one else's responsibility,

to ensure that my figures, and tally were correct.

If someone is not capable of doing the job properly, they should step aside and let someone who can do the job properly do it.

Counting votes is easy: 1+1+1+1+1=5 It's addition, not advanced calculus.

A child competent in addition could do this, given the proper environment.

Here is the solution: Spend the money to ensure that the system works properly and is as foolproof and corruption proof as possible. This is not rocket science. Get rid of machines that have the capability of altering/missing votes en masse.

Take the time to do everything by hand. Double check counts by hand.

So what if it takes a week to get it right?

Because the goal is to get it right, and there is no reason that it can not be done right.

[Le Taz Hot]

15. Hit & Run.

Color me surprised. Not.

[TreasonousBastard]

44. My sincere apologies for having to...

take care of a few things while there's still daylight around here.

I know we are all required to answer every email and message board post within minutes, but I really don't give a fuck about those rules.

And now I have to leave again for a while.

[lonestarnot]

16. Hand count the fucking ballots. It's easy.

Worked polls: Yes
Counted Ballots: No
Election Inspector: No
Pollwatcher: Yes
Counted anything: Yes, many.
Been a cashier cashing out: Yes.
Been a manager: Yes
Been an auditor recounting the cash that was cashed out: Yes.
Sampling: Yes
Advanced degree in Statistics: No, but passed University course with an "A+"
The last one no.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Woah!

De ja vu (see post #13)! Were we separated at birth? :hi:

[lonestarnot]

36. Hug brother!

:hug: :hi:

[Marrah_G]

25. Even with hand counts errors will happen

[niyad]

26. but those errors are easy to find

[Marrah_G]

28. We need random audits- whether ballots are counted by hand or optiscan

We also need to get rid of the touch screen machines so there is are paper ballots to be recounted.

[TreasonousBastard]

53. My point exactly--- you don't realize that after a 16 hour day...

hand counting ballots is prone to fatigue errors. and the people working there aren't exactly thrilled to have their workload increased by four people counting a thousand or so ballots with maybe 10 names on each one.

It is not easy, it is not fun, and it is probably prone to error and fraud more than any other system-- which is why we got away from it.

A machine with a form of audit trail is the most accurate method of counting anything, including votes.

[Labors of Hercules]

17. It's not rocket science.

we need to handle ballots the same way we handle cash: hand count, machine recount, 2nd-party verify.

And in answer to your insipid questions, I have done all of the above on multiple occasions and manage a 45 million dollar enterprise.

[Marrah_G]

18. Prepare to be called names and have your motives questioned.

[orleans]

19. reading this thread i'd say most of the posters have had experience

having to make a hand count exact.

count me in here too--marketing research (hundreds of surveys), retail cash drawers

[niyad]

20. well, tb, STILLLLLLL waiting for your "realistic solutions" --things must be slow over

in freeperville today.,

[unapatriciated]

22. I work in a grocery store and...

after the office person counts a deposit - they call up somebody to re-count the amount before it is deposited in the safe
every night every time no exceptions
and yes there are errors
If it is good enough for a business it should be good enough for a democracy

[TreasonousBastard]

54. When I managed a store years ago...

the register never made a mistake, but my cashiers rarely came in exactly. Actually, a bank examiner once told me that the teller who was exact every day was the one they watched-- no one was that good withou a reason.

And then there were those times whn I spent an hour or so trying to find the "missing" $3.47 that might have been an overring, or something else...

So, no, that's not good enough.

[Horse with no Name]

64. Um well I worked in retail for many years

and never had a register come up short. Not one penny.
Seems like you had other problems.
I don't believe the bank examiner anecdote. Tellers are PAID to be exact and most of them are.

[Benhurst]

23. Our neighbors to the north manage to hand-count hand-marked ballots

for their national elections, and manage to have the job done in several hours, time after time. :shrug: Maybe they just grow them smarter up there, who knows?

My solution: hand-marked paper ballots for Federal elections.

Ballot to include ONLY federal offices: (1)Presidential and vice presidential candidates, (2) Congressional candidate, and (3) Senate candidates in those states where a seat is empty. Period. No state nor local offices and no bond issues, etc.

A simple paper ballot to be hand-counted with three choices to be made at most.

[Marrah_G]

24. Those original hand counts can have errors also- I agree on paper ballots though

That is how we do it in MA- same as in NH

This allows for recounts AND could allow for audits if we could get random audits mandated.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Wow. This is sure a silly post.

[backscatter712]

31. YES! I have!

I worked as a poll watcher for the Democratic Party in 2006, precisely because I was worried about the same Diebold machines that are creating such a ruckus in New Hampshire.

I'm also a software engineer with a decent amount of experience with embedded systems, which gives me a little more insight as to what goes on under the hood of Diebold's election hardware. Trust me, it ain't pretty.

With a handcount, if you do it right, it can be damned accurate, and very auditable. When I was a poll watcher, everything associated with the election was handled with strict chain-of-custody rules, like handling evidence in a criminal case. The machines, the boxes of ballots, all the equipment, everything is sealed. When the election judges set things up, they create detailed logs, and follow detailed procedures, which have them break seals, set things up, tear things down, apply new seals, all logged so there's always a paper trail showing which people handled which things.

When counts were done, they were done twice - once by a Democratic election judge, and once by a Republican election judge, and they wouldn't sign off on the counts unless both judges got an equal count.

It can be done right.

Except the Diebold DRE voting machines throw a big monkey wrench into the whole election process.

Sure, the machines themselves are sealed, but neither the election judges or anyone else on site knows what goes on inside those machines. Maybe the code they're running is certified, but in many elections, it isn't. Even so, there are dozens of potential security holes that could alter the counts. Diebold's machines are black boxes. Nobody in the election staff have any real way of verifying that Diebold's machines are correctly counting the votes.

My suggestions?

The simplest way would be to throw out the computerized machines altogether and do everything by hand using pen and paper. Do all counting by hand, using chain-of-custody procedures, with observers, and multiple counts by members of all political parties.

Or you could go with an open-source voting system like Punchscan.org which is designed from top to bottom to be completely open, auditable and damned difficult to successfully cheat. It uses some cryptographic techniques which are somewhat complex, and a clever two-layered ballot which allows the voter to take home one layer and check his vote was recorded correctly on a web site, while preserving the secret ballot. If we have to go with a computerized system, this, not Diebold, is how to do it right.

[Laurab]

41. If I could recommend this post, I would. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

56. I agree that touchscreens, and similar...

systems, should be outlawed, and any software be open-sourced.

Scanning machines, though, shouldn't be a problem. Aside from those old punchcards that ran GM for years, scanners now do everything from score SATs to read mailed in forms and addresses on envelopes. Scanning technology is mature and used pretty much universally.

There's no reason not to use scanners with random checking and keeping the paper ballots available if a problem is suspected or a recount called.

[backscatter712]

67. I mentioned Punchscan, which uses optical-scan technology.

We do agree on a few things.

The nice thing about Punchscan is that not only does it make auditing possible, but it makes auditing and verification an integrated part of the election process, making it far more likely that it will be done.

I do like optical scan machines in that the ballots are simultaneously machine-readable and human-readable, but they MUST be verified with rigorous auditing. Too often, that isn't done. The ballots are fed through the machine, the machine spits out counts, and everyone takes the machine's word for it. With all the problems with Diebold's voting machines that have been documented (yes, even the optical scan machines can be compromised,) we can no longer afford to do that.

Like I mentioned in my other posts, election materials must be treated like evidence in a criminal case, with logs, seals and chain-of-custody procedures. Every count must be verified, reverified, checked by members of both political parties and independent observers, etc. Physical security is just as important as dealing with the electronics.

[annabanana]

37. I am an election inspector in NY

(Nassau County)
It is hectic and difficult, and there is a lot to keep track of. There ought to be a good enough percentage of recounts in any district to be able to statistically verify the results. There MUST be a voter verified paper ballot that can be counted. And there must be open source software doing the counting.-

It will never be perfect. But that is NO excuse not to continue striving to make it as perfect as possible with the most secure system achievable

To do anything less is un-American.

[TreasonousBastard]

57. I'm in Suffolk-- do you use the lever machines? They...

are as secure as anything on paper, and sealed when sent back to Yaphank in case a recount is called.

They are getting old, with parts almost impossible to find, so they have to be replaced. Once in a while a decade gear could wear enough to drop every 10th vote, or worse. Other than that, though, I've seen or heard of few problems with their accuracy, and none of fraud.

After 16+ hours in the damn firehouse out here, I can't think of anyone who wants to wade through at least 700 paper ballots per district-- half the time it's pulling teeth to get someone to count the dozen or so absentee ballots that come in. What we do works, and anything that replaces it must work at least as well.

[yodermon]

43. you make me laugh.

Forget touch screens and electronic voting. In Canadian Federal elections, two barely-paid representatives of each party, known as "scrutineers," are present all day at the voting place. If there are more political parties, there are more scrutineers. To vote, you write an "X" with a pencil in a one centimeter circle beside the candidate's name, fold the ballot up and stuff it into a box. Later, the scrutineers AND ANY VOTER WHO WANTS TO WATCH all sit at a table for about half an hour and count every ballot, keeping a tally for each candidate. If the counts agree at the end of the process, the results are phoned-in and everyone goes home. If they don't, you do it again. Fairness is achieved by balanced self-interest, not by technology. The population of Canada is about the same as California, so the elections are of comparable scale. In the last Canadian Federal election the entire vote was counted in four hours. Why does it take us 30 days or more?

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2003/pulpit_20031211_000795.html

[Atman]

46. I've been a voting machine attendant and Asst. Supervisor of Elections.

And a "checker" and a poll watcher. What have you been besides a "Treasonous Bastard?"

.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. OK, but I'm not asking for resumes...

what's your take on hand counting paper ballots?

What systems have you used, and well how do they work?

[Ellipsis]

48. Why yes... yes I have

"Fortunately the solution to this problem is relatively simple. Not surprisingly, it has little to do with computer science, information technology or software -- and it's not very expensive either. Researchers at Northeastern University and MIT (Aslam, Popa and Rivest) have demystified the statistical procedure involved so that it can be implemented using high-school-level math and a hand calculator. Statisticians, auditors, and other advocates across the nation will now be able to explain this procedure to election officials and average voters."

"The solution is to hand count enough votes, at a cost of about 10¢ apiece, to find out who won each audited election contest. And New Jersey's post-election audit bill, S507/A2730 will become the first law in the nation to require confirmation of electoral outcomes by using such a procedure, independently of software."

more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x488640

[TreasonousBastard]

59. Interesting. When I lived in Elizabeth,,,

Union County had the damndest electronic macnines. Set up like lever machines, you had buttons next to each name, and a keypad on the bottom for writeins. The buttons lit up when you chose, and you pushed a huge red buttom somewhere off to the right when you were done.

No paper trail, no evidence that a vote was ever cast. And, it being Union County, vast suspicions of just how this thing actually worked.

I guess they're gonna have to get rid of those, if they haven't already.

[Rex]

52. Don't need to, it is our right to ask for a recount and the law.

Sad that you don't know that.

[dchill]

55. I thought that all the counting...

was up to Peter King.

[ColesCountyDem]

60. The point is to get it right, not quickly.

I've worked as an election judge for almost 30 years, going all the way back to paper ballots. Yes, we some times put in late nights, but our hand counts were accurate. On occasion, we had to recount because we didn't agree on totals (normally a one or two vote discrepancy), but we WOULD finally agree on the same numbers.

The media-driven need for 'instant' results is resulting in our placing our most precious right-- the right to cast our vote *and have it counted* -- into demonstrably-flawed machines. It's time we brought PEOPLE back into the process, and with it, integrity and trust in the electoral system.

I'll shut up now...

[KharmaTrain]

61. Actually Yes To All Of The Above

I had my first electoral experience in 1972 as a pollwatcher...and for many, many years my grandmother was an election judge. In the 80's I covered elections for a local media outlet and became very familiar with the process and voting systems...including the first computerized counting systems. Many a night I'd be at the county building til 5am waiting for the final counts and then going back for the recounts. I saw many ways to tamper with an election...I'm in the Chicago area where you had two political machines (Democrats in the City and Repugnicans in the burbs) who played all types of games to win tight races.

Also, in my many years in broadcasting, I worked with lots of research, ratings and statistics. Just like polls, they can be read many ways by many people and are easily manipulated rather than interpreted. They can be weighted or distorted and its rare that you ever hear/read about those anomolies in the polling. For example, in New Hampshire how we didn't get a thorough accounting of the undecided votes...prefering to only report the committed ones. A big mistake.

I see a problem that whenever an election doesn't turn out the way a person wants, the first crutch is to yell voter fraud. The on-going BBV situation complicates matters as it casts a pall over ALL electronic voting and will never satisfy critics. Too many seem to look at the machines as the problem with voter fraud and not the games played outside the polls that keep the people from getting to those machines.

I'm totally with you...there are times that recounts can and should be demanded. And there will be time where the voting system must be questioned as well...but to constantly use voter fraud as a crutch in the end is like crying wolf and could actually make it easier for a prankster to sneak beneath the radar and find another way to tamper with the system while everyone's focus is elsewhere. Careful for what you wish for.

[kster]

62. OK heres a realistic solution

Simultaneous a) optical scan counting and hand counting of optical scan ballot with b) the hand counted paper ballots serving as the ballot o record

Each process checks the other and the entire process serves as both a tabulation of votes and a simultaneous audit, conducted in the open by citizen’s not private concerns

Advantages

This approach has a number of significant advantages. Combined, these changes return power to the people.

Citizens control the process: The counting of paper ballots would be conducted by citizens, in full public view, on election night. The volunteers would live in the locality where the race took place and represent a cross section of the population. This was done for over a hundred years with far fewer questions about elections than we have now. It’s feasible and a proven success as our history shows.

Citizens regain confidence in the process: Instead of a crew of experts from private corporations (the voting machine companies or other vendors) or public officials who disdain inquiries, this approach involves citizens conducting the count that determines the winner.

Cross checking between hand and machine count: The complaint about hand counts, complaints from those who sell e-voting machines, is that human error occurs when humans count votes. They forget that there is both human error plus a capability for human avarice at play in the handling and programming of voting machines. Our democracy was built on human hand counts and tabulation of voting results. By putting citizens in charge, errors will be caught and corrected on the spot.

Reduced post election controversy: Close elections or elections with nonsensical outcomes are difficult to recount due to state laws that make recounts difficult and often expensive. When recounts take place, the recounts often lack common sense like Virginia’s refusal to allow examination of optical scan forms in 2005. The simultaneous hand counting and machine checking creates a situation where the necessity of recounts is greatly reduced.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/opedne_michael__070308_florida_solution_to_.htm

[Horse with no Name]

63. I've been a cashier.

I've been a night auditor at a large hotel.

I don't have a degree in statistics, however, I do have a degree that required me to take statistics and I have written reports and done surveys using that knowledge.

I really don't get your point?? If Diebold can make ATM's that dispense money with nary an error and a full paper trail...then why can't they make a voting machine to do the same? Do you think that you could hack one of their ATM's like monkeys can hack the voting machines?
Do you think it is a design error or simple designed for error?

We MUST have confidence in the voting process. The fact that we do NOT speaks volumes to what is going on this country.

If two stolen Presidential elections cannot convince you that we have major problems, then I am QUITE certain nothing will.

[EFerrari]

65. Why aren't you screaming for audits and recounts?

Don't believe in math or are you just exceptionally trusting of Republican owned voting equipment?

[stillcool]

69. How about reading some studies...

conducted on the security of our voting systems?
How about reading the very simple corrective measures that have been recommended, but as yet have been failed to be implemented by many states?
http://brennan.3cdn.net/a56eba8edf74e9e12e_r2m6b86s2.pdf
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/info/EVEREST/00-SecretarysEVERESTExecutiveReport.pdf
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/California_Folder/DieboldReport.pdf

How about reading about the different types of voting systems used in different counties in different states?
To see the voting system used by your county in your state go here:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

How about doing something about it?
PLEASE Urge your Representative to cosponsor the Confidence in Voting Act
Go here
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/199/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=22334

Not enough?
http://usacm.acm.org/usacm/Issues/Articles_EVoting.htm