BBV - Why not just create a better paper ballot machine?

[shance]

It seems to me that the electronic voting issue has distracted from other options.

Seems to me the issue is an electronic one, is it not?

Computers are hackable. Ballots and elections overall, are areas where hacking could be a high priority for individuals who want to win no matter what.

Now that this issue is hitting the forefront and that the electronic machines have fallen under such scrutiny and doubt, it seems that another alternative is to create a better paper ballot machine that would further ensure voter confidence as well as efficiency.

This would provide an option for states that do not desire electronic voting and prefer the more legitimate means of maintaining fairer voting standards.

In the long run, the issue seems more about taking the technology out of voting tabulation and returning to manual counting and having a tangible ballot that can be tabulated and accurately recorded. This is also the means by which the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution are upheld.

There is no perfect solution, but it seems there are better solutions than the ones presently being promoted by most of the voting companies.

1. touch screen plus paper

There was an excellent interview on PRI yesterday with a woman from Harvard (sorry I forgot her name) who argues that all you have to do is have the touch screen print a paper receipt (just like an ATM) and then save the receipt. She said this was actually necessary because there is no way to do a recount & maintain anonymity with touch screen, but that if there is a paper receipt saved at the poll, then a recount is possible.

on edit-- this interview was on This American Life (the annoying gap between theory and practice) @ http://www.thislife.org/

Does anyone know if there is anyone challenging the constitutionality of touch screen based on the fact that you can't do a recount?

[Cleita]

2. Hillary Clinton once said that the best voting machines

are the ones that use a lever. The manufacturer has gone out of business. Couldn't someone buy the technology and patents and manufacture them again? One of the complaints about the electronic machines is that the manufacturers have been traced back to right wing interests, which certainly does not make one confident in their impartiality and accuracy.

Why exactly have the Secretary of States of many states purchased these particular machines instead of others?

[ElementaryPenguin]

11. Bingo! Just bring back the lever ones!!

How difficult would that be?

[RedEagle]

13. No Lever Machines

These things are less hackable then a DRE, but they do not produce a voter verified paper ballot, either. No way to conduct a recount.

Touch screen voting machines that do not produce a paper ballot are only an electronic version of the lever machines.

At least with the lever machines, you could, in theory, check the gears to see if they had been tampered with.

Of course, we can't look at proprietary software to check for tampering.

Lever machines are less hackable, but we don't want to go there.

Just need voting systems to produce a voter verified paper ballot, and that ballot must be read by the voter without an interface- except for the visually impaired, who will use an audio review.

You must keep in mind that the disabled need such help. But we DON'T have to outfit all polling places with DRE's. Just one per will do it. And it's all that is required.

Optical scan that connects the arrows is best, from what I've read.

14. voter verified

Actually that's what that interviewee said yesterday.
Make a touch screen machine that prints a ballot that the voter looks at to confirm it recorded vote properly and then the voter puts it in a ballot box for use if a recount becomes necessary.

[lysergik]

15. Look at the link below, thats what they have!

[shance]

16. Why would you want the lever machines back?

Ive heard those are worse than punch card/paper ballot machines.

[Silverhair]

17. Lever machines can be rigged too. Just stick a matchstick..

under certain levers and break it off. Stops the vote from registering. At least that is what I was taught in a vote fraud prevention program. Long time ago.

[central scrutinizer]

3. What's the rush, anyway

All voting technology is simply trying to speed up the process of counting by automation. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I don't care if television pundits can call the race at 8:01 based on early returns. It is much better if enough time is taken to make sure the vote is counted correctly and that there is a paper trail if there needs to be a recount.

4. You are

a Luddite.
You're probably into old fashioned stuff like democracy & the Bill of Rights & god knows what else.... trees even for all I know.

[shirlden]

5. Can I be a Luddite too

Please ! Please !!!!

:hug:

[Padraig18]

6. Put me in the Luddite camp.

Piece of paper... candidate's names.... boxes.... X.... count... winner.

[markus]

7. There are automated paper ballot readers

We use them in Fargo, ND.

The ballots will look familiar to anyone who's taken any sort of standardized test.

The machine reads them, and rejects them if its confused. And the ballots go into the bottom of the machine, so the machine tally can be validated.

[LeinesRed]

8. the opti-scan sort?

That's what we use here in my county in the middle of Wisconsin. Always wondered why more municipalities/states do not? Black markers are used to complete the arrow next to the candidates' names. The ease of the electronic tally plus a paper trail...

9. maybe I'm a cynic

you can't fix elections as easily if there is a paper trail

[Eloriel]

12. Just remember

Optical scans are computerized too. In fact, up to 40%of the FL vote was on Diebold-software-loaded optical scans. (Think: distraction; Remember: how fearful the Bush gang led by Jimmy Baker were of recounts).

Eloriel

[lysergik]

10. http://www.openvoting.org

There really are no other options. HAVA helped with that, HR2239 will help control it to an extent.

If manufacturers such as Diebold and Sequoia and the others are allowed to move forward, take the states for a huge profit and still allow the dirty tricks they've played thus far, we are literally doomed.

So why not support a project that understands these dangers and has come up with a workable/secure solution which will cost the states very little money for hardware. This is where the Open Voting Consortium ( http://www.openvoting.org ) comes in.

[lysergik]

18. kick!

For the night owls!