Just an idea to be blown out of the water, probably.....

[jmcon007]

One thing we might expect by the next election, I've learned, is that each voter will, at least, receive a confirmation slip upon voting, much like what you receive at an ATM.

Someone mentioned that one potential problem with this is that the machine could produce this print-out, but still record the vote another way. True. I'm sure the neocons are hard at work on this software, as a matter of fact.

With this in mind, why can't Democrats (and possibly Independents if they so choose to participate) have someone near each polling place to either collect the slips as Democrats emerge or scan a copy of their vote? Each precinct could then tally these votes when the poll closes, report their precinct and vote total to another Democratic representative in the state who, in turn, forwards the state totals to the DNC.

By the way, we wouldn't have to count the Pukes (as if they would let us) because we could take the total votes in the country and subtract our total, the result being, obviously, the total of the Republicans, Independents, etc. If the neocons, ironically, denounce this process as open to manipulation, invite them to place a puke observer at each precinct.

This could be an all volunteer effort, of course, but I would be happy to donate to help cover expenses in my area if need be.

Maybe this isn't fool proof, but it's an idea. If it is a plausible idea, we'd better start organizing for 2006.

[zalinda]

1. All you would have to do is

have a carbon copy left on a roll, just like at the grocery store. The fact that the total on the roll can be matched to the total on the voting machine would help cut down fraud dramatically.

zalinda

[Yellow Horse]

5. The fact that the order of votes on the roll can be matched...

...to the order of voters in the poll book would help cut down on secrecy of your vote dramatically, too.

We need paper ballots to come out of the machines in a way that each voter can verify their ballot and the individual ballots are separate papers!

[pgh_dem]

10. I'm ready to give up secrecy of my vote for a couple years

Until I can really trust the vote count, I view the secrecy working against me.

I'd rather all of us who vote for a democratic candidate in the next election take the day off and stand just outside the polling area, taking video depositions from everyone willing to testify under oath who they voted for. Then, assuming we actually win, we finally put through legislation which guarantees a fair election.

If all goes well, we go back to fully secret ballots in 4 years.

[KaliTracy]

2. it's a paper ballot we're after - not a receipt -- most of the machines

that will do this will keep it in a sealed box -- let you see it as it feeds down so you can verify your vote, and then disengages and fall into the sealed box.

And while I understand your reasoning, I feel it's important that all votes need to be counted together, with a Democrat and a Republican representative there for the count (as well as there throughout the day). The machines would be doing the count -- the paper ballot would be available for any necessary recount (and I would like to see a random count of several precincts, to verify machine/paper -- but I'm just paranoid).

The problem with splitting off to count - is the problem of transparency -- if we want to have transparent elections, so we better be able to work together with everyone to ensure this happens.

[demodonkey]

3. EEEEEEK.... "confirmation slips".... "receipts".....

Yup, sorry to blow you out of the water, but...

We need legal, Voter Verified Paper BALLOTS going into a locked BALLOT box only. Where they will be available for counting and/or recounting.

If the paper coming out of the machine leaves the polling place, all kinds of hell could burst forth... "I'll give ya' $500 for a Jeb Bush receipt," or (from Boss, on election day), "Show me your confirmation slip tomorrow that you voted for President Frist or clean out your locker!"

And it is very UNlikely that voters will receive a paper confirming their vote by the next election, UNLESS we all keep up the pressure and keep on track and message.

NGU and NSU.

[kster]

4. If I was a rich

repug, I would pay 10-20-50 dollars for each repug vote receipt that anyone handed me. Forcing people that needed money to vote against their will.

[kster]

6. By the way

it would be a great idea, if we weren't dealing with a bunch of f*ck*ng crooks ...... NGU

[snot]

7. What wd it take to simply commission TRULY independent exit polls?

[Internut]

8. It would take a TRULY independent organization

(can you name one?) coming up, independently (that is, without taking donations from non-independent organizations) with more than $10M. Then they would have to either commission the poll from a TRULY independent pollster (hard to find) or learn how to do polling themselves.

[autorank]

11. They could do it if they want.

The user formerly know as "Sawyer" claimed this would cost $10 million then he said $100 million before his fond farewell. It's easy to find out since the NEP was just done. Whatever it is, the money is the issue and bipartisan support for this. Keep in mind that the variance between the 1996 and 2000 NEPs was less than .5%. This years shoed Kerry winning through 13000 respondants, 51-48%. Kerry won at each time interval. Then at 12:25am EM (Edison-Mitofsky) re-weighted the polling data, added 660 subjects and came up with, voila, the exact margin of Bush's victory. Crazy huh...

[garybeck]

9. not exactly....

the paper "receipts" will not be handed to the person, if this happens at all. they will be able to view the paper "receipt" before the vote is cast and the paper will go into a "secure" place in case of a recount.

so your idea is already covered.... but your point is correct, that the actual vote cast may not match the paper receipt. And nothing excecpt a recount would catch it. That is bad. That is why many of us are pushing for paper ballots, not paper records (the receipt you are talking about).