WHAT'S THE RUSH? COUNT VOTES BY HAND

[kster]

By: Ed Henry

After month upon months, almost a full year, of boring us to death with their promises, attack ads, gossip, and debates on topics they somehow decided were most important, what's another week or so? Why should we rush to get election results on the same day we vote?

Politicians are anxious to get the results. There's no doubt about that. After raising and spending millions on their campaigns, polls, focused groups, speeches, debates, travel, and months of time and effort, it's only natural that they want to see the results. But patience is also a virtue we expect in our leaders and look what they dragged us through...

Mostly, it's the newshounds that want instant gratification. News is the only industry where everybody is "number one" or "first with the news." And we've all seen the disasters and embarrassment that can cause. Remember the last presidential election with its ridiculous exit polls trying to anticipate the vote by a few hours? Remember Bernard Shaw?

It's about time that we told them all to stick it. It's about time they understood that the American people are more interested in honesty, accuracy, and getting rid of the chance to cheat. From Tammany Hall to today, we've had enough of their shenanigans.


http://etherzone.com/2004/henr021704.shtml

[Peace Patriot]

1. Although I TOTALLY AGREE about "what's the rush?" (I don't care if it takes

months!--Canada, however, handcounts all their votes in a day!), he's wrong about the exit polls. They are critically important to verifying election results, if they are conducted honestly for that purpose--and even when they weren't (2004*) they inadvertently provided extremely important information for analysing what really happened that day. Germany has a particularly good system for handcounting verified by exit polls.

-----

*(Exit polls are used worldwide to verify elections and check for fraud. But not here. At least not in 2004--when the corporate news monopolies, acting through one pollster, CHANGED the exit polls to force them to FIT the results produced by Bushite electronic voting corporations, using "trade secret," prroprietary programming code. Some alert staticians and bloggers, however, caught screen shots of the day's exit polls before they were changed. They showed a Kerry win by 3%.)

[Febble]

8. Two points

One is that one of the reasons speed matters is that it reduces drastically the opportunity for vote-tampering. Our votes are counted within a few hours of close-of-poll, and it's one of the crucial elements that enables us to trust our count.

The other is, well, exit polls.

I am not what your source is for "exit polls are used world-wide to verify elections and check for fraud" but I have seen no actual evidence that this is the case, and some evidence that it is not. Exit polls will always be prone to bias; this is particularly likely with a fearful electorate, exactly the situation where corruption is most likely.

I'll try and look out some sources.

[salin]

9. David Duke vs Edwin Edwards

for Gov. of Louisiana. I don't envy the voters - klansman dragon or corrupt former gov (who later did end up going to jail). The final results, iirc, were MUCH closer than the exit polls suggested. The suggested reason is that people didn't want to admit that they had voted for David Duke.

[galloglas]

10. On the other hand...

There are two very important things to consider regarding speed, and its ability to deter any vote tampering, or any other criminal activity, that argue against your premise below:

"One is that one of the reasons speed matters is that it reduces drastically the opportunity for vote-tampering."

1) On the other hand, it also increases drastically "the opportunity for vote-tampering."

Simply because, once the votes are "counted" (I used that term loosely as to include the "act of tabulation"), there is much less scrutiny given to the "counting", since the election and the results are considered over. Any "vote-tampering" that has been done, at that point, is a fait accomplí.

Slower counting gives more time for the "vote-tampering" to come to light. More hours, more time, more attention. Truly, in this case, Aesop's lesson of the Tortoise and the Hare proves literally the case... "Slow and steady wins the (electoral) race.

2) Any criminal activity like vote-tampering is a considered activity, where the the participants calculate the time and circumstances necessary to engage in that activity.

It is pre-planned with an execution time calculated from start to finish. And, as with both magicians and thieves, time is an element which is cut to a minimum to eliminate.

Consequently, bank robbers use "getaway cars", rather than taking the tram.



A final point and an additional question.

I do not think that an extended counting period of time will lead to many "spontaneous attempts" to engage in "vote-tampering". Persons would either have a plan to execute, or they do not.

Do you disagree, and favor the likelihood of someone, mid-count, deciding to engage in "vote-tampering".


And the question. "Counting", to non-expert lay people, connotes a human activity and intelligence in operation. Do you not think that applying the word "counting" to electronic (or mechanical) tabulation" is a misnomer when thus applied?

I would agree to stop being prickly about the term "conspiracy theorist", if you would swear off the use of the term "counting", except as to the human process of enumeration. Deal?

[Febble]

12. Well, I think when people are considering HCPB

it is worth looking at countries where it works (Canada, UK, Australia are ones I know) and countries where it hasn't (Ukraine? Mexico?). In the UK, we count very fast, which means custody of the ballots is assured from the moment they are cast to the time they are counted. The only vulnerable time is transport to the count, and that is done in sealed boxes (signed by two witnesses) that are unsealed in front of witnesses at the count. The rest is done under TV cameras and in full view of the public (from a distance) and of bipartisans scrutineers (close up) and the candidates themselves.

So election fraud in the UK has to take place BEFORE the election - ballots, or voting cards being stolen, or used fraudulently. Postal voting is another potential vulnerability, exploited at the last election.

It was recently suggested that overnight counting was un-necessary - but many people pointed out that if we waited to the next day to count, then tampering could occur. For any system with physical ballots, the chain of custody of the ballots is of paramount concern. The longer the chain, the more difficult it will tend to be to ensure custody.

Regarding your deal: I don't blame you for being prickly about the term conspiracy theorist, although I do think it is in danger of being perpetuated, possibly damagingly, by those described by the term. I'm a proud "conspiracy theorist" in the sense that I had a theory about a conspiracy. Actually I concluded that the conspiracy in question (a massive e-voting hack) probably didn't happen but it was a perfectly good theory.

But the term "count" is interesting. David G. Mills has been trying to make the legal point that with e-voting, two legal entities - the ballot box and the counting process - are fused into one. I think this is a very good point. I think the concept "count" is a useful one as long as it is not confused, or fused, with the concept of the "ballot". In an HCPB system you have "ballots" and you "count" them. If you need to, you can "re-count" them. Whereas in a paperless e-voting system there are no "ballots" to "count" - there is only a "count" and your "ballot" only exists as an increment of the "count". But the problem, it seems to me, is not the word "count" but the word "ballot".

So here's the deal: we all stop talking about "conspiracy theories" and instead start talking about theories that the US electoral system doesn't count its votes justly. It doesn't. And we (or you guys anyway) demand that in elections ballots are counted - ballots that can be counted as many times as it takes to get the right answer. For which, of course, custody of said ballots has to be utterly secure.

Deal?

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Anything worth doing, is worth doing correctly.

[ArmchairMeme]

3. I vote for hand counted paper ballots

The two towns I have lived in here in MA used paper ballots and hand counted them.

I once volunteered to be a counter. Each team had three people, count, verify, tally and post on wall. It was done during the night after the voting had closed. The town had 2000 voters and we finished the count by 2 or 3 a.m. I am very glad of the experience as it showed clearly how well it works. The town had been doing it this way so they knew how many teams they would need and the room was ready for us to begin right after voting closed. It didn't take two weeks.

I believe paper ballots should be used as each voter can see clearly their vote and there is paper to verify it if there is ever a need to recount the vote. Another thing is that upon entering each voter must identify themselves and be acknowledged as a current registered voter both on the way in to receive a ballott and the way out to place ballot in box while exiting the voting place.

[Contrite]

11. Yes and that town size is equivalent to a large precinct.

Such as mine, which is why we have precinct-based voting in the first place! We could easily get 3 honest citizens to do the job. Guaranteed.

[applegrove]

4. You should put the presidential election on one paper ballot , and all the

other initiatives and stuff on some other system. It would take then 1/2 an hour to count the Presidential ballots. Then they get called in and within an hour the results are know and published (only in areas where the polls are closed). That is how long it takes Canadians to count polls. We only ever have the one vote: "which local party candidate do you want to represent your riding" and the PM is the leader of the winning party.

[galloglas]

5. Even better is this

In the US, hand count four races, maximum. The four Federal position available: President, Vice-President, Senator and Representative.

It takes soooo little extra time to count the three extra races.

The result is Election Fraud is eliminated at the Federal level, in one fell swoop!

[Festivito]

6. The hand count, rather than the machine count, should be the final say.

Add a machine, just not inbetween our eyes and our ballots.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.