If the UK can hand count 27 million paper ballots overnight

[magellan]

...why can't we? (There were 27,110,727 votes to count in last year's UK General Election.)

In fact every UK ballot is hand counted twice -- by two different people -- to ensure a correct tally.

So...say 60,000,000 Americans vote in the next election. What's wrong with it taking a few days to hand count the ballots? Where's the crisis?

Too many things to vote for on one ballot? Separate them into two ballots, Local and National, and count the Nationals first.

Not enough people to do all that counting? The UK doesn't have trouble finding them. And they're all VOLUNTEERS.

Sure there are obstacles, but nothing insurmountable. This is the USA. If the UK can do it, surely we can.

[Raster]

1. There is no problem. It could be done here. I maintain Congress could

have AND SHOULD HAVE fixed this mess a long time ago. This is not rocket science. We need to hold Congress' feet to the fire. Never again should we have to worry or wonder if our vote is counted correctly, or for that matter even counted. So it might take a few days. BFD! I would rather know the results are fair and accurate instead of speedy and faulty.

[magellan]

4. Well, as naysayers are always quick to point out

...there's no fraud-proof election system. But I agree with you 100%, right now we appear to be foregoing the necessary care and attention in return for a fast result. Hand-counting paper ballots isn't foolproof but it's a darned sight more reliable than what we've got now.

I've yet to hear a problem paper ballots would pose that can't be overcome far easier than fixing the damn machines -- particularly because there are so many different ones and no national standard of use.

[intaglio]

2. Though I am a big fan of my Country's counting

I have to say I don't think it would work in the States

Over here there are only General Election ballots counted in a General Election; there are no add ons for House, Senate, State House, State Senate, Governership, Dog Catcher or various propositions. Therefore a UK general election will produce 1 sheet of paper with 1 choice whereas with just 2 propositions your system produces either 1 sheet of paper with 9 choices or 9 sheets of paper.

Our system produces 1 ballot with one choice; yours produces 1 ballot with many choices. Our system can be counted manually very rapidly BUT does not encourage voting on local issues - a huge problem in the UK where local elections can produce laughably small turnouts. Your system cannot be counted manually with great speed BUT does produce encourage voting on local issues a huge and valuable addition to your democracy.

[magellan]

3. Thank you, intaglio

I believe the problem of too many elections/measures on the ballot can be worked around by splitting it into two separate ballots. (My husband, also a Brit, seems to recall that ballot splitting is done there in some cases but he wasn't certain.)

For instance, put all the presidential choices on one ballot, while congressional and the rest go on another. That would help maintain interest in state/local measures and elections, plus the second ballot wouldn't have to be redesigned to include congressional elections for midterms.

[TheBaldyMan]

5. we do have local elections at the same time as general elections and ...

referenda have been held at the same time as local and national elections, this meant there were three separate ballot papers but hardly a problem because the system to count one set of ballots isn't that different to that need for three ballots. It just means extra tables to count the ballots.

I can't think of any reason why the US doesn't have a simple ballot paper for each office.

At most there would be Representative, Governor, Senate, 2-3 state referenda, the elected legal and law enforcement offices and mayor. That would be a case of extreme ballot overload but wouldn't happen at every election.

[magellan]

17. Exactly

And hey, if it's a struggle for the states to find volunteers then maybe the fed should organize independent election commissions in each state to find the people required and put them in place election night. It would be nice to have an independent body overseeing things instead of partisan state officials anyway, and it couldn't cost more than the annual purchase/repair/upgrade/maintenance/storage of the damn machines.

[LeftishBrit]

27. I agree

I think our system works quite well. The reason why there is low turnout for local elections is not IMO connected with the ballot system, but with the fact that most people feel somewhat 'disconnected' with their local government, and at the same time that it is less important than national government. We have a tradition of far greater turnout in national elections than the Americans, though recently this gap seems to be reducing.

I agree that we don't have as many people on the ballot at any one time as in some American elections; but I do feel that at worst, an increased number of people on the ballot would mean a delay in knowing the results. I'd rather wait a week or so to know who'd won, and then be reasonably confident of the result, than get a quicker result but with the serious possibility of mistakes or worse, fraud.

[MADem]

6. I like the simple OCR machines

You have a ballot, you fill it out like an SAT test, and you feed it in the machine. You have a computer count, and a ballot that you can check with ovals filled in. Any hanky panky, you check the hopper full of ballots.

It's callibrating these simple machines, keeping them safe and in honest hands, that's the drill.

[Katzenjammer]

21. "keeping them safe and in honest hands"

You've nailed it. That's exactly the problem.

And the reason we have this problem is that the US was DESIGNED to be a plutocracy with only enough of a democratic veneer to keep the peasants happy. It was intended from Day One that the wealthy would rule over the rest of us.

All we have to do is noticed what gets punished. Bank robbery? Ten years! Election theft? A small fine, if anything.

[crispini]

7. We elect local judges in Texas

Our most recent ballot here locally had:

Forty two judicial races. FORTY TWO.
Eleven local bond races
District Attorney
County Clerk
District Clerk
County Judge
JP
County Commissioner
State Board of Education
THREE places on circuit court
FIVE places on the Texas State Supreme Court
State House representative
US Congress
Lieutenant Governor
Ag. Commissioner
Land Commissioner
Comptroller
Railroad Commissioner
Attorney General
Senator
Governor (with FOUR candidates)

This was an optical scan paper ballot that was fourteen inches long and took up THREE PAGES.

We voted almost 900 people at our precinct and it took us half an hour just to get the paper ballots out of the optical scanner machine and into the carrying cases.

Here are our returns:
http://enr.clarityelections.com/Default.aspx?eid=63

Also notice that countywide we have a TON of different federal and state representatives, depending on where you are in the county.

Please, tell me how you hand count THAT.

[TheBaldyMan]

11. Well not having ballots for an uncontested run for office would be a start.

looking at the returns at the link there does seem to be a democratic overload but perhaps those local issues like propositions are decisions that could be taken by local government rather than by plebiscite.

A lot of this stuff seems to be canvassed for simply because it interferes with and obstructs the electoral system making it unwieldy and inefficient. I would also guess that a lot of the local propositions came about because someone saw the opportunity to score political points rather than advancing democracy.

Even then the local issues could be organised and voted for at either a different time completely or given lower priority when canvassed at the same time as national and state elections.

Just a few suggestions, btw is there a verifiable paper trail left with these elections?

[crispini]

14. By law, we have to vote on the propositions.

They're bond issues; that's how they get funded.

We would have to change Texas state law to stop electing judges, and I actually kind of like electing judges. Who knows who is who when you just appoint them?

We already have a local (city) election; it's in May. The vast majority of these candidates are countywide candidates.

Eight of those positions above are statewide positions.

We voted on an optical scan paper BALLOT. Three pages long. Our elections (caveat: OUR COUNTY'S elections, not saying anything else about any OTHER county's elections, ha ha!) work fine and I see no reason to change them just to have a "handcounted" paper ballot. Why this slavish devotion to the handcount? We have the ballot and it's available for audits and recounts. (and if other counties would have similar systems, it'd be all to the good IMO.)

[magellan]

16. You're lucky then

Here we have no voter-verified paper trail so no meaningful audits or recounts.

Your ballot sounds like hell to get through. But a large number of races isn't an insurmountable problem with paper ballots. Computers are fast but not nearly as reliable as hand counts.

[crispini]

18. We have a very good elections adminstrator.

Fair, honest, tries hard, nonpartisan. And most of the election judges take their cues from him.

However, I think if you went in his office to advocate a hand count, he'd laugh himself sick. We had 2000 polling places, and over 600 different ballot styles, in the county. We have a hard enough time finding judges and clerks to work the election -- five per polling location -- that's 10,000 people to just open the polls, let alone trying to find people to COUNT the ballots.

[magellan]

24. 2000 polling places?

For an area with a population of 5.8 million? Greater London has a population of 7 million and approx. 4,200 polling stations.

Again, I say, all chuckles aside, if the Brits can do it so can we.

[crispini]

30. Mm, I don't know exactly where you're getting your data,

Dallas county only has about 2.2 million people, and of that, we only have about a million registered voters.

And, you still haven't explained to me HOW. :shrug:

[magellan]

33. Sorry, I went by your profile

...and this report: http://news.dallaschamber.org/e_article000627438.cfm?x=b11,0,w

"The Census Bureau reports that 5.819 million residents lived in the DFW metro area..."

Just grabbed what numbers I could, not being familiar with how your area is broken down for elections.

If you've only got a million voters then 2000 polling places is plenty. The problem is finding the volunteers to hand count votes, which is why I suggested, in another post, independent state election commissions to handle bringing in volunteers. London has no trouble finding volunteers for its precincts, which I think is a function of the UK's independent election body.

[crispini]

34. Don't...

all states break their voting jurisdiction down by county, except places like NYC?

And, yes, make the hand count somebody else's problem and I'll buy off on it. ;)

[magellan]

36. I think so

But it's early and I was doing a side-by-side city/population comparison when I should have narrowed in on county/registered voters. Apples, oranges -- blame my caffeine deficiency. :)

And it would definitely have to be the problem of an independent body. Can you imagine the hijinks if partisan state and county elections supervisors were in charge of finding people to count votes? Some precincts would inevitably be filled with Coulter-thing clones! lol

[TheBaldyMan]

26. My main beef would be the lack of a paper trail but there is also the question highlighted by

your http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2720654&mesg_id=2721104">#18 post highlights 600 different ballot styles for a single county, I hope you mistyped because I can't help but think that that's why your election system is in such a mess.

Maybe the time has come to think about a statewide standard for every county in Texas.

Also the taxation system seems to be bordering on the feudal. Face it you have one of the crappiest health-care provisions and worst education systems in the US, as well as recent winners of the most polluted state. Excuse me for going OT here but this is an inevitable consequence of your tax regime.

Seems that quite a lot of your state's shit is broke and some kind of civil reform as well as a progressive tax regime would go a way to fixing it.

edited for spelling

[crispini]

31. I think we misscommunicated around the word "style"

... in election-speak, it refers to who's on the ballot. For example, there are four congressional jurisdictions, six board of elections districts, 16 state house districts, etctera. Obviously these different jurisdictions, overlayed, give you different ballot styles. There are 4000 precincts, so I do think 600 is about right, although I will confess that I am pulling that number out of my memory from my election judge training.

I would like to see some kind of changes mandated at the state level, like a mandated paper ballot, for those counties we have that DO rely entirely on touch-screen, like Houston, which is also controlled by a notoriously partisan elections administrator (bad). However, good luck getting that (and all of your other points, which are entirely true, of course, and have been discussed ad infinitum by me and my fellow Texas Democrats) past our idiotic Republican-controlled state legislature. :P

[moondust]

23. Do you believe

that ANYBODY knows all those candidates in all those races well enough to distinguish between them and cast an informed vote for one (or however many are called for)? I seriously doubt it. Nevertheless, some voters will vote in every race simply because they vote a straight party ticket. Those would seem easy enough to hand count.

I do fear that many voters cast uninformed votes for candidates they know nothing about because they feel they have to vote for somebody--anybody--in every race.

I would guess that in reality most voters would only be familiar with a handful of those races and the candidates and if they were casting ONLY INFORMED VOTES there would not be that much to count despite it being a huge ballot.

[crispini]

32. Isn't it wild? I thought the same,

but we only had about half do the straight party vote, and I saw a TON of people come in clutching their "League of Women Voters'" guides, etc. Also there were distinct differences between races, which I thought interesting.

[FedUpWithIt All]

8. I just got back from the UK. I did not know they did this...

until last week. When my friend told me i was stunned. We were watching the midterms quite closely. He said, "I just don't get why you guys use those machines." I had assumed they too used machines. He told me that their vote is all hand count and paper ballot.

It cannot be for speed that we use them. Our results usually end up taking longer due to a lack of transparency and issues resulting from it. It cannot be for ease. They are problematic and prone to power issues and glitches. It cannot be for cost, they are extremely expensive and as the OP mentioned volunteers are the ones who tally the votes in the UK.

Why do we use them?

[crispini]

10. Please, see my post directly above yours.

That's one reason.

Oh, and we had our precinct results in five minutes when we printed the tape and pulled the card out of the counter. It doesn't get much faster than that.

[FedUpWithIt All]

12. I work the local elections here in Ohio.

We use touch screen voting. These are the machines i am referring to.

I think a machine that tally's a card as a simple binary type system would be the most affective and foolproof. Any inconsistencies would be immediately known because there would be no program to change for example, "every fourth vote". It may take longer than a few minutes but to my mind my vote being counted accurately is an important enough reason to wait a bit longer. It is the foundation of the premise "We the People" after all. Without our vote, we are not a Democracy.

I for one am getting very weary of both our impatience and our desire for entertainers instead of leaders. I do not care if it takes weeks to get the most accurate count. I would rather have it accurate than fast. I also do not care if the person who is best suited to serve is able to charm and entertain the masses. This person can be dull, stuffy, awkward and drab as they want, as long as they are able to LEAD, should it matter.

We are getting what we ask for and have been for a long time. Maybe it is time to rethink what is important in the political system in this country and demand IT instead of ease, convenience, popularity and "right now".

I am sorry if this sounds argumentative, it is not meant to be. I am up because of jet lag. And the truth is that i, like skinner mentioned, am not feeling bliss over the recent results. I think we have a lot more work to do while we have a moment of reprieve. We cannot rest on our laurels.

[crispini]

15. I don't see a lot of reason for the touchscreens myself.

I don't quite get your proposed machine, but that's OK, and I don't think you sound particularly argumentative. :hi:

[FedUpWithIt All]

20. ...

:hi:

[magellan]

19. We're the "instant gratification" society

...and we need to move away from that. There's no value in cheap and cheery if it comes at the cost of democracy.

Welcome to DU, FedUpWithItAll! Was this your first trip to the UK? We used to live there and I miss it -- the people mostly.

[FedUpWithIt All]

22. Cheers Magellan,

It was my second trip. When i was 18 i spent one night in London at the end of a two month trip to Europe.

This time i stayed with a British friend in Ashford for a week. I had an incredible time. I agree the people are wonderful. Many of them came up when they learned i was American and complimented us on our election. :) I was quite proud.

[magellan]

25. My husband and I do work for Ashford Council

We used to live in Bletchley (Bucks County) and still have great friends there all over the place. I'm glad to hear you didn't get hassled for being an American -- well-timed trip!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Elections in the UK are horribly dirty.

Jesus, and you think the US has problems. You don't want to replicate the UK system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4410743.stm

[magellan]

13. You must not have read that article well

"Three councillors - Muhammad Afzal, Mohammed Islam and Mohammed Kazi - were found by the police in the middle of the night in a warehouse with hundreds of postal votes spread out on a table.

SNIP

"Other allegations spoke of an attempt to bribe a postman to hand over a bag of ballot papers, and of threats to cut his throat.

"Labour Party supporters were said to have intimidated voters into voting their way and stood over them while they filled in their ballots.

"Some arrived at polling stations to vote in the traditional way and were astonished to be told that a postal vote had already been cast in their name."

SNIP

"The current problems date from 2001, when the law was changed to make postal voting available to anyone on demand - no reason required."


The article states the problems stem from postal votes being stolen and forged and the usual political hanky panky, not from the use of paper ballots. And these are problems we still experience since going to machines; absentee ballots regularly go "missing" on the way to and from voters, and some voters are harrassed by party operatives.

edit: clarification

[Damndifino]

35. Another important factor

From the BBC article:
Judge Richard Mawrey quashed the results of two local council elections in Birmingham after deciding there had been systematic large-scale vote rigging.

The fraud was detected, prosecuted, and the results overturned. Remind me how many allegations of fraud there have been in the US since 2000? And how many prosecutions?

[magellan]

37. Quite true

And even more annoying, there appears to be no will among the Dems to pursue any of those cases. Get over it, indeed. pffft.

Welcome to DU, Damndifino!

[LeftishBrit]

28. This isn't about the usual UK system.

It refers to an experiment with postal voting, as opposed to the traditional system of going to the polls and casting your ballot. Postal voting is IMO much more prone to fraud, and to sheer human error (I wouldn't be happy about trusting anything as important as my vote to the local postal system in my area!).

This example confirms my view that we should keep to our traditional system, and reserve postal votes for those few people who are genuinely unable to get to the polls.

[magellan]

29. In my wanderings around the net

...I spied a few documents from the UK that said your elections body are (or were) looking at e-voting and -- ack -- internet voting!! (I didn't note the date on these, sorry.) I hope for your sakes the mess here has warned them off both ideas.

[LeftishBrit]

38. So far as I know, it's not being seriously considered at present

Hope not, anyway!

By the way, when and where did you live in the UK?

[magellan]

40. Hope not too

We lived in Milton Keynes for seven years till coming back to the US in '03. I missed home, go figure. lol

[Damndifino]

41. I'm not surprised you missed home...

if you spent seven years in Milton Keynes. Though some people like it, I believe (tidy but dull). I hope you spent some time outside the Grid Of A Million Roundabouts, in the real Britain.

On edit: Explanation: A roundabout is a road junction. I believe you call them traffic circles. MK has a ridiculous number of them.

[magellan]

42. I liked Milton Keynes

But too true, Real Britain it ain't. We lived on the outskirts, comfortably removed from the concrete cows, track homes and double/triple/magic roundabouts. (Single roundabouts are great, preferable to lighted intersections, but hubby says MK has plenty of both now, which seems -- I don't know -- counter-productive?)

We did escape the grid; hiking and traveling when we could, and often went into London for shows. There are many things I miss, and others I don't. But you find that anywhere you hang your hat.

Are you in the UK, Damndifino?

[Damndifino]

43. Yes, I'm a native

I have to drive through MK on my way to visit my folks in Wales (I live in East Anglia - you know, in amongst all the US Air Force bases). Driving through from east to west, I once counted 18 roundabouts in about four miles - and I think they've built more since then. It's hard on the gear-shift arm.

[kentuck]

39. People vote by precincts...

They could count all the votes in every precinct in America in a very short time. Then they have to add all the precincts.