Unreliable elections still happening in Florida, Supporters of Democracy take note

"Lynn Ditto" wrote in message
...

"Gabe" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Lynn Ditto" wrote in message
news:vPqdncQKCs7x6fbdRVn-

Do what is required to get a drivers' license - show up in person with
a
birth certificate. Stop doing registration by mail!

I agree with this. This is one of the things I used to do. Register
voters
at different locations. And we asked for proof of citizenship. Birth
certificate or citizenship papers. Need to go back to that. Train
people
to do this at places like driver's license places and at libraries and
high
schools. (Used to register the seniors at the high school every year
from
the government and economics classes)



Well, the first time you get a drivers' license in FL, you have to show up
IN PERSON with a birth certificate, etc. And they have to sign you up for
voting. Easy to tell if you're a dog or not! :-) We haven't voted yet
here, but it's just stupid to not ask for a photo ID when you show up at
your precinct to vote. Flor-i-DUH...
Interesting because in my precinct they ask for id everytime I go vote and
they know me by sight after all this time and still ask. And I am one that
votes in every election.

"me" wrote in message
om...
"Jerry Okamura" wrote in message
. ..
"me" wrote in message
m...
Hatunen wrote in message
. ..
[snip]
I we're going to have all those paper ballots counted, let's do
it the simple way and go back to paper ballots.


Well, actually.....

When all of this was going on, several of the engineers 'round
here,
including some of the guidance and control types, kinda worked up a
system to try to address many of the problems. We came up with
several, but most centered about ultimately printing a paper
ballot, mostly as a confirmation for the voter. (In some cases
the ballot was printed extra larger for the site impared, in
some cases it contained braile). The ballot itself was kept
for exactly what the poster is suggesting, redundancy and
confirmation. It was fairly hard to avoid making and printing
a ballot and answer all of the concerns. The reasons for the
electronic aspects were 3 fold. 1) Ease of counting 2)
immediate ballot checking for errors which would invalidate
the ballot 3) accommodation of individual physical needs. But
a paper ballot is hard to beat. With the addition of certain
security features (bar codes, "water marks", etc.) they could
also be made to be difficult to alter or forge.

Thanks. While you folks were discussin the issue, did you consider the
possibilities of what electronic voting could do for us? At the time I
thought that if we used the technological capabilities we have today, we
could also have a situation where the know disenfanchised voters, i.e.
those
who have some handicap, could cast their vote in secret. For the blind,
we
could have a voice activated system. For those who cannot get to the
ballot
centers, we could have kiosk's located all over the place, assuming they
do
not have a computer at home, where they can cast their vote. The
possibilites are limitless. We could also have something like bulletin
boards, where the candidates, or their underlings, make all of their
positions on a wide variety of issues posted, and we can then argue
about
the advantages and disadvantages of their proposals. The possibilities
are
endless.

Well, you did note I spoke of braille and large print for the visually
disabled right? The electronic part could easily include some sort of
voice activation/recognition/confirmation feature. But the core
was still the paper ballot.

Still doesn't address the issue of the deaf-blind.

"krp" wrote in message
...

"me" wrote in message
om...

Well, you did note I spoke of braille and large print for the visually
disabled right? The electronic part could easily include some sort of
voice activation/recognition/confirmation feature. But the core
was still the paper ballot.

I am sorry all the bitching and kvetching 4 years later are amusing. When
one looks at the now 30 RECOUNTS............. NONE of which show Gore
winning......
What I find amusing (as a Democrat myself) is that ONLY the GEEZER
DEMOCRATS
had ANY problems with the vote at all. The GEEZER REPUBLICANS seemed able
to
read the ballots just fine.

Does this mean that if you are 97 years old and still a Democrat there is
something wrong with you?

If you can't read the ballot, MAYBE you shouldn't be voting!


You mean to say that the blind and deaf blind should not be allowed to vote
because they cannot read the ballot.

"Gabe" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jerry Okamura" wrote in message
...

"fishman" wrote in message
...

"Jerry Okamura" wrote in message
...
Thanks. While you folks were discussin the issue, did you consider
the
possibilities of what electronic voting could do for us? At the
time
I
thought that if we used the technological capabilities we have
today,
we
could also have a situation where the know disenfanchised voters,
i.e.
those
who have some handicap, could cast their vote in secret. For the
blind,
we
could have a voice activated system. For those who cannot get to
the
ballot
centers, we could have kiosk's located all over the place, assuming
they
do
not have a computer at home, where they can cast their vote. The
possibilites are limitless. We could also have something like
bulletin
boards, where the candidates, or their underlings, make all of their
positions on a wide variety of issues posted, and we can then argue
about
the advantages and disadvantages of their proposals. The
possibilities
are
endless.


Or, for those citizens who do not understand the language of their
adopted
country, we could print the ballot in a dozen or more languages, eh?

In most states they already do that. Of course that also
disenfranchises
those who come from countries, who are American citizens, whose language
is
not one of those that are considered to be "important" enough to provide
in
their language.

And what do you do for the deaf-blind? I usually go and interpret for my
deaf-blind friend at the precinct. I am allowed to actually mark her
ballot
after she tells me what to mark. I read each part of the ballot to her in
sign language, she tells me who she wants and I mark her ballot. Usually
no
one supervises this although I really think a poll worker should be
present
as I do it to verify I am marking the ballot as instructed. I wouldn't
mismark it, because it would be betraying her trust in me and frankly as
an
interpreter I don't need that going around the deaf community but some
might.



Good point. But I did not imply that it would help all of those who are
handicaped.

"Benjamin Geiger" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 01:09:33 +0000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Benjamin Geiger" wrote in message
news

All the voting-machine manufacturer would have to do is fraudulently
record every Nth vote for Kerry as a vote for Bush. Unless Kerry wins
by
a landslide (in the actual vote), Bush will be recorded as winner by
the
electronic vote and the paper ballots will never be used.

Only if you set the system up that way. My method would require both a
vote
count from the electronic terminal and a verification of that count by
what
you submit as a paper trail for the vote you cast.

In which case you're counting the votes twice anyway, an unnecessary
duplication of labor (and a potential cause of error).

I can imagine, though, having the voting machines count the number of
valid votes that are cast. If more paper ballots enter the ballot box
than were supposedly cast, then you know something is amiss... but it
doesn't require vote-for-vote matching, and it doesn't require that the
machines be tamperproof.

The paper submittal would be machine readeable,

My opinion on this depends on the exact method used to make the ballot
machine readable. If the text is OCR-friendly, then I have no problem
with this. However, if a barcode or similar technology is used, then the
issue of black-box voting systems shows up again: the user could select
"Kerry", the machine could print the name "Kerry", and the barcode could
be a vote for Bush. The user would be none the wiser.

and would match the vote you cast with the paper
vote.

And you're *still* counting the paper votes.

Let me try to explain this, again... there are two potential scenarios.

1. If the electronic vote count and the paper vote count agree, then
there's no problem, except for the duplication of work.

Yes, a dupliction, but also a verification of the vote.

2. If the electronic vote count and the paper vote count disagree, then
the paper vote count must take precedence.

I would have no problems with that. But why should there be a difference.
I have said that there has to be a match between your vote and the paper
ballot. What I meant by that is, say you cast your vote using, for the sake
of discussion a touch screen. To keep your identity a secret (which
apparently some people think is important), as soon as you cast your vote,
the machine assigns a code to your vote. When you print out your vote, that
code also is printed out. When you submit your paper ballot, that is
machine readable, the computer run checks what is in its memory banks to see
if there is a match between the vote you cast electronically, and the paper
ballot. I cannot think of anything that could go wrong with such a system,
but perhaps someone else knows if there is a hole in my idea.

In either case, the electronic vote count is completely superfluous.

No it is a verification of the vote. It also makes it a lot harder to cheat
the system, by some programmer.

If you set it up properly, the count can be verified
electronically, comparing the electronic vote with the computer run
of
the
submitted ballot.

Then you're still counting the paper ballots. Using an electronic
voting
system *and* paper ballots is simply additional complexity and expense.

Yep. But almost fool proof.

In this case, however, airplanes are not a good analogy, since (some)
twin-engine airplanes can fly, or at least land safely, with one dead
engine. A better example would be a multistage rocket; if one stage
fails, the whole thing fails.

Still a bad analogy. This is not like a multistage rocket, since there is
essentially dual redundancy in the voting system, that I am describing.

"Gabe" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Lynn Ditto" wrote in message
news:vPqdncQKCs7x6fbdRVn-

Do what is required to get a drivers' license - show up in person with a
birth certificate. Stop doing registration by mail!

I agree with this. This is one of the things I used to do. Register
voters
at different locations. And we asked for proof of citizenship. Birth
certificate or citizenship papers. Need to go back to that. Train people
to do this at places like driver's license places and at libraries and
high
schools. (Used to register the seniors at the high school every year from
the government and economics classes)



How do you know that the birth certificate is authentic? Let us say my
place of birth is Hawaii, and I now live in New York. Would you recognize a
valid birth certificate from Hawaii?

"Jerry Okamura" wrote in message
...

"Gabe" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Lynn Ditto" wrote in message
news:vPqdncQKCs7x6fbdRVn-

Do what is required to get a drivers' license - show up in person with
a
birth certificate. Stop doing registration by mail!

I agree with this. This is one of the things I used to do. Register
voters
at different locations. And we asked for proof of citizenship. Birth
certificate or citizenship papers. Need to go back to that. Train
people
to do this at places like driver's license places and at libraries and
high
schools. (Used to register the seniors at the high school every year
from
the government and economics classes)



How do you know that the birth certificate is authentic? Let us say my
place of birth is Hawaii, and I now live in New York. Would you recognize
a
valid birth certificate from Hawaii?
Probably can't but you can't always have the attitude that everyone is lying
all the time. Birth certificates generally have a seal on them. You have a
better way of determining if a person is a citizen. A birth certificate and
a driver's license or state id to me a acceptable proof of id and
citizenship if born in the US. Otherwise proof of citizenship and a
driver's license or state id.

"Gabe" wrote in message
ink.net...

I am sorry all the bitching and kvetching 4 years later are amusing.
When
one looks at the now 30 RECOUNTS............. NONE of which show Gore
winning......
What I find amusing (as a Democrat myself) is that ONLY the GEEZER
DEMOCRATS
had ANY problems with the vote at all. The GEEZER REPUBLICANS seemed
able to
read the ballots just fine.

Does this mean that if you are 97 years old and still a Democrat there
is
something wrong with you?

If you can't read the ballot, MAYBE you shouldn't be voting!

You mean to say that the blind and deaf blind should not be allowed to
vote
because they cannot read the ballot.

Add a pinch of DUMB to that will you? Has anybody wondered why ONLY and
I do mean ONLY Democrat voters in those counties had all the problems with
Chads?
ONLY Democrats? Any RATIONAL explanations? Was it a PLOT by Condoleza Rice?
Or did HALLIBUTON do it? Wait, I know, Bush himself took time off from
planting explosives in the world trade center, right?

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:28:02 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
wrote:

How do you know that the birth certificate is authentic? Let us say my
place of birth is Hawaii, and I now live in New York. Would you recognize a
valid birth certificate from Hawaii?

How would you recognize a valid birth certificate from New York?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Check out the following when you are making fun of the
little old Dem GEEZERS for not knowing how to vote in 2000.
It is not the GEEZERS of which ever party that is the
problem, but the ballot design.

http://www.asktog.com/columns/042ButterflyBallot.html
"Still and all, perhaps Palm Beach is not to be faulted for
fouling up. After all, they had never had such a problem
before. Or had they?

Yes, they had. In the 1996 election, the exact same problem
occurred, for the exact same reason. In that instance, the
Republican candidate, Robert Dole, had 14,000 ballots tossed
out because of double-punching. Why the Republican in that
election? Because Dole was the second name on the ballot,
just as was Al Gore this time around.

Exactly how many massive failures of this kind does it take
to break through the denial of the powers-that-be in Palm
Beach, Florida?

If Jeb Bush had lost the 1998 gubernatorial election, Al
Gore would have been elected president. Why? Because
candidate of the party of the incumbent governor appears
first on the ballot. In 1996, Democrat Lawton Chiles was in
the Governor's Mansion, and so Republican Dole got all the
ruined ballots. With Jeb Bush as Governor, Al Gore found
himself in second place on the ballot, and second in the
count.

Disasters have these strange little complicating factors.
It's one of the things that make them so interesting."


Chip Wood

"krp" wrote in message
...

What I find amusing (as a Democrat myself) is that ONLY
the GEEZER DEMOCRATS had ANY problems with the vote at all.
The GEEZER REPUBLICANS seemed able to read the ballots just
fine.

Does this mean that if you are 97 years old and still a
Democrat there is
something wrong with you?

If you can't read the ballot, MAYBE you shouldn't be
voting!