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

"Benjamin Geiger" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:46:05 +0000, Jerry Okamura wrote:

Not sure if this is going to work, but.... Let us say that we have
something like a touch screen voting system. Let us then say that we get a
printout of our selection. After we cast our vote electronically, we submit
a paper copy of our selection, just like we do now when we complete our
ballot. The paper copy is then sent to some processing center, where every
paper ballot is counted to verify the count. Let us further say that there
is a way to electronically compare what we did when we cast our vote
electronically, to the paper ballot vote. Doesn't that solve the problem?

The electronic votes are useless, since the paper still has to be
counted. If you're going to count the paper ballots anyway, why bother
with the electronic device?

Ideally, the touchscreen device would serve solely as a device to print
paper ballots. It wouldn't need to keep any electronic votes or have an
electronic audit trail; every vote is stored as a unique piece of paper.
The ballot box could simply be a scanner; it would pull in the ballot,
check for valid OCR text (two adjacent holes in a punch card look similar,
but "John Kerry" and "George Bush" are completely distinct), and if it's
not found or invalid, spit it out and complain. (The mark-the-oval system
does something similar, except it looks for the darkened oval.)

Ideally, we need voters with a modicum
of common sense.

Hatunen wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:46:05 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
wrote:


Not sure if this is going to work, but.... Let us say that we have
something like a touch screen voting system. Let us then say that we get a
printout of our selection. After we cast our vote electronically, we submit
a paper copy of our selection, just like we do now when we complete our
ballot. The paper copy is then sent to some processing center, where every
paper ballot is counted to verify the count. Let us further say that there
is a way to electronically compare what we did when we cast our vote
electronically, to the paper ballot vote. Doesn't that solve the problem?

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.

The point is not to count the paper ballots, but to have
them for recounts.

The voter votes by touching the screen, the paper ballot is
printed, verified by the voter that all votes got recorded
correctly, he then hits the "Enter" button, and puts the
paper personally into a locked box. The total is counted
electronically from the touch screens. The machine will not
allow double votes and mistakes. Nobody will mess with the
electronic counts, because they know it can be checked by
counting the paper which is nice and neat and easy to read.

I would never allow my local gov to buy electronic voting
without a paper trail.

--
Chip Wood

"Hatunen" wrote in message
Not sure if this is going to work, but.... Let us say
that we have
something like a touch screen voting system. Let us then
say that we get a
printout of our selection. After we cast our vote
electronically, we submit
a paper copy of our selection, just like we do now when
we complete our
ballot. The paper copy is then sent to some processing
center, where every
paper ballot is counted to verify the count. Let us
further say that there
is a way to electronically compare what we did when we
cast our vote
electronically, to the paper ballot vote. Doesn't that
solve the problem?

I we're going to have all those paper ballots counted,
let's do
it the simple way and go back to paper ballots.
*

This is not true, every election board does a bi-partisan
check on some of the races to see if their systems are
working correctly. If they don't, throw the rascals out.

Also with a paper trail to catch them, most will not risk
tampering.

--
Chip Wood
"Benjamin Geiger" wrote in
message news
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:03:55 +0000, Frank Clarke wrote:
Except the paper will never be counted unless the
electronic vote is
extremely close, and if the machines are rigged, the
electronic vote will
never be close...

"Chip Wood" wrote in message
...

I would never allow my local gov to buy electronic voting
without a paper trail.

Do you have that power?

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:39:34 GMT, "Gabe"
wrote:

It seems to me that people from every place but Florida are trying to tell
Florida how to count their ballots. Worry about your own state and let
Florida worry about theirs.

When it directly affects who MY next president will be or which
party will control the House and the Senate it's my worry, too.

They can elect their governor using pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey
methods, as far as I'm concerned.

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

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 22:39:34 GMT, "Gabe"
wrote:

It seems to me that people from every place but Florida are trying to
tell
Florida how to count their ballots. Worry about your own state and let
Florida worry about theirs.

When it directly affects who MY next president will be or which
party will control the House and the Senate it's my worry, too.

They can elect their governor using pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey
methods, as far as I'm concerned.


I DO live here, so I have every right to criticize it.

Also, if the State of Florida can't take millions of dollars and correct
this embarrassment, then it is EVERYONE'S PROBLEM. Why can't Florida take a
look around and see what works for other states & make the appropriate
changes??? I didn't live here in 2000, and because of my involvement as a
volunteer in a major party, I'm seeing things first hand and hearing stories
that make me sick. When little old ladies in Palm Beach County are
registering their poodles to vote & getting away with it, THERE IS A
STINKING PROBLEM!

Lynn

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:46:05 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
wrote:


Not sure if this is going to work, but.... Let us say that we have
something like a touch screen voting system. Let us then say that we get
a
printout of our selection. After we cast our vote electronically, we
submit
a paper copy of our selection, just like we do now when we complete our
ballot. The paper copy is then sent to some processing center, where
every
paper ballot is counted to verify the count. Let us further say that
there
is a way to electronically compare what we did when we cast our vote
electronically, to the paper ballot vote. Doesn't that solve the
problem?

I we're going to have all those paper ballots counted, let's do
it the simple way and go back to paper ballots.

Which paper ballot system are you talking about...the punch card system?

"me" wrote in message
m...
Hatunen wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:46:05 GMT, "Jerry Okamura"
wrote:


Not sure if this is going to work, but.... Let us say that we have
something like a touch screen voting system. Let us then say that we
get a
printout of our selection. After we cast our vote electronically, we
submit
a paper copy of our selection, just like we do now when we complete our
ballot. The paper copy is then sent to some processing center, where
every
paper ballot is counted to verify the count. Let us further say that
there
is a way to electronically compare what we did when we cast our vote
electronically, to the paper ballot vote. Doesn't that solve the
problem?

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.

"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?

Chris