What is your concept of a perfect voting machine?

[Virginian]

I was batting around an idea the other night about how could we get rid of some of the problems with all the different methods of voting.

When the voters check-in, they get a ballot card. it is blank except for some sort of control feature to make sure it is used for this specific election, maybe the candidates and date of the election are printed in pale blue ink.

The voter takes this ballot and inserts it into the top of a card printer attached to a touch screen machine.

The voter uses the touch screen to choose candidates and issues.

When the voter is finished making choices, the printer will print the choices in a format in ink that is both human readable as well as machine readable.

The voter can check that the card indicates the correct vote. If the voter looks at the card and finds that it is not as intended, the card can be voided and put into the Spoiled ballot box and the voter is issued a replacement ballot.

In order to exit the polling place, the voter must put this card into the "precinct reader". This would be similar to the readers used at punch card locations. It would read and register the vote on the card.

At the end of the day, there are three separate counts that must be reconciled. First is a poll book count of how many people voted; Second, a precinct count of how many cards were read; and third, the touch screen machines will have a tally of how many cards were printed. Subtract the spoiled ballots from the touch screen count and you get the same number as the precinct tally and poll book count. The election results can be cross verified between the second and third points.

The computer prints the card, so there are no unintentional under votes or over votes because of handwriting or stray marks.
The voter can verify the vote is as desired because he can read it himself.
There is a paper trail for any recounts because the printed cards are stored in the reader until it gets back to headquarters. The cards can be recounted by a machine or by a human.

This may be exactly what Bev Harris and the other BBV people have been talking about, but I have never seen it spelled out.

We already have our touch screens. It would be good to have both the automation of the machine and the possibility for confirmation of accuracy by a human.

Where is the weak point in this method?
The only weak point I can see is possibly the training of the human poll workers.

[ret5hd]

1. pen and paper

[prayin4rain]

4. I concur.

[Sugarbleus]

55. So do I..

In my county, we are still allowed to use paper/cardstock type ballots where you fill in the little box with a marker. Weeeeee

The ballot goes through a scanner, I get my receipt and all is well.

With the "computerized machines", what happens if it's storming outside or someone runs into the power pole leaving NO POWER for the electronic thingys???????? Let alone any cheating, paper trail problems :shrug:

Nope, give me paper and marker/pen any day.

[leftofthedial]

5. yup

and human counters

[DemNoir]

9. You bet

Paper, pencil and counted by hand. Anything else is just a scam.

[billyskank]

13. Yeah

I like the way we do it in Britain, and I don't want to change it. A piece of paper with boxes on it, and a pencil with which you mark an X. What more do you need?

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Options to rank the candidates in order of preference would be nice.

[billyskank]

17. That's OK

you can still do that with pen+paper.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Yes, you can, but you should hear our election officials groan about

counting up the ballots.

[billyskank]

22. I know

it's such a bind, poor darlings! And it's not as if it's important after all...

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Exactly!

[crickets]

43. Agreed

Anything else is just a scam.

Yep, that sums it up pretty well.

[NoPasaran]

68. That gets my vote!

Pen and paper and count 'em by hand!

[reprehensor]

7. amen

[gpandas]

23. what makes anyone think pen and paper...

will work any better than punch cards? i'm sure the du teachers here can attest to the horrible handwriting of our populace, or the spelling habits of a nation, so well represented by duers every day.

[prayin4rain]

28. You would have to circle the names of the canidates you want.

Unfortunately you cannot idiot proof anything %100. I think you would have to circle or fill in a bubble or something, because you don't have to be able to write to vote.

[DS1]

47. Fine, we'll assume the pen and paper ballots with thumb prints on them

are for the GOP :7

[Zorra]

27. Why, that's it! Bingo! You are a bloody genius! Why didn't anyone think

of that before?

Oh, yeah - it would be too hard for republicans to steal elections with pen and paper balloting.

You can count those.

Short video of Democrat destroying electronic voting machine on Nov 1:
:argh:

[Virginian]

33. When do yo want the results and how accurate do you want the count?

It is pretty clear that no one who mentioned pencil and paper has ever experienced elections from the other side of the table. I recommend you try it. Most areas could use more poll workers, ie. election officers. Any registered voter can sign up to do it. Most of the people who do work the polls have other jobs and take vacation days to be there just so you can vote and will be going back to their regular jobs early Wednesday morning.

You can't possibly expect the people who have been at the polls from 4:30 or 5:00 am to have enough left in them to stay up half the night counting the votes after the polls close and get the count correct on everything. We have presidential and congressional races, two state amendments and four bond issues. That would be eight(8) contests to tally and double check. We may have as many as 2 or 3 thousand voters at our precinct. The last time I looked, we had 3500 registered voters and that was last February.

Do you think the citizens are patient enough to wait for a hand count of the votes?

If you use pencil and paper, the vote can be changed. You might want to use a ink. Ink is required on checks. Aren't votes more important?

If you write the names, some may be illegible and get thrown out. We want to count ALL the votes.

As we saw with the scanned Ballots, there were over-votes and under-votes. Some people in Florida voted for Al Gore and also wrote him in so that he would be sure to get their vote. Their votes were thrown out as over-votes and did not count in the official totals. They were only counted in the unofficial recount where we found out Gore won. We don't want to miss those votes!

The internal code of the machine would not need to be viewed by the voter because it would be verifiable by printed card. The average voter doesn't understand computer code, except maybe in my neighborhood or in Silicon Valley. But I agree, it should be open for inspection and downloadable to anyone who requests it.

The system originally described would be less prone to human error or fraud because it had two separate electronic devices holding and counting the votes. There is redundancy in this system that is not present in any current methods I am aware of.

[ibegurpard]

37. No fucking shit!

Not everything requires technology.

[Lost Creek]

42. The best way to ensure a proper count----

The voting machine must give two print-outs. One goes into the ballot box the other kept by the voter. ALL RESULTS ARE PUBLISHED. A ramdom code links your vote to the published result. Results are broken down to the precint level.

[Lisa]

51. actually, a pencil is even better ...

If the ballots are damp, or the humidity is high, the ink can end up getting transferred to other ballots. Important if the ballots have to be stored for a later recount. Pencils don't have this problem. And the bonus is that you don't have to worry about running out of ink unexpectedly (you can see how much pencil you have left).

They taught us this in Elections Canada training sessions.

[Virginian]

54. but pencil erases

the vote can be changed.

[htuttle]

2. I'm a big fan of pencil and paper

I don't trust computers to deal with voting, and I write software for a living (probably why I don't trust the computers in this case).

[billyskank]

14. Me too

I also write software for a living, and I completely agree with you. I don't trust anything I can't examine myself. An ideal electronic voting machine would be an open-source application where anyone could examine the source code, but even more important than this is a HARD COPY audit trail that the VOTERS CAN CHECK THEMSELVES. Paperless voting machines are completely unsuitable for an important election.

[lazarus]

3. the perfect machine?

a pen and a piece of paper.

Works in Canada and Australia. The only machine that gets involved is a standard office adding machine to tally the votes.

[flyingfysh]

6. not every problem requires a technological solution

Pencil and paper, with manual counting, work just fine for voting.

I say this even though I program computers for a living.

[TahitiNut]

8. I don't mind optical scan ...

... of PAPER ballots filled in with PENCIL -- as long as there's an absolutely required manual count of an audit sample to assure within a statistical certainty (98% confidence) that the automated counts are both fraud- and error-free. No automated/computerized process should ever be permitted to go unaudited. Never.

[Jose Diablo]

10. A piece of paper and a pen

with a guard from each party watching the ballot boxes and the manual counting of votes.

[OutsourceBush]

11. The ruling powers will always control either the voting machines or the

counting of the votes. So, the perfect machine will never be built.

The republicans are the minority, the only way they can win is cheat.

[shraby]

12. Pen and paper

Easy, quick and recountable. Eliminate punch cards.

[billyskank]

16. Quick, eh?

let's follow that idea for a moment.

I agree that paper+pen ballots are not slow, but presumably the argument for voting machines in the first place involved either or both of speed and cost.

Elections are the foundations of democracy though, that's that democracy thing that we're supposed to take so very seriously. With that in mind then, is it not worth taking some more time, and perhaps spending a bit more taxpayer's money, just to make sure we get it right?

[TX-RAT]

19. Pen and paper.

And you must present a valid ID with your voter registration.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Gets My Vote (Punny, Huh?)

I don't understand the need for speed over accuracy and fulfilling the true will of the people. If it takes a week to get the vote counted, so be it. Why the big hurry? I don't get it.
The Professor

[leftofthedial]

20. just do what we do now

let Fat Tony Scalia pick

[phylny]

21. Pen, paper, and machines to read them.

We had this ... oh, somewhere where I used to vote. Probably in Indiana and maybe in Virginia, but I don't remember. You have paper with the candidates' names and an oval next to them. You can vote straight Dem or Rep, or for individual candidates.

Fill in the circle, step out of the booth, and bring your ballot to the machine that reads them (much like fill-in tests are graded). There's a paper trail, as every ballot is on paper, and humans aren't counting unless there's a recount, or the machines break down.

[TahitiNut]

35. That's "AccuVote" optical scan as used in some of Michigan...

... including where I vote.

[phylny]

46. Yes, I could not for the life of me

remember that it was "optical scanning" - thanks for you, and others, that mentioned it more or less by name.

I really did think it was a great way to vote, taking care of speed (scan) AND supplying a paper trail.

[Zero Gravitas]

26. pen, paper and a ballot box

no machine-readable anything. Votes are publicaly counted with mmbers of any interested organization present. Works in places like the UK, Asutralia etc, should be good enough for anyone.

[Abelman]

29. A Pen/Pencil and Paper

Preferably a Pen, so it can't be erased. And then paper. Everything is counted by two people, one reading the results and one tallying the results.

I don't trust electronic voting.

[Robbie67]

30. touch-screens

with STRICT oversight and public source-code

[ParanoidPat]

31. Pen, Paper, and a day off to count the votes.......

.......and celebrate our democracy! :evilgrin:

:kick:PAPER BALLOTS ARE THE CURRENCY OF DEMOCRACY!:kick:
DON'T LET ANYONE 'SHORT CHANGE' YOU!

[TO Kid]

32. Toronto's machines are pretty good

They've been in use since 1997 (maybe earlier). Voter marks the ballot, and feeds it into a reader that stores all ballots. Machine shows tally after closing and all ballots are saved. Worked like a charm in the 2003 election with all results tallied within half an hour of the polls closing (too bad the count they displayed favoured a total asshole for the mayor's chair).

[Virginian]

34. That is the second part to the described method.

The first part makes sure that the ballot is valid.

See my other post, I think it is #33 above.

[vetwife]

36. X Markes the Spot !

[Rjnerd]

38. Good and bad...

Optical scanning of marked paper ballots is the most accurate mechanical system we currenlty have. I like the printing machine system, as long as the printed result is digitally signed, to preclude people bringing a few extra pre-printed ones.

The advantage to the touch screen, is that access by the disabled is a bit easier than with paper (a magnify button instead of a large type ballot, a screen reader instead of a braille ballot. Mechanical reading of large type or braille ballots would be problematic. Those with severe motion disabilities (christopher reeve) would still need assistance.).

Using a screen allows easy multi-language ballot availability. It would allow "anywhere in the county" balloting, handling the need for local issue specific ballots as well. You can't get completely away from hand filled out paper ballots, you don't want to mail the machines to everyone that needs an absentee ballot.

I don't object to the mechanized form filling out, just the lack of an audit trail found in the current touch screen technology.

Paper, (scanned or human tallied) does have one significant advantage: They are cheap. Perhaps that is why Diebold has not pushed its optical scan technology that hard. With scan technology, you only need one expensive machnine per polling station. With the touch screens, you need one per booth. You also need need a clean source of electricity, asking for 14+ hours of batteries gets heavy.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. It's electronic, and gives a receipt saying who/what voter x voted for

Thus, it preserves the sanctity of the secret ballot, and gives something to check against in case of a recount. If the recall is warranted, people come forth with their receipts and make sure that each vote is correctly counted for voter x.

This would necessitate all votes to be tagged with a voter i.d. that's not tagged to the individual's name, but it should be doable. The source code and all programming should be public domain, and proprietary software should not be a source of profit; hardware and labor should be where these companies make money.

Nothing is more important to a pluralistic society than proof that fair representation actually exists.

[sweetheart]

40. Boxes of weighted tokens - 0% error

You arrive at the precinct, and there are a series of booths along
the wall of the gynmasium. After registering, you are given a 10
gram weighted coin for your presidential ballot, a 3 gram coin for
your senate ballot, a 3 gram coin for your house ballot, and 20
2 gram coins for you local judges and whatnot.

As you pass in to the first booth, there is what looks like a vending
machine. You put in your coin, and push your "kerry button", It
blinks "Kerry" on the screen "Are you sure?" and when you press "go",
you hear the coin drop in to the kerry box.. clink.

Same same along all the other vending machines.

After the polls close, the SEALED coin boxes are all removed,
sent to the head office and weighed for an instant exact count.

The whole count is known and verified. Your ballots are all
completely anonymous. Recounts are merely re-weighings.

Any senate or local token does not fit in the presidential box, so
that cannot be frauded, as well, the weight of the senate tokens
will add a funny remainder to the total count, in case such a thing
happens.

At the central office, the seals are broken and the coins checked
to make sure that nothing but presidential coins are in there.

All the boxes are put on a giant scale and the EXACT count is
known instantly.

[against all enemies]

49. 0% error? I guess there are no people involved.

[sweetheart]

52. no hanging chads

people systems can be made fault tolerant.

The boxes never need be opened to count the votes. The number of
votes is obvious by the weight of the box. The total votes by
the weight of all the sealed boxes.

No readers, no chads, no mistakes interpreting ballots.

Want a recount, get out the scale. Someone else at DU mentioned a
variation on this using rocks recently, and i think the idea is
brilliant. It is wholly pretty basic.

Imagine the simplest case. 5 boxes labelled with the various
choices sit inside a booth. You put in your vote coin to the
box (big piggy bank) which suits your choice. Voter intent is
really obvious. The whole state can count its votes on a giant
scale without ever opening the ballot boxes. Not a single
vote would be miscounted using such a system.

Beat that with paper, or a touch screen punch card.!

0% errors from the system... and depending on how you deploy the
people, 0% there too, as banks have learned how to manage cash,
similarly, deliver the tokens to the voting site, and make sure
that the number of voters ticked off attending on the register
equates to the sum of the weight of the boxes.

[Virginian]

56. How much would this election weigh. Do the math.

If this county had 240 precincts and if 3,000 people voted in each precinct, on eight contests how much would the election weigh in this county. Pounds and ounces, please.
The contests are:
1 presidential race.
1 congressional race.
2 state constitutional amendments.
4 county bond issues.

[sweetheart]

58. Ok, math.. the paper system loses

Per race, per precinct:
3000 * 10 grams = 30,000 grams or
30 kilograms * 2.20462262 pounds/kg = 66.14 pounds per race per
precinct, distributed between several boxes, mostly 2 boxes weighing
about 35 pounds each (presuming about a 5 pound box). so about

The question is not what the whole election would weigh, but what
the tallies would weigh from each machine in the sealed boxes as
they were shifted at the close of the polls.

These are shipped to central office, as they are, for an official
weighing. Keep in mind, that NO counting is involved at all, as
the weights are completely accurate, and that a box of paper ballots
has weight as well, but incorporates all the overvote, undervote,
chad, and count issues we know so well.

Ok, so adding in 7 boxes at 5 pounds per box, and 66.14 pounds of
10 gram voting tokens, makes the total for 1 race per precinct about
100 pounds give or take.

Then the statewide 240 * 100 is 24000 pounds for a totally accurate
count, indisputable.

If we use 5 gram tokens instead of 10, then obviously it cuts the
weight down, or 3 gram tokens whatever, you get the picture.

Voting machines themselves can be very simple, simply glorified
armoured boxes, with labels on them sitting in a row in a booth
table. Each has a plexiglass token insertion point, and a fail
safe /return lever. You put the token in, and then either press
"return" or "vote". Once "vote" is pressed, the token drops in
to the box, and is never again touched by human hands... only
weighed.

Absentee ballots can have tokens inserted at central office where
the mail-in ballots are processed.

Given the count/recount/error of existing technologies, this is
grossly simple, intensely accurate, and easily policed and tallied.

With a 4 gram token, and a 2 kilo box:
10 races * 240 precincts * 3000 vote tokens * 4 grams/token = 28,800Kg
+ (7 boxes * 2 kilos /box * 240 ) = 3,360kg
== 32,160 KG * 2.2 pounds/kg == 70,900 pounds for the entire
election's balloting equiptment not including the scales statewide.

Now a question in reverse: How much does a paper election weigh
for the entire elections balloting and counting hardware?

I'd be willing to wager, that the paper system is heavier net net,
AND much less accurate.

[Virginian]

59. That was the weight of just a county, not a state.

The old Shouptronic machines were on wheels. I dont' think I could have lifted half of one. The current touch screens weigh about the same as the average laptop.
In every election, the machines have to be delivered a few days ahead of time, so the laptops have a large rolling cart to contain them. I carry all the paper to the polls in a big case I pick up at the board.
Individuals, mostly middle aged women handle the election day process. Would the weight and mass of the "coins" be managable?

[sweetheart]

62. BIG county

Lets say that of 100 million american voters, that 5 million are
in one state. Then by that, 7 times the number i quoted is an
entire state of 5 million voters... more than most states... most
most most.

The coins could be tuned at most any weight, as long as it was
distinguishable by the scale, and so that regular money would not
be insertable in to the machines.

I am a software engineer by trade, and i could build you a voting
system that would handle 500,000,000 users on mobile telephones
and internet that would be as secure as a banking system and
ubiquitous... but i'm suggestion something utterly simple, as the
KISS factor is indesputable.

I think that the coins would be manageable, and they could be as
light as what is reliably detectable on a scale.

People don't trust electonic technology, so why ram it down their
throats. I'm for simple mechanics that are 100% reliable, understood
by all people, and not "hack"'able. Using the system i suggest,
i could easily automate the voting of most states so that middle
aged women could handle the results.... and the accuracy and KISS
factor are such benefits.

I realize you're a pro, and your job is to diss new ideas, but i'm
merely pointing out, that the luddite's solution is often the best.

[ydya]

64. I think the token idea is brilliant! If I may

suggest/ask about a modification. The problem I foresee with a token system is that you have to worry about unused tokens or ballot stuffing using no-show's tokens etc. So there needs to be an identifier. So how about tokens/little electronic bar-code readable chips with randomly-generated unique identifiers. In such a case, the identifier need not reveal the identity of the individual; just an identifier that will be scanned to verify authenticity. At the end, the total can be weighed for count and scanned for authenticity if needed. Of course, we could just go with coins with unique IDs that can be checked in case of a dispute. Something like that. But basically an extension of your concept. I really really like it. Plus the counting is instant. Man, I love it.
I also love your idea that if they have separate boxes for separate candidates, there much less room for confusion.

[sweetheart]

67. yes, and RFID embedded

Then any unaccounted for Tokens can be traced and found in case,
as you say, somebody gets chimpy at the poll and stuffs the
remaining tokens in to one.

Probably, they need not be metal, but rectangular plastic bits with
a RFID chip in the middle. When you arrive at the poll, you get
1 blue one, 1 red one, 1 yellow, and 12 green ones... something like
that.

BTW, Wecome to DU! No matter you like the idea. Its a pleasure to
meet a fellow kerry voter who gives a hoot about making elections
work proper.

:toast:

[sweetheart]

69. Interested?

I'm writing this up as a business plan. I have prototypes already
drawn up. The business is called "Highland Election Systems". It
can hire American engineers with special contributions, as well as
sales people, and offer them the option of residing in scotland, in
the inverness highlands. The marketing will involve scots
speaking plainly, as shrewd down to the last vote. Scots weigh
every vote. The national character works perfectly in tandem with
the technology. Angel finance to build to scale. Most of the product
will be the trademarked election training consultancy that works
with the product. You can pay HES to train and run an election
anywhere on earth. I'm curious whether this might interest? PM
if so. I believe this one, will be the hottest business around
no matter what happens on nov 2, as weighing the votes, with the
whole election-fault tolerance security methodology, will be a
cheaper product than these BBV thingies, with higher quality of
service, and cheaper running costs.

I believe that it will never be financed in america to any serious
tune as the republicans will block it, so better to finance and
run in in an english speaking country, and sell worldwide.
Our product will be such outstanding goodwill and value for
money, as a socially fair company, that it will sell like hotcakes.

We have a finance director
We need a sales director
Several engineering, satellite tracking of boxes using prison collars, manufacture of numbered metal voting ingots (chads), for
the chad-weight counting system, queuing theory people, and
management consultancy.

I don't care if you steal the idea, as there's nothing you can do
if you can't get serious backing, and i don't believe anyone in
the USA financial community has the balls to finance real election
counting. Boy i'd love to be wrong. This BBV stuff is vapour,
and will NEVER be trusted, NEVER, especially in places where
elections are suspect.

PM me if you might be serious about wanting to work in some capacity
with such a venture. The power of the venture is its location,
and copying it won't work elsewhere in the world, as no place has
quite the reputation of long-ancient culture and shredwness except
the swiss, and poeple love scots and scotland. Getting a voting
system from a salesperson in a kilt will be irreplaceable.

[Virginian]

41. I forgot to mention...

We have a voter who is legally blind who was thrilled with the touch screen. She said it was the first time she could vote without someone there to read the ballot to her.

I like our touch screens, I would just like to verify the accuracy of our vote.

If you print out the vote, What good is it if you don't collect the verified print out. Do you really think everyone is going to come back to the precinct with their little paper receipts if there is a recount? How many of those little vote receipts are going to litter the schoolyard or grounds of some other polling place.

If you collect the reciepts for a later recount and spot verification, why not tally them at the point of collection?

[LeftyMom]

44. I like optical scan

Our new system is just a fill-in-the-bubble ballot, which looks like a scantron test. There's a machine to count them, a locked portion of the machine to deposit ballots into for later counting if the counter goes down, and a big locked box underneath to catch all the scanned ballots. It even catches errors like undervotes and overvotes and gives the chance to get one's ballot back make a correction.

If the company that sold the things didn't have any ideological baggage, I'd be thrilled. As is, I'm a bit skeptical but I have hope.

Hand counts might work some places, but I have *25* races and propositions on my ballot, with a total of *72* possible responses, plus a dozen or so qualified write-in canidates. We'd need many more precincts (our county of over a million people has about 175) to hand count that many ballots in a timely fashion.

[Virginian]

57. Wow, I thought our lines were slow because we had 8 contests.

72 possible responses, that's a lot.

I was hoping for no bond issues. They slow down the voting. The lines get longer. People get mad at me because the lines are moving slowly. Undecideds decide -- to stay home instead of getting in line to vote for Kerry.

I think long ballots are an attempt to discourage the big turnout we expect to have.

[Padme Amidala]

45. One with a paper trail and public inspection of all software and updates

The private companies must not have proprietary rights to the software. The people must own the software and all changes must be made with oversight.

[CrispyQ]

48. A human being who thinks for them self,

...analyzes the candidates & issues by doing the homework required to get past the lazy, complacent media & is committed to vote, regardless of how long the lines are.

[dave502d]

50. Pen and Paper

And anyone who can get to any voting place can vote.

[jayctravis]

53. They can have their electronic voting...

my thought was just to change slightly from "secret" ballot to "obscured" ballot.

Ballots are a simple card with a random 12 digit number printed on it and encoded on a magnetic strip. This is mailed to you when you register to vote. The ballot card you receive is randomly generated by a machine and is in no way connected to your name.

In the polling place, your registration is verified by presenting a ballot card and your id which is matched with the voter rolls. The voter then receives a location card which is similarly encoded with data to identify the polling location, county and state. Both ballot card and location card are fed into the machine to activate it. Voting is done via touch screen, and once the voter confirms their selections, both cards have a hole punched through the magnetic strip to void them. The location card drops into a hopper to be counted later as a physical verification of the number of votes that should be on the machine. The ballot card with the 12 digit number is also punched through to void and returned to the voter as a receipt.

Websites would be established for each county, and would display spreadsheets showing every ballot identified by its 12 digit number and what choices were made so *anyone* can count the votes for themself and look up their own number to make sure their vote is accurately represented. The only way for someone to know who you voted for would be to know what your voting card number is. It would be illegal for any organization to ask for your ballot number.

[TrogL]

60. Paper, indelible magic marker, envelopes, cardboard boxes, sticky tape

That's all you need.

[Eric J in MN]

61. Paper ballot, marked in pen, transparent ballot box, publicly counted (nt)

nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

63. pen and paper. n/t

[manic expression]

65. Pen and paper

anything else brings in way too many variables. In this case, the simplest choice is the best by far.

[UNIXcock]

66. A show of hands

:D