Paper ballots NOW!!! Hand counts NOW!!! Impeachment NOW!!! nt

[In Truth We Trust]

[northzax]

1. you want to hand count 100 million votes?

do you know how long that would take?

[wli]

2. It's feasible, use hierarchical subdivision schemes

[northzax]

4. sure, have everyone count their own

plus, you'd need supervisors to ensure each was done correctly, and someone to compile all the information, and then it's have to be counted. and then entered into computers anyway. So there's still fraud. we wouldn't know for weeks.

[wli]

7. at least recounts are possible

Counters on computers are ephemeral, paper ballots OTOH are tangible.

[northzax]

9. where you going to put 100,000,000 sheets of card stock?

times how many sheets were in each ballot, times the number of elections in a decade?

come on, be reasonable. what if there is a fire, do votes not count?

[In Truth We Trust]

3. Yes I do. It is done at the precint level which means counting only

the precint totals. For your information it is done successfully in the most progressive countries in the world without widespread fraWd.

We have done this for centuries btw.

[northzax]

5. how do the precincts communicate to the central authorities?

by computer? and would everything be counted twice, to ensure noone made a mistake? technically, in order to ensure accuracy, accounting firms reccomend that businesses have THREE people count money. so we need three people to count every vote, three people to add everything up, two auditors to ensure accuracy. and that's at each precinct.

you're talking about hundreds of thousands of people.

[In Truth We Trust]

6. either you are being a devils advocate or you are propagating misinformati

on. We as I stated in my first response to you, have done paper ballots and hand counts for CENTURIES. Before computers!

We have the manpower already at the precint level.

edit for typo

[northzax]

8. There are what, 25,000 precincts in the US?

give or take? let's go with that one. There were 100,000,000 votes cast in 2004, roughly. So each precinct averages 4000 votes. To be confident in the results, each vote must be counted by three different people. That's a total of 12,000 votes that must be counted at each precinct. Assume a well trained an motivated person will take, for a presidential election where there are, at minimum two votes on each ballot (president and congress) and likely as many as 10 (there were 14 on the DC ballot last November, in 1996 in Oregon there were 36) It takes ten seconds to register a vote, therefore each minimal ballot takes 20 seconds, plus the time to take it out of the envelope, say 45 seconds. say the average precinct has 21 counters, giving a total of 525,000 across the country, and each ballot must be counted by three people, you have seven teams counting 4000 ballots at 2.5 minutes total per ballot. 10,000 minutes, divided by 7. it would take, therefore, assuming a simple, two vote ballot, 23 hours for 525,000 people to count 100,000,000 votes. That's three working days. Plus the tabulation. and the communications.

We also had slaves pick cotton, and had people weave clothes. turns out machines are more accurate and faster. We used to do a lot of things in this country by hand, before computers and machines took them over. Like churn butter, haul ice, sow and reap crops, grade roads, everything. Then we found a better and faster way. You really want to take 525,000 people and have them counting, for three straight days, plus the recounts, plus the questionable ballots, and all the lawsuits, we'd never know who won, it would take months, and would be no more accurate than machines, on the whole.

[In Truth We Trust]

11. I can wait for an honest result as opposed to what we have now.

btw your scenario is totally flawed in it's assumptions and presentation in comparison to reality. But even given your scenario it is completely legitimate to expect a fair result in a day. Is an honest result worth the wait. It seems too many Americans need instant gratification.

[scarletwoman]

12. As an election judge in paper ballot only precinct, I must tell you that

you're TOTALLY wrong. Once the polls close we stay and count the ballots by hand, all the judges witness and sign off on the count.

We write down the results on an envelope in which the ballots are sealed, and hand deliver the envelope containing the ballots to the county courthouse. The county election official enters the count written on the envelope into the election record. The ballots stay sealed in the envelope unless there is a challenge.

It's not rocket science, and it certainly isn't slavery.

sw

[northzax]

16. what am I wrong about?

how many people count each ballot? one? two? three? according to basic accounting principles, to avoid fraud, everything should be counted three times. how many people do you have counting, and how long does it take? these are serious questions.

1: how many ballots are cast in you precinct, on average?
2: how many people count the ballots?
3: how many people count each ballot?
4: how long does it take you to record the votes off one ballot?
5: how long does it take for your precint to report the results to the county board?

[Eric J in MN]

15. Canada does it.

for federal elections.

One person doesn't count all the votes.

Each precinct.

Canada usually gets the results on Election Night.

[FrankLee]

10. Whatever happened to the paper receipt for voting machines?

Have the Cons effectively blocked it? I haven't heard a peep about it in a long time, and time marches on, closer and closer to the 2006 elections.

It's still beyond me how the Dems can't make the Reps pay for resisting ensuring fair and verifiable elections. Without that, a whole lot of people are going to lose faith in the entire voting process.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. Welcome to DU, Frank.

:hi:

[stepnw1f]

13. KICK!!!!!!!(nt)