We don't need to "prove fraud" to prove the system is broken

[theboss]

I think this issue has gone off the rails. Everyone seems to be waiting for that magic bullet that proves Bush "stole the election" that I think they are missing the point. Bush may or may not have stolen the election; we'll probably never know the real story (though I'm still in the minority here who believe we simply got beat). But the point should be, we will never know the real story because our system is still broken.

Whether there was a conspiracy to suppress the vote or not, the point is minority districts did not have enough working machines.

Whether the vote was fixed or not, the point is electronic voting is unsecure.

Whether Republicans were cleaning the voting rolls or not, the point is theat people did not know where to vote and when some of them got to the right place, they still couldn't vote.

Fix these issues and we don't have to go through this nonsense again.

[Truman01]

1. Don't forget transparency. I agree with you on everything

I also think that the counting and auditing of these vote counts have to be more transparent.

TC

[theboss]

2. Agreed

It still blows me away that states have all these different systems and these different standards.

[OKthatsIT]

26. toooo late for that...Fraud IS OBVIOUS

And we must go all the way with criminal investigation, as well.

Come on, you think this is a soft crime? All the white collar folks think like that, but the lower classes know better.

After all, some kid in the ionner city can be locked up for 20 yrs for 'possession', but Ken Lay can steal billions and he's doing just honky dory.

We Will Prosecute!

[gulogulo]

28. good luck trying to

go to court with the evidence that has so far been presented. I don't think the case would go far. That was the opinion of the three lawyers I asked. They said that lacking "hard proof" - meaning physical evidence of fraud or a confession of a fraudster - there is absolutely no way in the world any judge would be convinced of the fraud in this case. The accusation is too big and the evidence is not sufficient.

Go ahead and ask an average unbiased criminal lawyer. See what he says.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

3. Without evidence of fraud there will be no scandal

Without a scandal, the issue will not break into the mainstream. Without mainstream recognition, there will not be sufficient political will for any meaningful change to be made.

We will be here in two years, and again two years after that, talking about how each election was stolen. Repubs will then have a "super-majority" in Congress and will be able to put through any legislation they want. You can guess the rest.

[gulogulo]

4. I believe it's exactly the other way around

Anyone who goes around shouting "fraud" with no proof gets dismissed as a tin-foil-hatter and no one listens to him/her about anything else, including about reforming our voting system.

[theboss]

9. That's what I believe too...

I believe it's pretty easy to make the case that more voting machines are needed in Cleveland. I think it's pretty hard to make that case when your first step in getting more voting machines in Cleveland is to run off to New Hampshire - probably the cleanest electoral state in the country and one in which we won - and accuse them of fraud. How do you have credibility after stunts like that?

[CantGetFooledAgain]

10. In fairness, I'm talking about hard evidence

...not just allegation. I agree, perception is an important factor. But for real change to happen, large numbers of people have to be made aware that it is needed.

Generally, this only happens in the wake of a major scandal, again, like Enron. So what I am saying is that for the voting system to be perceived as broken, there needs to be proof that it has actively been manipulated.

That is why pursuing this as an investigation into likely criminal fraud is in my opinion our best alternative.

[gulogulo]

11. Again, I disagree

basically with your method there are two possible outcomes:

1. Hard proof of fraud is found. There is an outcry, confressional investigation, general outrage and the voting system change is pushed through.

2. No hard proof of fraud is found. People who kept pushing the fraud theories are dismissed, laughed at and not taken seriously. Whenever anyone brings up election system reform, the whole "fraud" controversy is recalled and a "tin-foil-hat" label is affixed to the person. No voting system change in the foreseeable future.

[eomer]

14. The thing you're missing is that the people pushing the fraud theory

are not getting any attention in the mainstream. They're shouting about it here on DU and on independent, internet-based news media. So they're not putting the cause for election reform in jeopardy - no danger of that since they are invisible anyway.

The only way the fraud allegations are going to burst into the mainstream is if hard evidence is found. So I agree with CantGetFooledAgain on this one.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

17. Let me clarify something...

I'm not at all "against" pursuing a grassroots effort to fix the election system without alleging fraud. The more the merrier! But I believe that this should be only one aspect of a multi-pronged approach. Not everybody in this movement has to or will agree on everything.

I don't think that we should just discontinue our aggressive investigations, legal actions, and pursuit of forensic evidence merely for fear of being labeled as "tinfoil hatters".

Within the law, any and every avenue can and should be pursued. The only big mistake we can make is being passive.

[forgethell]

19. The election fraud

and the voting machine scandal are two separate issues. Mistakes can be made, but it is hard to blame Republicans for errors that are made in Democratic districts, run by Democrats. The state governments cannot be everywhere, that's why there are supposed to be responsible government officials in the minority or blue-collar areas.

Actual fraud, if it can be proven, is not the same thing as butterfly-ballots, long lines at the box, etc. Destruction of valid ballots, hacking the machines, etc. That's actual fraud. Let's prove it, if it is so.

[MrUnderhill]

5. I'm afraid that's not good enough.

ANY voting system has the potential to be tampered with. In 2000, we were clamoring for the "more accurate" scan ballots, but this year they are part of the problem.

There is no foolproof voting system... we HAVE to show actual fraud to make a difference.

[gulogulo]

6. There are systems that are much harder to tamper with:

Here is one I propose:

1. No machines. No matter how "secure" the computerized voting method is on paper, there will always be suspicions of fraud.

2. Paper ballots - one per race. One for presidential candidates. One for Senate. One for House. One for judge. One for proposition #N. Etc.

3. The ballots are marked by pen by the voter - an X in the relevant box. One X per ballot. It has to say in big friendly letters on the ballot that you have to put ONLY one X on the ballot. You put more than one it is disqualified.

4. The ballots are put in an envelope and handed to election worker who makes sure there is only one envelope and drops it into a collection box.

5. After the election the collection box in each precinct is taken into a counting room, under supervision of watchers from every candidate on the ballot. There it is counted by opening each envelope separately, taking out the ballots, making sure there is only one ballot per race in the envelope and announcing what each ballot is. Each watcher can keep track of the totals personally, but the total is kept updated on a board in the room.

6. The counting may take a few hours. That's ok - even if it takes a day or two, it is better than the circus happening after every election lately.

7. After counting the results are phoned in to SOS who tallies them and publishes them, totals and per precinct. Every watcher can look at the results and make sure their precinct's totals are published correctly.

8. The ballots after counting are put back in the collection box, sealed with tamper-proof seals and impounded in case a recount is called for.

[MrUnderhill]

12. Completely unworkable.

EVERY race? Do you know how many I voted on here in NC? And every precinct has counters PLUS witnesses from EVERY race on ALL sides? Do you have any idea how many people that is? And who stands as observer "for" or "against" constitutional amendments etc?


120+ MILLION votes are going to be HAND counted? In dozens of elections? With observers for each? That's not a one-day (or week) task.


And it STILL wouldn't be secure. Too many ways to game that system too.

[gulogulo]

13. yes, 120 million votes *can* be handcounted

in dozens of elections. How big is a precinct? A few thousand votes at most? How many people does it take to count them?

As for "gaming" that system - give a scenario.

[MrUnderhill]

15. Not that way it can't.

Do you have elections workers for EACH race? That's three BOE workers plus HOW MANY observers? I think there would need to be well over 100 "observers" and staff in my precinct alone when we had well under 1000 votes. Where do you get all of these people? And how are the candidates finding THAT many people (espetially the down-ballot candidates or third party slots) to show up in precincts that have few supporters?

[gulogulo]

16. No you don't have election workers for each race

all races are counted by the same team. The ballots are taken out of the envelope and counted, one per race.

1000 envelopes. 3 minutes per envelope (multiple races). That's 50 hours. Make it 5 teams of counters/observers and you can finish it in one day. 2 teams - will take 3 days. Again, that's a lot better than the circus we see today.

[MrUnderhill]

18. Nope. ALL of America would be like Florida in 2000.

It would make us all nice and equal in THAT regard.

And now we have FIVE groups of counters/observers? Let's see... six presidential candidates, three for the house, two for senate, three for the state house and senate (each), six judges in one SC race and two in another, three in the gubernatorial race, three local judge positions (at least two each), three constitutional amendments and/or ballot issues, a few other state-level positions (SOS, AG, Lt Gov, etc) with at least two candidates for each, plus a handful of local races (sheriff, county commissioners of revenue, etc).

Call it around sixty "candidates" that need to be represented at EACH of those five tables...and..

NOW we're up to 300+ workers for MY precinct alone. Yep... we'll get these 1000 ballots counted in no time at all. Assuming none of those 300 wants to actually SEE any of the ballots from where they sit or (heaven forbid) CHALLENGE anything.

It also assumes that each candidate can FIND that many workers. There were more volunteers this year then ever before, and I couldn't possibly find enough to cover every precinct in my area with observers for each Democrat on the ballot.

"Circus" actually describes this quite well.

[gulogulo]

21. you're deliberately exaggerating

it's enough to have two observers from each major party at each counting station, with extra observers from minor parties thrown in here and there.

It would be the responsibility of the parties, by the way, to provide the observers. If they don't, the count will go on without.

[forgethell]

20. An optical scan system

is best, in my opinion. Fast counting, yet a paper trail. On hand recounts, the rules should be clear and simple and uniform across the state. If the voter is too dumb, or too disinterested, to get his vote right, then it should NOT be counted. I don't want her making the decisions about the people who make decisions that affect me. NO mind-reading. Unless all counters agree (unanimously), the vote should not count. This will keep Republican counters from counting non-votes as well as Democrats.

[MrUnderhill]

33. I agree 100%

I can't imagine anything better... or much cheaper.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

23. Paper-based systems not the answer

I understand the suspicion of electronic systems. I understand the desire to go back to paper. But I believe that a well designed, transparent, universal, non-proprietary, open-source, computer-based voting model would make elections far more secure, not less.

Here's what I want voting to look like. Please read, then let the flaming begin. But remember, we all want the same thing: honest elections.

I want a positive way for me to know that my vote was counted correctly. When I vote, I want to be issued a code that I can use to look up my vote in an election database and know that it was registered exactly as I intended it to be.

I want to be able to download, browse, or search that database, and see my vote side-by-side with that of everyone in the country. No names, only codes. I want my local newspaper to publish the local results too.

I don't want to HAVE to go to a special building to vote. I want to be able to vote on my computer. Or any Internet connected computer. And I want the back-end software to be smart enough, and secure enough, to prevent me from voting twice.

I don't want to have to vote on a particular day. I want a two-week period in which to vote. And if I haven't voted within the first week of that one-week period, I want someone to call to remind me to vote and tell me all the different ways that I can do it.

I don't ever want to hear again about overvotes, or "spoiled ballots". I don't want to have to worry about someone tampering with a ballot, or with a machine. If I choose to undervote, I should be informed and warned about this before my ballot is cast.

I want a voting model (or system, or architecture, whatever term you prefer) that has been vetted by the best minds in this country and determined to be safe and secure. I want a voting model that is so open, so easy to use, that voter turnout increases by 25% the first time it is used.

I want recounts to be a thing of the past. The recount is me, and millions of other people, looking up our vote on the web and saying, "yep, that's how I voted".

Finally, I don't want "voting officials" to have enough power to affect the outcome of the election in any way.

[gulogulo]

25. your requirements violate one of the main principles

on which the voting in the US based: the fact that you cannot prove to anyone how you voted. With your system one could buy votes and pay when proof of voting a certain way was presented.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

27. In a situation where 125 million votes were cast...

How much would one vote be worth? Would it be worth the risk of approaching someone you don't know, and offering them money or some other reward for voting a particular way? Knowing that they may be someone who will, in fact, document the fact that they are trying to buy your vote and then turn you in to the authorities?

Let's say Bush won by about three million votes. For Kerry to turn that around through a vote-buying scam, he would have to invest 1.5 million dollars to get 1.5 million people willing to sell their vote for 1 dollar each. And expect not to get caught.

Sorry, I don't see that as a significant enough risk to offset the benefits I have described.

[gulogulo]

29. it does not have to be money -

it can be favors, it can be employment, it can be all kinds of things. Again, you want to toss one of the main principles of the system - a secret ballot (meaning there is no way to find out how someone voted, even with the voter's permission).

[CantGetFooledAgain]

30. I understand the principle of the secret ballot

And if you can show me a fully transparent, open, verifiable system that preserves the secrecy of the ballot, then sign me up.

[gulogulo]

32. it is not a "fully transparent, open, verifiable" system

that allows voting fraud by buying votes. Or trading favors for votes. Or conditioning employment on votes. Or a myriad other things that are possible when the secrecy of the ballot is broken.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

36. Risks vs. Benefits

That's what everything comes down to. Nothing is risk free, and risks can be mitigated.

We agree the system is broken. I try to fix broken processes every day as part of my job. What I have found is that the best solutions come out of flexibility and willingness to consider unconventional alternatives.

The "ideal" system won't be yours, or mine. It will be a product of dialog and discussion on the part of many, many people.

And guess what facilitates that conversation: modern computer technology, the Internet, and databases.

I respectfully disagree with the position that the "best" voting system in the computer age is millions of slips of paper dropped in tens of thousands of boxes across the country and counted by hand.

(edited for wording)

[MrUnderhill]

35. We had the 2000 election... and we STILL have people saying:

"How much would one vote be worth?"

Amazing!:shrug:

[CantGetFooledAgain]

38. I think you're missing something...

The reason Florida in 2000 was apparently so close was because of massive disenfranchisement.

Had everyone entitled to vote been permitted to vote, Al Gore would be POTUS today.

Can elections be close? Yes, of course they can. My point about vote buying was a practical one: there is no model that I can see right now that has the risk of vote buying being more significant than the benefits that would accrue from each voter being able to independently confirm that their vote was counted correctly.

What is this based on? My personal opinion. Amazing!

[mgr]

34. Cool if everyone had internet access and computers

I don't, this is from work.

Mike

[CantGetFooledAgain]

37. Got access to a public library?

Furthermore, I'm not suggesting "exclusively" Internet voting. I'm suggesting Internet voting as an alternative to conventional voting to those millions and millions of people for whom it would make voting more convenient.

I know it's not a popular position.

[eomer]

7. Absolutely right that the system is broken.

In fact the system is a farce.

In Florida 2000 the right to a recount turned out to be an empty right because the clock ran out.

In Ohio 2004 the right to a recount will turn out to be an empty right if Blackwell gets his way because he is trying to run out the clock. Hopefully Arnebeck and/or Bonifaz can defeat this maneuver.

There are many ways in which the system is broken. In fact there is really no way in which it is not broken.

On the other hand, the quickest way to get reform onto the front burner is to find hard evidence of fraud in this election. And I'm in the camp that won't be convinced that there wasn't fraud so long as the attempt to avoid shedding light in various places continues.

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. "And I'm in

the camp that won't be convinced that there wasn't fraud so long as the attempt to avoid shedding light in various places continues".

The most basic common-sense, isn't it?

And the fact that getting to the truth of an election result should always entail that members of the electorate pay to litigate, often, as in this crucial state of Ohio, against flagrant, fraudulent partisan abuses by the very authorities who are supposed to guarantee the validity of the election, is truly shocking. It's Herod baby-sitting again.

[Raster]

8. I believe the election was stolen through a VARIETY of methods.

Among the techniques employed: (1) voter suppression through the use, or rather the lack of use, of a sufficient amount of voting machines. In yet another "amazing" coincidence, NOWHERE, in any predominate republican voting district IN ANY STATE did anyone report a shortage of voting machines. The only voting districts/precincts that reported a shortage of voting machines were predominately minority, and/or predominately democratic. In fact, there is documented evidence that many predominately white/republican precincts had MORE voting machines and other resources than they should have.

(2) A person of intelligence only has to open their eyes and ears to KNOW that electronic shenanigans and tomfoolery were the normal in this election and not the exception. The list of problems, taints, breakdowns, etc. with electronic voting would be almost comical if it weren't such an overt tragedy.

That's just two. The list stretches for pages and pages. If this had been a clean, fair, unblemished election, Kerry/Edwards win by a mile. Unfortunately too many Americans still can't look the ugly truth in the face: government of, for and by the people doesn't exist in this country anymore, and our national elections are nothing but a sham. The fix is in, and the health of the republic is far worse than imagined.

[suston96]

24. Good post!

Agree completely.

We have no way to prevent theft and no way to fix it if it occurs.

The more technological an election system is, the easier it is to steal the election.

Why? Because those who are appointed to safeguard the system do not have the technology background needed to catch the thieves.

[mgr]

31. Terms too general to be meaningful, Ohio reform now, not next time!

As far as I can tell there are three Fraud scenarios: nation wide to obtain the popular vote, touch screen paperless voting in several states (FLA, OH, NM, as examples), and Ohio. Dissecting these three, I would agree that the issue is probably "off the rails" for the first two scenarios, but not the third.

I agree that we are off base in the manner we approach the issue, it would be best to propose a null hypothesis contrary to Fraud, and attempt to disprove it, rather than presume Fraud and rally the data to support it, and a lot of the reasoning is circular.

A second null hypothesis would be there were insufficient election irregularities that would alter the outcome of the presidential election. It is the second hypothesis we need to work to disprove, leave the intent of Fraud out of it for now. I would apply this to Ohio.

1.) Suppression of vote in Cleveland, it may be a Democrat run BOE, but it can still be incompetent, or corrupt. Currently, they appear to be blaming the SoS Blackwell, but I don't see the accusations as pertinent. If ten percent of the voters left because of long lines, would this be sufficient to overturn the results of the election? Would it be necessary?

2.) County wide under reporting of Kerry vote on election night, would this lead to a decision, conceding, that might not have been made if the margins reported were smaller, thus leading to a more vigorous effort to redress the election results by addressing the 97,000 under/over count ballots. Would this be necessary or sufficient to overturn the results?

3.) Machine errors resulting in miscount of votes, would these be sufficient or necessary to over turn the results?

I am sure others can provide additional documented circumstances without resorting to the F word

--except for #1. although the key there is that predominantly African American precincts were provided fewer voting machines than predominantly white districts; of course if the responsibility were with the SoS, then it would need to be between a predominantly democratic county versus a predominantly republican county--.

Does what I provide disprove the null hypothesis?

[Senator]

39. No "next time," no "reform." We need action NOW!

We can and must "create a consequence" for this travesty.

You must make the injustice visible. -- Gandhi

Force our "leaders" to take a stand.

www.thedeanpeople.org

(Will you act or just complain?)

__