Lowdown tricks sap poll-watcher's faith in fair US Voting

[Generator]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/margie_boule/index.ssf?/base/living/1101215142230890.xml


'Lowdown tricks' sap poll-watcher's faith in fair U.S. voting
Tuesday, November 23, 2004

~Snip~

Soon after the polls opened, problems began. "I started getting people from a neighboring precinct coming to vote." Tina explained they had to vote in their own precinct. "They said they'd been called over the weekend and told to come here. Some people had even been told, while waiting in line at their correct precinct, to come here.

"That's the first indication we got that people had been deliberately misinformed," Tina says.

Tina worked nine hours election day. She talked to a woman who said the voting machine had repeatedly registered the wrong presidential candidate. After 8 or 9 tries, it finally showed the candidate she had selected.

"Another lady said when she got to her review screen," at the end of the voting process, "the opposing presidential candidate was listed. . . . She called the poll worker and demanded it be fixed. The poll worker went back through the screens" and agreed the woman had voted for a different candidate than the review screen showed. "The poll worker said, 'The review screen is wrong, but just go ahead and punch the confirmation button.' The woman refused. She made the poll worker cancel out the transaction, and she voted again. But how many people would do that -- go against what the poll worker advised?"

****
Reporting by Ms. Margie Boule in the Oregonian today.

[IAMREALITY]

1. Sighhhh,

All I can say is thank GOD the GAO will be investigating, and I can only hope that EVERY single one of these stories comes across their desk..

[Eric J in MN]

2. "opposing presidential candidate"

This article seems to be a way to AVOID saying people who voted for Kerry on ES&S touchscreen machines got Bush on the confirmation screen.

Suddenly, the candidates aren't named "Kerry" and "Bush" but "presidential candidate" and "opposing presidential candidate."

[Demit]

3. well, it is a way of pointing out the machines were screwy regardless.

That's going to be the way we maximize attention. Otherwise it's too easy for people to tune the story out right off as "sore losers whining". See what I mean?

[Eric J in MN]

4. I guess that a Republican might have doubts about

touchscreens after an article on the wrong candidate appearing on the confirmation screen which doesn't name them.

The best method is public hand-counts, but at least we should use optical scan ballots instead of touchscreens.

[AndyTiedye]

5. The Best of the Best

Optical Scan for quick results,
and then recount by hand to keep everyone honest.

[mcg]

6. yes and the hand recounts should be automatic

[consciousobjector]

7. Yes I agree!

[Eric J in MN]

8. yes, and done on the night of the election, with citizens welcome

to watch, in the same room as the voting took place in.