Obama/Biden A Common Sense Strategy for Future Elections, This isn't Rocket Science!!!!

[kster]

by Rady Ananda

While machine advocates try to justify electronic voting, even going so far as to add yet another electronic gadget (assuring us this is the magic bullet that will fix all our electronic voting system "glitches"), here's a less expensive, common sense strategy for 2007.

1. Require the Secretary of State to order each county that purchased DREs to prepare to implement a hand-counted paper ballot (HCPB) system by January 1, 2008.

2. Have each set of County Commissioners send a letter to all printers in their county seeking an estimate to print paper ballots, and asking them to submit a written protocol on chain of custody, so that the ballots printed are all accounted for at every moment from production to delivery to the Board of Elections.

3. Choose the printer according to most secure protocol, by reputation for quality and integrity, and then by cost. Each county is limited to using a local printer, and this will boost the local economy.

4. Train all counting team poll workers in the "sort and stack by candidate" method of counting, as used in New Hampshire. Train all poll workers in chain of custody protocol and other election procedures.

SNIP...This isn't rocket science, or computer science, nor is such expertise even necessary. Ordinary citizens are quite capable of running their own democratic elections in an accurate and honest fashion.



http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rady_ana_070102_evoting_exit_strateg.htm

[Wapsie B]

1. Neither should a computerized system that merely tabulates the votes

be all that complicated. They're not designing a new space telescope, just software that properly counts the votes as cast.

[Trajan]

2. Im more or less with you ...

I would not demand that ALL aspects of the voting process be manual ...

I would allow:

1) 'Voting Machines' that simply interface from human touch to ballot production. By using touch screens (NOT DRE), all voters, including disabled voters, can use such machines to make their selections on each ballot measure and each candidate for office, and to mark the ballot, or even print a ballot based on the voter's selections .... and then simply print the ballot out, which is then verified by the voter, just like any other hard ballot.

NO counting is done ... This is only to produce a consistent ballot type from all voters, including disabled voters.

There would be NO network connection ....

The ballot is verified by the voter and carried by hand to the ballot box, where is it dropped into the slot, as usual.

2) After ballot boxes are collected at precincts, and sent to counting centers, as hand printed ballots would normally be, optical scan machines COULD be used to calculate vote totals for each batch of ballots, with a summary sheet printed for each batch (two actually), and the batch sequestered, as manually counted ballots would normally be sequestered, with the batch summary sheets both attached to the batch itself, and also collected, one by one, at the counting location: one sheet per batch. This would occur in the view of representatives from each party, along with local, county and state election officials. The batches would be stored as usual, available for audits or recounts, as required.

When all the batches are counted, and all the summary sheets collected, only THEN can the summaries be calculated, by hand, until all summaries are counted, to obtain the final ballot results for that counting center. This would occur in the view of representatives from each party, along with local, county and state election officials.

Each final ballot result could be collected by the office of the Secretary of State, from each counting center, in a secure manner as they would be for manually counted ballots, and, in the view of representatives from each party, counted, center by center, or precinct by precinct, as necessary, to provide a final state level count. AGAIN: This would occur in the view of representatives from each party, along with local, county and state election officials.

So yes: There are certain processes I would allow machines to be used: To generate ballots from voters, or machines to 'scan' and count ballot choices at the batch level. That is the 'hard work' of counting ballots, and there is no reason to ignore the utility of VERIFIED counting devices that can be proven accurate with simple tests done at the precinct level. The whole operation can be performed WITHOUT any interconnection to a network, on autonomous, discrete counting computers, with optical scanning capabilities. The machines should be designed as stand alone calculators ONLY, with hard coded software that is publicly proven, certified, impounded under lock and key, and administered with strict chain of custody controls in place, and with printed results that can be repeatably counted, if necessary, to assure accurate counts.

There is a place for machines in the voting process, but only with the strictest design and the most public and secure installation possible. THAT isnt rocket science either ....

[kster]

3. Thats just way to complicated, Dump all mechanical/electronic ballot smuggling machines

Transparent Ballot Box, for 500 - 800 Paper Ballots, with Deposit Trap and Counter
Easy to use, sturdy and stackable. Lockable with two individual locks. Deposit trap is operated using a lever which is coupled with the counter. Can be safely stored in the reusable protective box.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3945526&mesg_id=3946108

[Trajan]

5. You know I am not in disagreement with you about the current system

I simply feel that 1) Touch screens can be used to make ballot choices and 2) Scanners can be used for the tedious counting tasks ....

EVERYTHING else is the same .... Even using that box you have pictured would be the same.

There is no benefit, I think, to resorting to counting twigs in a hollowed log ... IE there is no benefit to us by demanding a complete reversal from ALL technology as a reaction to what is now a very precarious and easily defrauded process.

There are places, in my view, that we can use technology to speed the process, without sacrificing honesty, fidelity and integrity ....

Just my opinion ....

In any case, we COULD dump all mechanical devices, and demand a completely manual process, as you describe, but let's be honest: It can be subverted too .... I see no loss of integrity from using SOME technology, where it is safe to do so .... Simple as that ...

[PATRICK]

4. All software

should be open source and as simple as required by the task. Yet I think in the present patchwork demanding a wide range of national reforms that campaign finance reform be the biggest immediate target. Why? All the other reforms can be implemented in grueling, gamed and unsatisfactory ways over a long time, but getting big money out of the apparatus and making non-wealthy Americans more proportionately competitive and represented will be the biggest single step to safeguarding democratic elections. Biden argued that and it seemed at the time he was blowing off dealing with the machines. I think this is the taproot that feeds all fraud and poor representations of the commons, plus its poisonous relationship with corporate media. it also fuels the foot-dragging resistance to almost all of the voting reforms here proposed.

[Wapsie B]

6. I like your system.

Makes sense to me.

[MNReformer]

7. I like it. No electronic machines.

Virtually every expert agrees machines are insecure under any circumstances.

Hand counting is the most secure method. That's why we have our voting broken up into precincts--fewer votes to count.

We could make this part of Obama's community service idea.