Just called my rep. Tammy Baldwin, WI-2

Keep up the good work you guys!  Let's fix this thing!

As you asked...

HR550

I also spoke with Sen. Lamar Alexander's office and suggested that if a similar bill has not been initiated in the Senate, that he consider sponsoring one.  Again I was treated courteously and warmly.

VOTERS VERIFY

I hope we all understand that, for electronic voting, a voter-verified paper record is better than nothing - but not by much.  I'm told and believe that it is quite easy to create a program which will generate a paper record saying that your vote is being recorded for "X," while the machine actually records your vote for "Y."  So, "Y" wins and no one is the wiser.

The only way to avoid this is to do away with electronic voting entirely.  The actual vote itself must be on a hard copy or card which is counted by a real person.

Of course, it's possible for that real person to cheat, too.  It's much more difficult, though, if observers are required at the counting.  Further, it would take more "cheaters" to have an appreciable effect on the election.  With electronic voting, one or two people could rig the vote statewide - or nationwide.

I hope Common Cause will make abolition of electronic voting its highest priority.

Mike Suarez

Voter Machine Design

BDawn
====
 In reference to voter machines, why don't you do an article comparing the various machines that DO "take care of business" using PAPER and electronics without a live person, such as ATMs and Casino machines and gas pumps, etc.?

I wrote a letter to the editor about money allocated in 2003 for election reform but has not been spent (letter from Kay Bailey Hutchison). More funds are being designated for the same thing in 2005. I don't yet know if my letter will be published.

My husband and I went to see the new Hobbs Black Gold Casino. We aren't big gamblers, but our interests ARE quite eclectic. We usually spend no more than $20 or so just to see what happens.

At the new casino, there are amazing machines. You put your money in and in the lower left corner is a digital readout telling how much "cash" you have left in your "account". As you win, that amount is added. As you lose, it is subtracted -- but the readout is constant -- you always know how much money you have.

When you get ready to cash out, with a punch of a button, a barcoded "receipt" with the amount printed on it is spit out. You take the "receipt" to another machine (near the LIVE cashier window) and feed it into the slot. Out comes crisp bills and coins IN THE CORRECT AMOUNT.

Now....if casinos trust their MONEY to a machine, why can't we build voter machines that are as efficient and accurate? I imagine voting machines that will show a digital LED screen showing each vote as it is punched in so the voter can see what he/she has voted on (and recorded electronically in the machine), then the barcoded "receipt" can be taken to a verification machine to have a "backup" count and paper trail, and the final "receipt" (instead of crisp dollar bills) can be spit out thanking the citizen for voting with his/her choices printed on the "receipt".

You would then have THREE checks -- the voting machine, the tallying machine (with the marked paper ballot receipts stored inside), and the voter's receipt. If a recount is demanded, it would be very easy to scan the stored paper receipts with a bar code reader. There would need to be one or two people in the room who could help people get started using the machines, but from our observations, all kinds of people very quickly figure out how to use the electronic slot machines!

Each candidate could even be identified with an image. Campaign advertisements could tie the candidate with his/her image that will be on each LED screen as voters vote. Voters' voter cards could be barcoded to register for voter count -- not for ID.

Paper ballots only!!!

The only way to avoid this is to do away with electronic voting entirely.  The actual vote itself must be on a hard copy or card which is counted by a real person.

Of course, it's possible for that real person to cheat, too.  It's much more difficult, though, if observers are required at the counting.  Further, it would take more "cheaters" to have an appreciable effect on the election.  With electronic voting, one or two people could rig the vote statewide - or nationwide.

I hope Common Cause will make abolition of electronic voting its highest priority."

voting

HR550: Just as bad as electronic machines

What's printed on the paper isn't necessarily what's recorded in memory.  (ever notice how, when you type a password it appears as ***?) And a good programmer will always avoid margins which require recounts.

In Oregon we vote by mail on paper ballots you fill out with a pencil or pen.  They're read optically on machines which are tested twice just before the official count and once afterward using a know batch of ballots.

Signatures are matched in every case by trained people who are employees of the various county clerks.

This last election we had no challenges.  The first results were being released within minutes of "poll closing."  Every step except one could be repeated had it been necessary.

And best of all: it cost this small state $3.5 million less than an election using polling places (paper ballots) and a lot more than that had we chosen to use computer based machines.

Oregon is one of the few states which already has complied with HAVA.

And one other thing: when poll watchers observe the count, it's quite clear what's going on.  We don't need programmers to interpret the programs.  We know for sure what the vote was.

Back to those little scraps of paper: how are you going to count them and under what circumstances.

Keep it simple.  Even if it means keeping ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN (Fox doesn't count) waiting until the next morning.

ryarnell

From someone who votes with paper and pen

I have had the exciting experience of being part of a recount. I was amazed to see all the ways that voters' intentions could be misconstrued by the partisans on each side. I was equally amazed to see all the ways that a voter can screw up a ballot when allowed to go at it with a pen!

In 2000, an election for state representative was called incorrectly in my county. The tally of paper ballots had been added incorrectly by the poll workers. It was an honest mistake. Luckily the mistake was discovered, but only because the race was tight enough to trigger an automatic recount.

Not too many years ago, an aide to the speaker of the house in Maine was caught trying to steal a box of paper ballots. Sad but true, elections can be stolen, no matter what the voting method.

Common Cause is working hard to make realistic improvements in our voting system. Do we think that all voting machines should have open source codes? Yes. Do we think there should be surprise random recounts? Yes. Do we think that absentee voting should be available to anyone who wants it? Yes. Should elections officials be nonpartisan? Yes. But is paper and pen the panacea? Sorry, I just don't think so.

Barbara Burt, Common Cause Election Reform Team Leader

Voter Verification

I am hoping very much that you will thoroughly understand and consider or question me about above and give me a reply.

Hope all continues well for you and Poldi in Oklahoma!

Best for Life and Engineering, Harry

Harry J McNally Jr, PE, MBA, PESUC President 2002-5

County board of elections members

Frankly, after the way Ohio's county boards of elections worked in the 2004 presidential election, I don't trust either party.  We have way too much power in the hands of these two parties. In my county the two Democrats voted for Diebold's machines while the Republicans were opposed.  The two Democrats had NO clue about the problems with paperless electronic machines. Also, too many Democratic board members went along with the bogus presidential recount process in many counties.  

The minor party presidential candidates were the only ones who challenged the presidential results in this state. Let's keep these groups involved in the process.  And I'm not a member of either of these third parties.

To improve our democracy we need control out of the hands of the in-crowd of both parties.

Retired in Ohio

Realistically ...

I think the best solution is to have electronic machines that print human- AND machine-readable ballots on material as specialized as currency.  If this were the case, each voter could independently verify his or her ballot before dropping it in the slot (and request a new ballot if needed), language and visual-needs accomodations could be preserved, automatic tallies could be continued, counterfeiting would be very challenging, and indepently-certifiable manual and digital recounts would be possible in every district.

Without the option of manual recounts, voting is meaningless, and without making it available to every qualified person who wishes to vote, it's just mean.

electronic voting

The commonly proposed solution is a paper receipt but this too is inadequate. What would achieve transparency is access and availability of all recorded votes in an electronic form to both parties, the media and to any organization who requested it; and the publication of these records in the polling station or newspapers on the following day.

To preserve anonymity each person should be given a polling number so that he can check how his vote was recorded.

This would allow individuals, parties and other organizations the opportunity to verify locally, by precinct, by district, state and country how correctly their votes have been cast and accumulated.

To have any confidence in the electoral system it should meet the above requirements.

Comparisons are made with ATMs and their receipts but there is an important distinction. After an ATM transaction you walk away with the important thing - THE MONEY. In electronic voting the privatized system walks away with the important thing - YOUR IDENTITY AND YOUR VOTE. What is done with that vote is still any ones' guess.

Granted the proposal brings us back to the position we once enjoyed when paper ballots could be recounted. But if we are to buy into the advantages of electronic voting we should be insisting on the intrinsic benefits of electronics which is to make the same information immediately available to independent auditors