Do you trust your county election process?

[fj bertrand]

In our rural county we use OCR (optica character reading) paper ballots. I take a #2 pencil and darken the oval.

As I ran for office, I was present when the ballots arrived at the county courthouse and were run through 2 different readers in two different rooms. The ballot count was thus audited upon arrival. With a small, sparsely populated county, this is a very efficent system.

Yet my sister votes in Palm Beach Co Fla and is trying to get an absentee ballot as it is such a mess and she doesn't trust the county elections office as they bumbled last years midterms election while using electronic ballots.

So, will we get a good count this year?

[KirkVining]

I think we are headed for riots over this. Why would an electronic machine not have a paper trail? Call it what you want, tinfoil hat, conspiracy, whatever, there is something extremely unsettling about that. I would not vote on an electronic device, because I am a computer programmer. Three lines of code would fix any election. Even the stupid ATM machine gives you a paper receipt. Why doesn't a voting machine? These things need to be stamped out like smallpox.

[Botnst]

Yes. They're very careful and wont release numbers until its certfied.

[MS Fowler]

Kirk,
I absolutely agree with you!
There's a quote that has been attributed to Joseph Stalin that is appropriate here---" I don't care who is allowed to vote......as long as I control who counts the votes." Perhaps it is apocraphyl, but the sentiment is correct.
The justification given seems to be that " we want a fast count". I don't see any reason for allowing the desire for that bring the result into question. We have weeks to certify the results.
Here, in Maryland, a demonstration was provided that showed that the receipt process could take up to 20-30 MINUTES. No details were provided, but I have a feeling they used a slow, archaic printer and wrote some very obtuse code. As you said, even the ATM provides a printout (ATM machince is redundant).
How much can we trust the results of paperless voting machines?
Again, here in MD, it really doesn't matter, the dems have this state locked up. We are one of only two states that went for McGovern. So go ahead and put our electoral votes clearly in the Keryy camp.

[mzsmbs]

heck no to the original Q. btw, absentee ballots are usually not counted unless the results are challenged and then only in the recount...

that's kind of funny that you guys want receipts. i have had that idea for over a decade. they should also have a bar code with your vote that way a recount would be relatively easy... it will never happen here though...

in the primary election here (IN), many polling places ran out of ballotts and some closed at 6.00pm without giving some people a chance to vote. the results stand as calculated but I believe that was a total breach of citizens' right/obligation to vote. so after florida and other regional blunders I can't wait to see Nov... should be very interesting... we'll probably watch another power grab reminiscent of good ol'commies..

btw. my us rep (w/ others) asked the UN to oversee our next national elections and guess what...they didn't want anything to do with it...so, how can we trust UN to put on anything in Iraq??

[KirkVining]

Dude, we already demolished the "absentees not counted" as an urban legend on another thread. All votes are counted. Its the law.

Actually, I don't want a receipt, I want it to print the results of my vote, I want to look at the printout and then I want to put that printed slip into a locked ballot box as I walk out the door. If a recount is demanded, the box is openned and the paper receipts are counted. To trust a stupid computer without a paper trail is idiotic. I also wonder why I don't find anyone on the left or right who is in favor of this. Whose idea was this? Jeb Bush's?

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by KirkVining

I think we are headed for riots over this. Why would an electronic machine not have a paper trail? Call it what you want, tinfoil hat, conspiracy, whatever, there is something extremely unsettling about that. I would not vote on an electronic device, because I am a computer programmer. Three lines of code would fix any election. Even the stupid ATM machine gives you a paper receipt. Why doesn't a voting machine? These things need to be stamped out like smallpox.

I completely agree. It's a VERY stupid idea.

Paper ballots are admittedly a lot more work to count, but if anything is worth the extra work, our elections are!

Mike

[GermanStar]

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Three lines of code would fix any election.

Heck -- it doesn't have to come to that. If the polls keep looking ominous, Kerry can be declared an enemy combatant and thrown into a cell with Jose Padilla.

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by GermanStar

Heck -- it doesn't have to come to that. If the polls keep looking ominous, Kerry can be declared an enemy combatant and thrown into a cell with Jose Padilla.

Nah....His gal-pal Jane Fonda is the one that deserves that.

Kerry's not an "enemy combatant". He's just an *********.

Mike

[GermanStar]

Didn't she used to be the Queen of Hotlanta?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Dude, we already demolished the "absentees not counted" as an urban legend on another thread. All votes are counted. Its the law.

Actually, I don't want a receipt, I want it to print the results of my vote, I want to look at the printout and then I want to put that printed slip into a locked ballot box as I walk out the door. If a recount is demanded, the box is openned and the paper receipts are counted. To trust a stupid computer without a paper trail is idiotic. I also wonder why I don't find anyone on the left or right who is in favor of this. Whose idea was this? Jeb Bush's?

Me too.

[Lebenz]

In Washington state, you can vote for anyone. But only one party. WTF????

State's voters irate over new primary

By Susan Gilmore
Seattle Times staff reporter

f the angry phone calls, letters and e-mails flooding into the Secretary of State's Office are any indication, voters hate the new primary and some likely will skip it.

"The people have spoken," Secretary of State Sam Reed, who is charged with running state elections and is an outspoken opponent of the new system, said yesterday. "All but a fraction are angry. It's obviously a very emotional reaction."

He said that since last Wednesday night, when a state flier explaining the primary started showing up in 3 million mailboxes statewide, his office has received 6,546 phone calls. Only 5 percent were positive. He also received about 2,000 angry e-mails.

In one 24-hour period Reed's office, which has hired a dozen temporary workers to help field the calls, received 2,000 calls and one e-mail every two minutes.

The Sept. 14 primary is the first time that state voters will be required to vote for candidates of only one party, Democrat, Republican or Libertarian.

County election officials around the state redesigned ballots in response to the new Montana-style voting law that requires voters to declare a party preference if they want a voice in partisan primary elections.

Gov. Gary Locke signed the law after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appeals-court decision that tossed out the state's 70-year-old blanket primary, which allowed voting for candidates of any party.

Reed, who supports a Louisiana-style primary system in which the top two vote-getters advance to the general election regardless of their parties, said the normal turnout for a primary is 41 to 45 percent and that he expects a drop of 10 percent with the new system. He said after California lost its blanket primary to a 2000 court decision, primary turnout was the lowest since 1910.

Reed expects a number of ballots will be tainted, with voters neglecting to mark their party preference or trying to vote for candidates of more than one party. Those votes won't count.

Voters on Nov. 2 will decide on Initiative 872, sponsored by the Washington State Grange, which would change the state primary to a top-two contest. Under that system, voters could cast ballots for any candidates, regardless of party. Reed expects the measure will pass easily.

Opponents of the initiative, primarily the political parties, passed out a flier yesterday saying it would deprive voters of party choice and could disenfranchise those who back minor-party candidates.

State Democratic Chairman Paul Berendt said voters are confused, believing that the Grange initiative would return the blanket primary when it wouldn't.

The Grange, like the Secretary of State's Office, has been flooded with calls from angry voters.

"The voters are telling us that they are upset," said Grange President Terry Hunt. "We're concerned that many of them will not vote if they have to pick a party ballot."

But Berendt said he is fielding 500 times more complaints about the war in Iraq than about the primary.

"There's no reason why a primary system in place in nine other states shouldn't come off without a hitch," he said. "Sam Reed has had four years to prepare for this and has been negligent in his duty."

He also said that 6,000 responses to a statewide mailing of 3 million brochures is a minor number and doesn't necessarily reflect the state sentiment.

Still, he acknowledged there is voter anger.

"I don't discount that people don't like the new system," he said, "but the old system was unconstitutional."

Reed yesterday displayed a thick book of letters his office has received about the new system.

"I think I will now have to do some research on which party tried to push this through and then choose the other party for all my future votes," Janice Clusserath of Redmond wrote in one letter.

Wrote Robert F. Snyder of Bellingham: "I am 79 and have lived in this state all my life and have never voted a straight ticket and I do not think this is right that I should have to now."

"This is as un-American as you can get," wrote Robert Cole of Mountlake Terrace. "I protest this rape of my rights."

Reed said he was pleased to see how strongly people feel about voting. "I admire the strong sentiment. I admire the passion," Reed said, encouraging people to vote despite their distaste for the primary. "I want to make this work."

The state has launched a $1.7 million voter-education campaign, using radio, television and mailers, to let voters know about the new primary.

Reed said his office is responding to those who have written to complain, and many are receiving the same answer:

"This new primary is due to a court decision, declaring the blanket primary unconstitutional, and a partial gubernatorial veto. We are meeting with county auditors to do everything possible to educate the public on the changes to this new primary. We encourage citizens to not compromise their vote, it is too important. Citizens are encouraged to voice their concerns with their legislators (www.leg.wa.gov) and the governor (www.governor.wa.gov). There is an initiative on the ballot relating to this primary."

The partial veto refers to Locke using his power earlier this year to change a law passed by the Legislature that set up a top-two primary where voters could vote for candidates of any party.

But the bill required the state to revert to a Montana primary if the first plan did not hold up in court. Arguing that the top-two primary would have been challenged in court by political parties, Locke vetoed that system in favor of the Montana-style primary.

[Zeitgeist]

I fully intend to "spoil" my ballot by voting for one of each party, but I'll correctly participate in the non-partisan portion of the ballot. I resent the two majors and the Libertarians(!!!???) for drawing the voters into this $h!tstorm. They should pay for their own damn nominating process and leave the taxpayers the hell out of it. Bastards!

[mikemover]

Originally Posted by Zeitgeist

I fully intend to "spoil" my ballot by voting for one of each party, but I'll correctly participate in the non-partisan portion of the ballot. I resent the two majors and the Libertarians(!!!???) for drawing the voters into this $h!tstorm. They should pay for their own damn nominating process and leave the taxpayers the hell out of it. Bastards!

I agree.

I've always thought the states that require you to vote along party lines in primaries were overstepping their bounds.

It's BS, and I hope it is overturned.

Mike

[KirkVining]

Anyone would. Thats what makes this so disturbing. Why are they designed to not do this? Like I said, I don't know anyone on either side in favor of these things but they are going in everywhere. Something is very out of place.