Online Voting? Iowa Demonstrates Its Folly.

[MineralMan]

A lot of people seem to think we need to update our methods of voting to change it to some sort of eVoting thing. Well, that has always met with some resistance, and Iowa's disastrous primary performance shows why it's a bad idea all around.

Why not vote on an app on your cell phone? Well, that's how results were supposed to be reported in Iowa. It didn't work. Case closed.

Instead, we need to return to the paper ballot, hand counted by individuals and double checked by other individuals. That works. It produces a numerical result that can be delivered to some central place by telephone, courier, or any other method that suits. If there are questions about the results, those paper ballots can be counted again, as many times as are needed to ensure accuracy.

We need less technology in our elections, not more. We need people to look at and tally paper ballots, with observers watching them. That's how we get fair results and accurate reporting.

Data streams can be interrupted. False data can be sent. Paper ballots, looked at and counted by individuals, with others looking over their shoulders, is the only way to prevent voter fraud and accurate vote counts. Paper ballots are the only thing that can be recounted, too, if the need should arise.

Less technology. Not more.

[Bettie]

1. People want instant gratification

right now, they are complaining about paper result sheets being hand counted by individuals and double checked by others.

That is what is happening, being done by county chairs all over the state, to verify the called-in numbers from last night.

Sometimes, you have to wait for an answer.

[MineralMan]

3. Exactly. I want accuracy and checkable fairness.

I can wait a day or two.

I remember the elections before things got automated. We didn't know who won that night, or sometimes even the next day. We waited for the results until they were available, and we trusted them.

I serve as a ballot counter in a couple of elections in my California precinct. The process was tiring and boring, but it was very important. We stuck with it until we were absolutely certain our count was correct. Often until the wee hours of the morning. But, we counted them fairly and accurately.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. SOME people, particularly in the press.

The Fourth Estate was fully compliant in encouraging the adoption of easily hackable, unverifiable, no-paper-trail voting machines after Ruspublicans started pushing the idea. Nobody but the proponents of hacking the vote wanted this before the ГОП brought it up.

[bearsfootball516]

2. Although I do agree with you on paper ballots, I don't think the country is headed that way.

Technology tends to move forward, not backward. You have states like Georgia that just invested tens of millions in new electronic voting machines. They're not going to suddenly scrap them to move back to paper ballots. I live in Indiana, and Elkhart and St. Joseph Counties just spent several million on new electronic voting machines with a paper trail that work super well. I doubt they'll be getting rid of those machines to move to strictly paper ballots any time soon.

We used them in the 2019 mayoral election in November when we flipped the seat from red to blue. When voting is done, it spits out your ballot and you insert it into the ballot counting machine, which counts the vote and drops the ballot into a secure lockbox.

There was a city council race where one of the seats was won by a Republican by ONE vote. There was a recount done with the paper ballots and the total came out to be exactly the same.

[MineralMan]

4. If we rely on technology, we will lose the fairness of our elections.

Nothing is any more important than that, frankly.

[bearsfootball516]

5. I do agree, I prefer paper ballots.

I just don't see the country moving away from electronic voting and back to paper ballots.

[FakeNoose]

6. How do voters show photo ID when they vote online?

I thought the Repukes were making voter photo ID the main issue. Of course it's all for show so they can deny voting rights to as many Democrats and Liberals as possible. However online voting (if that's the new thing) would defeat the entire intent of photo IDs, wouldn't it?

[MineralMan]

7. I have no idea how voter integrity would be handled.

The IRS has a system for online filing and payment. It gets scammed every year by people pretending to be taxpayers, who file for refunds they are not entitled to.

At my precinct in Minnesota, I have to sign a book that already has my name and address in it as a registered voter. We also have same day registration in MN. You have to show something that shows who you are and that you live in the precinct. We don't have voter ID for registered voters at the polling place. Registration, however, requires ID. I registered years ago. I vote in every election. My name is always in the registered voter log book. I sign my name and I vote.

In Minnesota, we fill out paper ballots which are optically scanned. The paper ballots are retained for a recount, if needed. Twice since I moved here, the entire state was hand recounted. Every precinct. In normal years, a random sample of precincts is hand recounted and the totals compared with the optical scan count. Random precincts, to make sure nobody knows which precincts will be checked in advance.

Minnesota has a very good voting system.

[FakeNoose]

8. Yes I believe other states should follow Minnesota's lead

You guys have a sensible system and it's overseen by reliable people and groups.
(Not just Democrats.)

[GeorgeGist]

9. We should return to colored pebbles.

[MineralMan]

10. LOL!

In some countries, ballots include photos of the candidates, for illiterate voters. I like that.