French election: VAST MAJORITY OF VOTING IS BY PAPER BALLOT, COUNTED BY HAND

[diva77]

From NYT article

A Guide to the French Vote (and How It Relates to ‘Brexit’ and Trump)

By AURELIEN BREEDENAPRIL 20, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/world/europe/france-election.html?_r=0

snip...The elections are across France and in its overseas territories; there are 45.7 million registered voters. The vast majority of voting is by paper ballot, counted by hand: There is no electronic voting and very few voting machines. Campaign spending is limited, and equal media exposure is enforced...snip

[frazzled]

1. Well, aren't they voting for just one office?

My ballot last November had about sixty-plus simultaneous races, plus a few ballot questions.

[diva77]

2. How large is your precinct? Sounds like there is consolidation of precincts going on where you are

That is one of the excuses given for "having to use computerized voting" when in fact, you can keep precinct size to 2000 or fewer voters and manage to hand count all races and release results within a couple hours of closing of polls.

Here is the sort & stack method of hand counting. Anyone in kindergarten can handle this job.

http://www.protectcaliforniaballots.org/Documents/Sort-Stack-Count-Count.pdf

[frazzled]

3. No, just one precinct

Probably with fewer than the 2,000 you mention. The size of the precinct is not the issue--it's the size of the ballot. In addition to the federal offices (president, one senator, one representative), there were a bunch of county and state offices as well as a whole slew of judicial races (usually there are between 40 and 60 judicial and judicial retention lines to complete--circuit courts, appeals courts, etc.).

I live in Chicago; my precinct isn't probably that big, but it is one among numerous precincts in each of the 50 wards of the city, and also part of a massive county government that serves more than 5 million people, with important offices to fill, as well as a state (hey, need an attorney general anyone?). You're voting on stuff like clerk of the courts, water reclamation district board members, etc. etc. It's the damned judicial races that take so much time, even though no judge has ever been ejected from office I think. Still, I spend hours each election cycle doing the research and carefully drawing those arrows in on my (paper) ballot.

We do vote on paper--but it's read by a machine. I really don't have a problem with it.

PS: City elections are held in alternate years from the federal/state elections. But there are always tons of judges on all of them.

[diva77]

5. unfortunately optiscan machines (or opscans as referred to in article) hackable

Having a paper ballot is great as long as it is hand counted. The optiscan machines have proprietary software and can also be easily hacked. No way for pollworker or registrar to know whether machine truly starts at zero when scanning ballots, no way to know whether votes are counted as cast. And trying to obtain a recount/audit of such elections is nearly impossible and very expensive.

Interesting article at this link:

http://electiondefensealliance.org/florida_op_scan_systems_hacked_three_ways

snip...A little man living in every ballot box
The Diebold optical scan system uses a dangerous programming methodology, with an executable program living inside the electronic ballot box. This method is the equivalent of having a little man living in the ballot box, holding an eraser and a pencil. With an executable program in the memory card, no Diebold opti-scan ballot box can be considered "empty" at the start of the election...snip

...snip...the Diebold optical scan program, housed on a chip inside the voting machine, places a call to a program living in the removable memory card during the election. The demonstration also showed that the executable program on the memory card (ballot box) can easily be changed, and that checks and balances, required by FEC standards to catch unauthorized changes, were not implemented by Diebold -- yet the system was certified anyway.

The Diebold system in Leon County, Florida succumbed to multiple attacks.

Read more: Florida Op-Scan Systems Hacked Three Ways | Election Defense Alliance http://electiondefensealliance.org/florida_op_scan_systems_hacked_three_ways#ixzz4gYWM1cJs
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[diva77]

6. The registrar can coordinate pollworkers so that there are enough to count ballots at each precinct

It is do-able. The machines are not transparent and should not be used.

[iluvtennis]

7. +++ agree

[frazzled]

18. I wouldn't trust the poll workers to count their fingers

There are more than 2,500 precincts in my city, and they always have trouble getting poll workers. They have to go through training, but some are of dubious quality.

I don't see why you would think poll workers are more transparent. You also need a representative from each party at each precinct to validate the counting. Republicans are rare in my part of the world. Campaigns do have lawyers who go around troubleshooting problem areas throughout the day, but that's not sufficient. It's just as easy for a poll worker to invalidate, double tally, or otherwise miscount votes. Shenanigans are always possible.

Plus, it's impractical. Counting 2000 ballots 60 separate times for 60 separate races would take forever. With all the attendant mistakes and problems. And voters make mistakes, too. If you accidentally overvote on one of the numerous yes/no judicial retentention questions (I know, because I've done it once) , the optiscan machine will spit out your ballot immediately, and the poll worker will give you a new ballot to fill out. With hand counting, there is no recourse . . . too late.

Don't be a fundamentalist on voting systems. There was always mischief on every system throughout our history: paper ballots thrown in the trash or changed ... or famously stuffed; lever machines notoriously rigged.

[yallerdawg]

29. Machine count vs human count invariably concludes...

the machines are more accurate.

Donald Trump is turning liberals into conspiracy theorists.

[TheFrenchRazor]

36. sure, unless the machines are purposely intended to miscount. nt

[diva77]

9. Here's an excellent & brief youtube that includes footage of hand counting of paper ballots

[Igel]

4. It varies by state and jurisdiction.

In Eugene, perhaps a couple dozen races or measures to vote on.

In Los Angeles, more.

In Houston there were over 70 things to vote on, and "straight ticket" didn't cover half of them.

I'd hate to try to count 100 ballots with 70 races each. It's not the counting--I could run through them once and be done. It's the verification, as somebody comes along behind to verify the count and if there's any discrepancy to reconcile the two by a third count.

[diva77]

8. It's a fallacy: belief that you get clean results with computerized voting & tabulating

[Egnever]

13. The same can be said for paper ballots

And i would argue it is much easier to verify an election with computerized ballots with paper trails. The machines we have in Nevada log your vote electronically and then at the end it spools a print out you verify and sign. Pretty easy to spot check a few machines and look for irregularities when compared to the signed receipts if necessary.

Paper ballots in this day and age counted by hand are stupid and Luddite. You can do both. Now a machine without a paper trail like ours I would definitely be uncomfortable with, but the way it is done here in Nevada I have absolutely no problem with.

Counting by hand is a waste of time and resources.

[diva77]

15. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best -- hand counting is the best way to avoid rampant

election fraud which occurs with malicious code embedded in software, and other vulnerabilities with computerized voting machines.

[Egnever]

16. The idea there was no election fraud when it was all paper ballots is not credible

Not to mention all the mistakes made when people vote on paper ballots. Votes that are not counted because the person accidentally voted twice for the same office etc.

The term Stuffing the ballot box came from when there were paper ballots after all.

[TheFrenchRazor]

35. nobody is saying that, but it would seem that computers would make it a lot easier. nt

[mythology]

25. If election fraud is "rampant" please provide actual evidence

Without evidence (and no, raw exit polls theories don't count), I fail to see how the claims are any better than claims of in person voter fraud that also aren't supported.

[TheFrenchRazor]

34. how will you get a comprehensive hand recount, and examination of software/hardware, if you can't fi

if you can't first prove that such a thing is needed, and how will you prove it is needed without first doing it? it's like science; if a claim is not falsifiable, it is basically meaningless, and elections that are not verifiable are meaningless in my opinion.

[LeftyMom]

10. Are you effing kidding me?

It takes an hour or more after a primary (ie low turnout) election just to separate and count all the ballots by party. Then inevitably you wind up short one b page in the stack of six peace and freedom ballots or something and you have to go digging around so it doesn't throw off your count and eventually it turns up in the pile of Dem a pages and you're out another half hour.

Hand count every effing race on one of our epic multi-page California ballots? NO FUCKING THANK YOU. We already show up at 6 am and count ourselves lucky to leave at 10:30 (and then two of us have to go drive the whole kit and caboodle to the county elections office and won't be home until midnight) and no, making exhausted people hand count dozens of races isn't accurate or fast or in any way a good idea.

[DetlefK]

11. That's the price you pay for democracy.

[LeftyMom]

12. Last I checked we already have democracy in California.

Thanks for your concern though.

[TheFrenchRazor]

33. ha ha; that's what they want you to think, anyway. nt

[diva77]

14. That can be resolved by having shifts for personnel & increasing number of personnel at precinct

To assume that the machines are the answer is a fallacy. I have worked the polls and the machines have malfunctioned and there is no IT person to fix them, so then you are out of a machine and there is no way to determine whether or not they are programmed to do what they are supposed to do legitimately anyway (think of the software VW used for smog checks).

We are capable of hand counting our paper ballots. If there are mistakes, they will occur on a "retail" level at individual precincts, rather than some algorithm that shaves votes off in every precinct - "wholesale" level and switches the result of an election.

[Egnever]

17. Sorry but that is easily verifiable if you use a machine with a paper trail.

How is paper better than this?


Electronic Touch-Screen Voting Machines
Touch-screen machines are used in all Clark County polling locations. Similar in appearance to an ATM machine, the machines make voting easy and assist you throughout the voting process. You register your choices and cast your ballot electronically by touching a screen. When you have made all your selections, a printer records your choices and you must confirm they are accurate before casting your ballot. If you have made an error, you void the paper record, correct your mistake on the touch-screen machine, and the printer reprints your selections. After you confirm the printout is accurate, you cast your ballot. The paper record then scrolls out of view and the machine resets for the next voter. The touch-screen machines allow you to vote in either English or Spanish and support audio voting for vision impaired persons as well as sip-and-puff technology.

[crazylikafox]

19. This would work as long as we also had RANDOM unannounced AUDITS before the results are certified.

And this must apply to every precinct in the US.

[diva77]

24. check out my previous response -- #21

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029033234#post21

[TheFrenchRazor]

31. the problem is that the paper receipts will never see the light of day 99.999% of the time; in order

in order to get a hand recount, you must first prove that a hand recount is needed... and in order to prove that a hand recount is needed, you must first have a hand recount, so it's a catch-22. throw in republican local control of elections, and any meaningful paper recount will be virtually impossible. we need all paper ballots, all hand counted, the first time around.

[LeftyMom]

20. Handing ballots off increases the opportunity for chicanery.

As for your concern about broken machines, I agree it's a good argument against touch screen systems. I rather like our optical scan system, one of it's best advantages is that at peak times people aren't limited by the number of machines and can find a place to fill out their ballot and vote as fast as we can hand out their ballots. (We hand out special "privacy screens" aka manila folders for those concerned that somebody might be peeking at ballots.)

Another nice advantage of the optical scan unit we use is that it alerts the voter to any problems before accepting their ballot. So if you skipped Prop 1234 "A Proposition To Run Confusing Advertisements About Propositions" so that you could think about it a bit more, forgot it, and then try to put your ballots in the machine it will catch that and ask you if you want to take your ballot back and fix your undervote or have it take your ballot as-is. Likewise with overvotes. This is nice because a lot of our races for school board, etc are of the "here are eight people, select four" variety and I suspect people tend to undervote these if they're in a hurry and not reading directions properly.

The only problem I've ever encountered was when one page of one party's primary ballot was cut slightly too widely to fit in the scanner bed. Fortunately there's a secure backup drop box (not attached to the scanner) on our optical scan system, so in that instance or in any other where it isn't working we simply instruct the voter to put their ballot in there until somebody from the county elections board can come out and fix it. When we ran into that one problem a county elections official was on-hand within minutes.


Your argument isn't against technology to count votes, it's against poorly administered elections.

[diva77]

21. Unfortunately, what you see is not what you get - I wish it were

with the use of software in elections, that's like handing off ballots to a republican controlled corporation with proprietary software to calculate your election outcome

Take a look at where we are now with elections: Republicans now dominate state government with 32 legislatures and 33 governors

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/14/1598918/-Republicans-now-dominate-state-government-with-32-legislatures-and-33-governors

I assure you, if we were still using hand counted paper ballots we would not have this statistic

Pollworking duty could be implemented using the jury duty system and citizens would only have to help tabulate an election once every few years. I think people, knowing the stakes involved, would be amenable to having that responsibility given to them.

[LeftyMom]

22. So if your assertion is true why aren't they effecting elections in CA?

Republicans dominate state governments because of gerrymandered districts, you don't need to look for some arcane explanation because the reason is entirely visible and very well documented.

[diva77]

23. Gerrymandering definitely plays a role in the republican skewed results. Sometimes it's not

enough to tip the election alone -- when the elections are close, it's the voting machines that help flip the outcome. Other factors are voter caging -- dropping people from the voter rolls with use of companies like Crosscheck, too few machines in democratic districts, media dominance by republicans, early voting where chain of custody of ballots is vulnerable, etc.


this article (although I don't agree with what he says about polls) gives a good explanation of the problems with optical scans

https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba


this article lays out cohesive explanation for how 2004 election was stolen; machines are a factor, but not the whole story

https://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

As for California, the number of Dems so far outweighs repubs that there are fewer "close elections" to flip (IMHO)

Since a similar period in 2012, Democrats have increased their share of registered voters in California from 43.7% to 44.9% and Republicans are down from 29.4% to 26%. Voters who have no party preference increased from 20.9% to 24.3%.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-has-19-4-million-registered-1478295112-htmlstory.html

[LeftyMom]

26. Your argument is long on assertions and short on evidence.

And the idea that hand counting is less vulnerable is, at best, ahistorical.

Creating a new system that requires additional manpower and creates new vulnerabilities rather than working off of the models in states* where voting systems work well (turnout is high, lines are short, gerrymandering is minimized, etc) is bad strategy and likely to backfire.

*California and Minnesota have been mentioned on this thread as good models, I personally don't know how they run things in MN re: districts but I know the CA model of an independent commission drawing district boundaries seems to be working well

[TheFrenchRazor]

28. you are a whole lot more trusting than i am; if the machines CAN be hacked, they will be. nt

[LeftyMom]

30. The obvious solution is an airgap.

This really isn't complicated and I don't know why people are insisting on running elections with Tudor era technology rather than instituting some reasonable precautions.

[TheFrenchRazor]

32. yes; we need all paper ballots, all hand-counted, all the time. it's been done for centuries,

it can certainly be done here again.

[diva77]

37. Absolutely!!...and don't tell anyone...but hand counting is just COLLATING

can we not collate??

Must a computer be used to separate my laundry into delicates and heavy duty?

[TheFrenchRazor]

27. well, the french obviously aren't as smart as americans... nt