How would you protect the integrity of the voting process?

[DPC.Comment]

I'm tired of the right suggesting that the only voter fraud is from Democrats, and I also realize the integrity of the system needs to be protected. I normally have a magic plan up my sleeve that I'm sure will solve all the world's problems, but not on this. With the caveat that no system would be perfect, what are your ideas for making the system better -- ensuring that our people can vote and ensuring the system is protected as much as possible against fraud? Thoughts?

[PDJane]

1. Paper ballots, hand counted.

With an adequate number of poll watchers from both parties, to watch one another.

[LWolf]

2. Like this:

1. 100% publicly financed elections; no private donations allowed. Equal money, constitutionally guaranteed equal, and equally neutral, press.

2. Public debates that include all candidates, from all parties, and allow them all to answer all questions, with equal talk time.

3. Paper ballots. Ballots are counted live and publicly, with the world watching. Recounts are always hand counted, with the public watching live.

4. Vote by mail; no long lines at the polls, no intimidating people at the polls. People get their ballots a couple of weeks ahead of election day with plenty of time to research, think, vote, and mail it back or drop it off. My state already does this.

5. Universal voter registration, automatic when SS is issued, active when minimum age is reached. I'm ambivalent about the suggestions to lower voting age to 16; I can see pros and cons, and am not ready to take a side yet. I am interested in the idea of making January 1st the automatic "active" age for anyone who becomes of age during that year.

6. Instant-run-off voting.

7. No releasing vote counts until the count is complete; for national elections, no releasing vote counts ANYWHERE until the count is complete on the west coast.

8. For primary elections: One day, every body votes, no counts announced until all 50 states are done counting, so no state's votes weigh more heavily in the selection of a candidate.

9. Electoral college? I haven't taken a side on this one either, but doing away with it should be considered.

I think these measures would not only ensure an accurate count without fraud, but would restore the integrity of the whole process and make it more democratic.

[DPC.Comment]

3. Hmmm....

Hmmm....I really like 7 of your 9 suggestions...especially #5. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

[LWolf]

4. You're welcome.

Of course, that begs the question: Which 7?

[DPC.Comment]

5. good questions

...i should have mentioned in my earlier response. Easier to list the other two -- one of them I'm fence sitting on, the other I don't like. One, btw, I hadn't thought of, but LOVE.

- Definitely I don't like: abolishing the electoral college. I come from a small state, and without it, we would have no voice, no candidate would pay attention to our needs. They would just go to CA, NY, OH, FL, and TX and the rest of us would be ignored as non-people. As a student of foreign governments, I see this a lot in the underdeveloped world where certain provinces are neglected because they "don't count". I think the founder got this particular thing right, but a lot of people don't understand it because the situation hasn't been explained to them.

- Kinda on the fence: mail ballots makes me nervous. I don't have any issue with it other than my emotional (but real) reaction. I suppose it could work, but it just makes me nervous.

- The one that I love: national registration! Whey aren't we doing this NOW?! If they can make all men register for a draft that is never going to happen, they can register everyone to vote with a national registration. Two thumbs up on that one!!!

[LWolf]

7. I'm on the fence with the electoral college, too.

I need more time with that one to take a true side.

The mail in ballots? I LOVE them. We don't have the same issues with election fraud we've seen in Florida, Ohio, etc.. Ballots are obviously paper, having to travel through the mail. They are "bubble in." No chads. There's a process for getting a new ballot if you spoil the first one.

I love not having to worry about leaving for work early, or arriving late, or leaving work early, having to work even longer the next day, parking, lines, etc..

I love being able to sit with my ballot, my voter's pamphlet, my 'puter, a cup of coffee, and take my time. I will probably already have gone through the voter's pamphlet, researched, and decided the votes before the ballot arrives, but I have time to consider any last minute information. If it arrives during the week, I can set it aside until the weekend when I have more time at home, and still mail it back.

I like the national registration, too. That, plus the higher turnout for vote-by-mail, could make for interesting results.

[eomer]

12. Vote-by-mail is not fraud-proof.

Here in Florida we've had fraud peristently over many years of a type that is only possible with vote-by-mail. Here it is known as ballot brokers and what ballot brokers do is find people whom they can "help" to vote, especially elderly people in facilities who are more vulnerable to being tricked. The ballot broker is working for a particular candidate and finds ways to collect a large number of ballots with votes for that candidate when the voter didn't know who they voted for and/or thought they voted for someone else. This type of fraud is only possible with vote-by-mail.

Another problem with vote-by-mail is that the chain of custody of the ballots is difficult to maintain. If someone wanted to disappear some ballots at a point early in the chain, it would be difficult to prevent it.

One good thing about vote-by-mail is that obviously it means that votes are on paper ballots. But here in Florida our laws say that all voting is by paper ballot regardless of whether cast through the mail or in person.

Under the assumption that all voting would be by paper ballot anyway, vote-by-mail doesn't offer any advantage with regard to fraud, it only brings some additional fraud opportunities.

The real solution to election fraud is a completely transparent election, with paper ballots deposited into a transparent ballot box (so observers can see it is empty when voting begins) and then a transparent hand count on the spot before ballots have been transported or stored. This type of system is used in the UK, I believe.

Unfortunately, the complexity of our political system makes counting by hand impractical so the solution, as if it weren't hard enough already to get enacted, would include a reorganization of the way we divide up our political system and the offices that follow from it.

[LWolf]

13. I don't think any voting system is fraud proof.

The safety check for any system is the use of paper ballots that can be recounted by hand. Hand counting the first time around would be great; a transparent ballot box, whether it is a local drop-off or whether it is filled by mail delivery, is a good idea, too.

Vote-by-mail is not a "cure" for election fraud; the only real cure for that is to eliminate the human characteristics that lead to cheating. It's simply a means to encourage more people to vote; to increase voter turnout. There are no issues with someone's name not being on a list at a polling place, with trying to rearrange schedules to be able to get to a polling place before it closes, or similar factors that are open to manipulation in traditional systems.

It seems to be working well here in Oregon.

http://www.american.edu/spa/cdem/upload/rsch_061505_gronke.pdf

[marions ghost]

11. Good list

I especially like 1,3,5,7

UNIVERSAL VOTER REGISTRATION = SO IMPORTANT! People can decide if they want to vote or not, but they are already registered. END this stupid archaic thing--huge waste of time and obviously open to corruption.

GET RID of the electoral college -- also a vestige of the past that we don't need.

[eridani]

6. Auditing. Auditing. Auditing

I agree that paper ballots must be the legal ballot, but I live in a county with 17 different state legislative districts (some of which are shared with neighboring counties), 30+ cities and towns, and four congressional districts. Plus school boards, fire and water districts, etc. And initiatives, and bond issues. Handcounting as the primary method would be preposterous, given that we could never afford to hire the people to do it. We have a very hard time even finding volunteers to to elections watching. Andy Stephenson also lived in King County, WA State, and agreed that open source optical scans with mandatory handcount audits would be the best thing to do.

National registration and national standards mandating open source and auditing would also be helpful.

BTW, hand counting audits (in political units small enough to make this feasible) should not be audited by another hand count. I'd recommend a different check, like weighing the ballots. Banks already think this is a perfectly good way to count coins. Different methods reinforce credibility. Paleontologists are very happy campers if tree ring count dates and carbon 14 dates are within reasonable agreement, because the methods are so different.

[Skee]

9. Hand Counting Works

It's cheaper than the costly disenfranchisement via blackbox.

Jobs, anyone?

[eridani]

10. No, it doesn't

Not in a county with 20+ cities, 17 state legislative districts, and parts of 5 congressional districts. Not to mention ballot measures, bond issues, school, water, swer and fire districts, etc. Training people takes a lot of time, and very few are willing to put in the effort for what amounts to a very temporary position.

[rapersun]

8. Here's a few of my ideas as well!

Starting with the next 4 year election cycle, there would be no more money in politics. That would
include personal or private money. Voting and raising money would no longer be considered
Freedom of Speech. If need be, a Constitutional Amendment would be passed.

Any money donated or raised by any candidates or organizations would go into a fund that would
set up local and statewide election funds to cover the costs of websites or booklets to be
distributed. Individuals and Corporations could still donate money, but full disclosure would be
necessary. And the money just goes into one fund for all candidates, no party divisions. If
politics and the system is so important to you as an individual, your vote should be enough. And if
you just want to help fund the election process, you can still contribute to the fund.

Each candidate would have his own web page and page(s) in a candidate booklet. On this web page
or booklet, it would list the candidates background, what he/she stands on all issues - personal,
social or political. It would also list all personal issues, volunteer or work-related background. If this
person had been a member of Congress, it would list how they've voted on all prior bills while in
that office. If they have plans for how they would run the Country and represent the people, they
could describe some of those important plans and their visions here as well.

There would also be a paid fact-checker position to verify the content was accurate. Any
questionable accuracy would be excluded until proven.

All registered voters would have access to the websites. If voters don't have access to the internet,
booklets would be mailed as is the case now. There would be a deadline for printing so that
citizens would have time to review all candidate information.

The only ads allowed would be ads funded through the election fund itself. Ads would only be able
to state the names of the candidates, the position they were running for and the web site address
and booklet mailing dates. The ads would have to list all candidates running.

To cut down on the possibility of voter fraud, a National ID system would be set up. This would
benefit all Federal and State programs. It would be tied into multiple Government systems so
that anyone who applies for any government or private programs where an ID is required would be
entered into the database.

Also, our representatives would no longer spend as much time in Washington. They would be in
their district offices at least 90% of their time. They would only go to Washington for special business with Congress or the President. All other business would be done through
teleconferencing. This way the representatives would be more accessible and in touch with their
constituents. It would also limit access to lobbyists. The lobbyists would now need to spend their
own money sending their lobbyists out into the field. Strict disclosure laws would apply so that all
constituents would know which lobbyists visited the representatives and what they did to influence them.

Congressman would no longer have lifetime benefits when their terms are over. They would be put on COBRA until they become gainfully employed again and responsible for their own Healthcare benefits.

[ailsagirl]

14. Throw Karl Rove in jail and throw away the key

Make that "prison."

[Cliff Arnebeck]

17. Why isn't organized crime being prosecuted?

Karl Rove was investigated by two special prosecutors within the G.W Bush Administration for possible crimes, as an individual, in outing the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame and seeking the termination of one or more U.S. Attorneys for failure to submit to partisan political pressure in their exercise of prosecutorial discretion. He has not been investigated, much less prosecuted for engaging in election theft and/or illegal vote count manipulation. I think the difference is that, under the strong influence by large donors to political campaigns of both parties, the investigation and prosecution of white collar organized crime is being discouraged. Karl Rove's election activities are not individual, they are organized business activities. They have a criminal component and they are connected to traditional full-service organized criminal operations.

The highest rollers among political contributors seem to be in the financial sector. That sector has certainly had its share of organized criminal activity--so destructive that it severely destabilized the economy. When those contributors make clear their disdain for government pursuit against white collar organized crime they are seeking immunity for themselves and their facilitators. Rove is one of their leading facilitators in promoting political leaders pledged to be "business friendly"/opposed to business regulation/tolerant of organized crime.

Cliff Arnebeck

[TheNaimSadik]

15. Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team)

[mathedguy]

16. Call it VOTE CHECK

It should be very easy to have a memory bank for every vote. You get to check at a later time, give your social security number and it will report to you the status of your vote. If it doesn't have the vote right, you complain. It could also add up to verify count.