Death Bed Unity for HCPBs (Hand Counter Paper Ballots)

[kster]

by Rady Ananda

My stepfather was recently given a terminal diagnosis, which prompted the family to hold Christmas on the 17th. We all flew or drove into Cleveland for the event. Only immediate family was allowed, and all the immediate family was present.

My presence was required, even tho RJ hasn't been married to my mother in over 30 years. Tribal bonds are so much deeper than blood, it seems. This man raised me from age 12 on, and never laid an angry hand on me. I love him deeply.

The family is hurt I haven't spent enough time visiting them. I needed to explain my activism in values they understand, given that RJ is now dying.

"You're fighting City Hall again. What are you doing exactly?" he asked me.

SNIP........"No. I've run three elections now and written out a cost analysis. If we pay them $10 an hour and pay administrators more, it costs half as much to hand count paper ballots than to use machines."

"Ahh," he smiled. "I see where you're coming from."


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rady_ana_061219_unity_for_hcpbs.htm

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

1. the article misses a very impt fact about HCPB countries

The article has gaps -

says:

"Canada hand counts nine million ballots in four hours." He shifted his body to listen – which was the cue for everyone else in the tribe to listen. Privately, I thanked him. The talking points I had studied, drafted, simplified, and repeated poured out of my mouth.

I looked at everyone, "Ninety-five percent of all democracies in the world hand count paper ballots. We're nuts to vote on computers." They became quiet; it was something they already suspected.

The article does NOT mention that - Canada and other countries only
have ONE contest on the ballot.

That any country using HCPB,including:

-Canada
-Germany
-UK
-Mexico
-Iraq

has only have ONE contest on the ballot.

The US has average of 55 contests on the ballot.

We have to deal with all of the facts.

If we want HCPB -

- we also need to change our ballots to single contest ballots,
- we need to hold elections much more frequently.
- we need to switch to a parliamentarian system
- we need our parliament to elect the President

That's why I started this thread, which shows the ballots used in HCPB countries

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x462218

[kster]

2. Multiple races must be counted with secret vote counting machines

Multiple races must be counted with secret vote counting machines
You are incapable of hand counting more than one race on the ballot
You are incapable of hand counting more than one race on the ballot


Not only can we count our ballots by hand, we can do it CHEAPER and we can do it BETTER. Its that simple.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

3. no - I said - countries with HCPB have single contest elections

and if you want HCPB here in the US, that should
be part of the reform you seek -

single contest elections, so that when you say it will only take a few hours to
count the election, you will have creditability.

more frequent elections, so that you can have single contest elections.

no more voting for president, that should be turned over to "parliament".


If you want to cite the success of HCPB in other countries,
then be honest about it.

They do alot of things differently, and none of them have
multiple contests.

Ignoring the facts means that you have less chance of success.

Because anyone you want to persuade to accept your system
can easily do a little research and learn that you aren't presenting
an accurate picture of what reforms are necessary to have
successful HCPB.

[kster]

4. The Politicians can own the airwaves

they can own, along with their buddies, the secret vote-counting machines, but they have to realize THE GIG IS UP, the more the Politicians REMAIN SILENT, and refuse to go ON TV to prove to the American people, why their secret vote counting machines are the way to go, they will continue to look like fools, We know, and they need to come to terms with that FACT.

Its Over!!!

[midnight]

68. The GIG IS UP is a beautiful thought. I hope that another

election will not be stolen. Hiding source code is one way to seal. Without many people understanding the signs of theft with their vote, without people trained at the polls to oversee that votes are not stolen, anything can and will happen.

[troubleinwinter]

5. What a weird article

The article's author points out that Canada is hand counted in 4 hours. But Canada has ONE race on a ballot, not 53 (L.A. County, for a typical example).

"Nine neighbors count the ballots for your neighborhood". Presumably, she refers to a precinct. Los Angles county alone has over 5,000 precincts, so 45,000 "neighbors" must be recruited, screened, trained and supervised in a single county. We already know that poll workers have been running 25% short. This kinda stuff:

The Poll Worker Crisis in America

From the Associated Press

There is currently a shortage of at least 500,000 poll workers nationwide.
The Election Assistance Commission estimates that the average age of a poll worker is 72 years old.

The New York Times

For every three poll workers trained, two do not show up on election day. Roughly 1.4 million people have been trained to serve as poll workers , the same as four years ago. But nearly 2 million were expected to be needed…

Whittier Daily News

The Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters is currently looking for an additional 25,000 poll workers for the 5,065 polling places participating in the June 6, 2006 primary election.

CBS 5 San Francisco, CA

The Contra Costa County Election Department is reporting a shortage of close to 2,500 poll workers for the June 6, 2006 primary.

The author claims to have "written out a cost analysis". It would be interesting to see it. Evidently it is not published, as I cannot find it with Google. Did she base it on one single race or a typical 50+ race ballot?

She claims to have "run three elections now". Apparently, she has done 'Parallel Elections' of a single congressional seat, but has never "run" any election at all, let alone any with 50+ races.

Parallel Elections

Rady Ananda and Marj Creech presented on the Parallel Elections project and are seeking volunteers for election day. They need at least two people per precinct in Ohio as they plan to target the Pryce-Kilroy race for the 15th Congressional District seat.

The "article" is largely about her family, not specifics about how the actual logistics of hand count in this country. She does say, "The talking points I had studied, drafted, simplified, and repeated poured out of my mouth." which is much of what is seen around here. Talking points, foot-stomping, but no specifics.

Perhaps we would need new laws to institute compulsory counting service, much like jury duty? We would need to compel employers to excuse employees, as in jury duty, but elections may call multiple employees on a single day, rather than spread over the year. Counting may take all evening + overnight + into noon the next day as in the NC jurisdictions? Maybe employees need to be excused on election day to sleep, and the following day as well. Wonder how hard it is to get over-night day-care.

No matter, you've thought about and worked all of these issues out, right? Any?

[eridani]

12. Opscan is demonstrably better at counting multiple races

--provided that it's working right, which means audits, of course. Yes, you ARE incapable of counting more than one race more accurately than a scanner.

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. did you have a particular "demonstra(tion)" in mind?

It makes sense to me. I'm thinking it's about time to pull together some more of this material and arguments in one place.

[eridani]

36. Trying to catch up after 7 days without electricity

I have some of the testing info stashed away. The tabulation programs in tests like this are of course all honest, something which must be confirmed by audits in an actual election.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. I can definitely afford to wait!

It's the end of the semester, I am drowning in papers -- and there is also that pesky holiday business. And the 17 days on antibiotics. And the recent death of my laptop. All of which still doesn't "add up" to 7 days without electricity.

But I would love to know more, when you do dig out.

[unc70]

22. It is why in one of your MANY threads, I explained how we used to do it in NC

I know you have been active in this stuff. I respect Chuck Herrin's work, have spoken with him at length. Also with David and others involved. All of your threads/responses seem almost identical, so re-read my journal for my response.

But you keep bringing up arguments about a parlimentary system and such which are non-productive distractions. None of us talked much in public about the red shift.

I extracted the more important of my responses to you about doing HCPB right here in NC, and here you are yet again as if you didn't read or refused to acknowlege anything I said.

As for getting volunteer poll workers, in some ways the number of volunteers usually reflected the importance of the election and the election turnout. An election like 2004 in NC would not have lacked volunteers in most counties. A runoff for a local town board, not so many volunteers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. how about the wiki thread?

That could be a useful resource.

[troubleinwinter]

42. Clearly, the parliamentary posts are to illustrate

that hand counts are in countries with single-race parliamentary systems. It is not a distraction, it is illustrative of reality.

"the number of volunteers usually reflected the importance of the election" Aren't all elections important? We need the ballots counted whether volunteers deem them important or not.

"NC would not have lacked volunteers in most counties." "Most counties" is not sufficient. You must have an appropriate number of counters in EVERY county across the nation.

Kindly explain your plan to absolutely assure sufficient counters and observers across the country in every single locale, (despite our current deficit of 25% of needed poll workers) whether they deem it important or not.

[FogerRox]

6. That Rady is at it again. >/snark<

[Kurovski]

7. HCPB now.

That is all.

[troubleinwinter]

8. No thoughts to contribute on how to implement it?

Or just "rah, rah, sis boom bah!" will get it done?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. non stop without even thinking

[Kurovski]

58. Do you live in America?

:shrug: :-)


I don't ever want another presidency stolen. Top races can go HCPB, as has been stated. let the dogcatchers take their chances or duke it out, as the case may be. Let the blossoming industry of vote-counting make their dough on the bottom of the ballot if they must.

At any rate, many Americans know they don't want their vote relying on hackable software and machines prone to glitches at any step of the count. (That is, when we stop to think about it.) It's up to government to make the voting process as transparent, trustworthy, and verifiable as is humanely possible, not maintenance men, motel maids and those of us with 12th grade educations.

Individuals in a Democracy do not have to be experts on how to fix a problem in order to demand that something significant and lasting be done about that problem. Annoyingly true, but if enough folks continue to demand HCPB--even mindlessly--it will come to be in some way, shape, or form.

Jumping up and down about it with mindless abandon is optional, as well as excellent for the heart.

[Contrite]

28. You can read about some good thoughts on how to implement it

At http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1923

[troubleinwinter]

46. Wow. Interesting.

The article seems to answer one of my questions. It calls for 4,6 or 8 'counters', plus 4, 6 or 8 'observers, and 10 'watchers'. If we use the average of 6 counters and observers, each polling place will need 22 people for the counting, plus the person videoing and broadcasting it.

We have 200,000 polling places in this country, so we will need 200,000 videographers, as "The videotaping will be broadcast over closed-circuit TV and streamed over the Internet while the counting is happening." Each polling place will need a closed circuit TV system and internet access to run many thousands of counts simultaneously.

So while we have previously needed 2,000,000 poll workers and have been running 500,000 (25%) short, we now need an additional 4,600,000 people for the counts. We had been managing to get around 1,500,000, but we would now need 6,600,000.

Most poll workers are paid, but we still lack the needed pollworkers. Are the count people to be paid or volunteers? If we have been falling short with paid workers, how will we quadruple the number of people? Will it be compulsory to serve? Or do you know that enough workers can be recruited?

[Land Shark]

9. Good for Rady! nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. hand recount in Vermont - 10 days, 265,000 ballots

Where were all of the volunteers?

Judge rules on recount: Salmon unseats Brock

By Shay Totten | Vermont Guardian
December 21, 2006

...A hand recount of over 264,000 ballots took 10 days in Vermont
and overturned the original results in the race for state auditor:

The recount lasted slightly more than 10 days, ending Monday when
Chittenden County finished its hand recount of 63,000 ballots.
There were nearly 265,000 ballots counted.

In the end, it came down to a handful of contested and provisional ballots,
totaling less than 100 votes, from around Vermont.
Those included 46 so-called telephone ballots, and 16 provisional ballots
that were delivered to the court from the secretary of state’s office.
Provisional ballots are those votes cast by people who showed up at their
polling place to vote, and were not on the checklist, though they should have been.

In addition, there were 16 contested ballots from around the state.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/122006/RecountFinal.shtml

[kster]

13. You guys don't even care how ridiculous

you argument is, you go on and on, If our kids lives, depended on getting the most accurate vote count, which way would you want the votes counted, by hand, by touchscreen or by optiscan.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

[kster]

14. Did I touch a nerve?

Its a simple question, if your kids life, or one of my kids lives,
depended on us getting the most accurate vote count on election day, I know which one I would pick.

It is really a simple question. Can you answer it?

[troubleinwinter]

16. My answer

has been written in the signature line of every one of my posts for sixteen months. Can you read it?

[Contrite]

27. All due respect to Andy but that is just one man's opinion

There are others that we can respect equally regarding HCPB

[eridani]

29. Andy came from a county with 1000+ different ballot formats

I'm from the same county, which is why I agree with Andy on this. Complex programs and complex administrative procedure involving human beings are EQUALLY likely to screw up.

[Contrite]

38. We could hand count limited races and have two ballots

One proposal out there, by Sheila Parks, and under consideration is detailed at freepress.org. Here is a relevant quote though:

"This would mean hand counting just 1-3 races (the president and vice president; your U.S. senator if s/he is up for re-election; your U.S. Representative). Yes, we would need two ballots, one for these races and one for all other contests and questions on the ballots. Canada already uses an HCPB system for its federal races. Various states and municipalities already have protocols for HCPB, and one has been presented in this paper. These could easily be adapted from one jurisdiction to another. Elections are governed by state rather than federal statutes (HAVA notwithstanding).

[eridani]

40. This is the Kucinich bill HR 6200

I agree that for limited state-wide races hand counts could work. The rest would still have to be opscan unless we revised our whole election system from scratch.

[troubleinwinter]

39. It is more than "one man's opinion"

It is my opinion too. It is not about a lack of respect for any others, it is about determining what system of ballot counting can actually work in this country.

I support HR6200. Hand-counting of the presidential race would be similar to other countries that completely hand count one single race. It would be 'same old, same old' in traditionally hand-count areas, and an extra 'audit' of op-scans in others.

Nothing has been presented to me that shows that we can safely immediately go to entire hand counts across the country with long, complicated ballots of some 50 races, given the existing shortage of poll workers. What shows that we would have a sufficient number of a couple of million or so additional capable counters and observers??? There has been no response to this concern.

I am not seeing any proof that hand-counts are necessarily more accurate than op-scans with audits and random counts, either. In the Vermont situation, the larger errors were in the hand-count locations.

I don't oppose hand-counts, but I oppose forcing what appears to be an unproven scenario of "All Hand Counted Ballots NOW!" that could well result in chaos, as we have no proven ability to implement this across the country. Our elections are too vital to simply cry slogans without drawing workable plans.

[Contrite]

43. But audits are hand counts

And from what I have read, the percentage now used--e.g., 2% of 2-4 precincts per county here in Minnesota--is inadequate to ensure accuracy. If we expand the audit, then why not count by hand in the first place? Or how about tabulate by machine and then audit the top races on the ballot 100%? As far as getting volunteers to do the job, I personally would be happy to work in my precinct. I have counted votes in caucus. No big deal. And I know I am not alone.

[eridani]

48. Because of the checks and balances, of course

Doing a hand count audit of optical scan tabulation is like a paleontologist dating petrified wood by counting the rings by hand and also using machines to do carbon-14 dating. S/he is a very happy camper indeed if those two very different methods give answers that are close to each other.

[Contrite]

50. But, hold on, this IS done in Canada and elsewhere

I read tonight that Venezuela hand counts 54% of its votes and doesn't Australia also employ hand counts?

I think the "secret" is to restrict the races one counts by hand. And if it takes more than one ballot or one election, so be it. Seems to me there are too many races and issues on our ballots anyway. What's wrong with breaking the elections down into separate ballots--ones that can be hand counted (top Federal and state races) and ones that can be machine counted with audits?

[eridani]

51. In Venezuela, that's how they do their audits

Canada and Australia have parliamentary systems. You just have to vote for a party, making things a lot easier.

[Contrite]

52. Okay so why not just break it down

You can even use one ballot. Just count the top races by hand and run the ballots through the scanners, with audits, for the rest.

[Febble]

65. Small quibble

In Canada, Australia, and the UK, we vote for a candidate, not a party. The candidate belongs to a party. In Australia and Britain at least, until recently the party wasn't shown on the ballot, which meant you really had to know who your candidate was. This was especially problematic in Australia, where voting is compulsory, and led to the "donkey vote" - people voting for the person at the top of the ticket. I don't know what happens now in Australia.

In the UK we now have party names on the ballot. But the thing is, constitutionally, we vote for candidates to represent us in parliament. The Queen, by convention, selects the leader of the party with the largest number of elected MPs to "form a government". But of course it is perfectly possible for that leader to have lost his own seat. Labour could have won the last UK election, whether or not Blair won his seat (there was an anti-Blair candidate). But he didn't.

</quibble>

[demodonkey]

44. It is my opinion too...

... I stand with my departed friend Andy on this 100%.

[troubleinwinter]

15. Fascinating!

It took 886 people 10 days to hand count 265,000 ballots, ONE single race.

Also interesting to read that in this instance, the greatest problems were human errors in the hand-count counties, not the op-scans.

BURLINGTON— The outcome of a statewide recount in the race for Auditor of Accounts might not be known for several weeks, largely due to the volume of ballots to be hand counted in Chittenden County.

“It will depend on the number of people we have counting ballots, but it could take us until the first of the year,” said Lavallee. “Some people who sign up don’t always want to stay for the full day, and only want to come in for a morning or an afternoon, so that also makes it difficult to manage.”

A recount following the Democratic primary for the Chittenden County Senate race took 118 counters seven consecutive days of work to tally roughly 10,000 ballots, Lavallee said. In the case of the senate race, there were six names to record per ballot, while in the upcoming recount only one name will be recorded per ballot.

Ballots are counted in batches of 50, and after each batch is counted, the counters and the watchers switch places and the ballots are counted a second time to see if they arrive at the same result. And if they can’t?

“Then they have a problem and they have to go back and figure out why that is,” said Markowitz, whose office has been offering support to county clerks in preparation for next week’s recount. In some cases, there may be a dispute over “voter intent” or if there might have been an erasure, or partial mark made on a ballot.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/112006/AuditorRecountStart.shtml

(Vermont Secretary of State) Markowitz said the initial mistakes in the tallies stemmed mostly from clerical errors in large towns where ballots are hand-counted, in which votes for Salmon were transferred to a summary sheet and put under Liberty Union candidate Jerry Levy's name.

Markowitz said those sheets have been used for years, but her office will consider making changes to them to prevent such errors. She will also encourage towns to take advantage of federal money available through the end of the year to buy optical scanners that count ballots electronically.

Chittenden County finished its recount just before 10 a.m. Monday after a two-week process in which every vote for auditor was counted twice by teams of Democratic and Republican volunteers. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061219/NEWS01/612190311/1009

Markowitz said in more than one town, some of Salmon's results were recorded to Levy. She said all of the major errors happened in towns that did not use tabulation machines, but rather counted votes by hand. http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_4865363

Salmon's razor-thin margin will be around 100, as it looks, based on the final unofficial recount. The primary variable in the recount seems to have been paper ballot Salmon votes originally counted for Jerry Levy, the Liberty Union candidate. With scant exception, most of the optical scan (machine) ballots have apparently been verified. http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061219/OPINION04/61219005/1024/OPINION04

The recount has revealed that a number of votes for Salmon that were hand-counted on Election Day were mistakenly assigned to Liberty Union candidate Jerry Levy.

Based on Election Day results, Brock outpolled Salmon in Chittenden County by 2,202 votes. Many, though not all, Chittenden County towns count votes with an optical scanner that is believed to have been more accurate. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061216/NEWS02/612160303/1007/NEWS05

[kster]

17. Ok, I will ask you the same question

If our kids lives, depended on getting the most accurate vote count on election day, which way would you want the votes counted, by hand, by touchscreen or by optiscan.

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

[troubleinwinter]

18. See post #16.

[kster]

19. Just print it, A, B or C

If our kids lives, depended on getting the most accurate vote count on election day, which way would you want the votes counted, (A) by hand, (B) by touchscreen or (C) by optiscan.

You can do it! I know you can!

[troubleinwinter]

21. Oh, I see now, you cannot read.

That answers a lot.

I was rather hoping that you might take the opportunity to try to bring me into the HCPB camp by at least discussing some of the questions in post #5, like how we might address a shortage of counters (given the 25% shortage we've had in pollworkers) and your views on compulsory service.

Many people have posted photos for you of hand-count ballots actually used in other countries. They are all SINGLE race ballots. You have never addressed the issue, only saying that you, your friends, family and neighbors will just show up and start counting. To my mind, hoping for folks just boppin' in off the street is not a plan.

You asked for a readable picture of the November 2006 Los Anglese ballot. I posted it for you. You have made no comment of the ten-page, fifty-three race ballot. In case you missed it, I post it here again for you.

I certainly don't oppose hand-count, but you have not even ATTEMPTED to convince me that the logistics of hand counting a 50+ item ballot in every precinct, county and state is currently workable. If you cannot convince me, how do you intend to convince anyone who can truly bring it into practice? (Well, besides the other RahRahSisBoomBah cheerleaders)

[kster]

23. So is it A B or C?

[troubleinwinter]

26. I had refered you to post #16, without realizing that you evidently cannot count to 16.

(and you want to count ballots?)

It is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=462935&mesg_id=463023

[unc70]

24. And I replied to YOU too. What is with you two? Are you one and the same?

I spent a lot of time one night explaining how we did it, how we dealt with some of the issues and how we might now. How we have lost most of the institutional memory of the mechanics.

What is with you two, seriously? Edited to clarify: troubleinwinter, WillYourVoteBeCounted

Did you not believe me? Do you need witnesses? I watched the counting several times when growing up, did it a number of times as an adult. Spoke with my ex-wife in the last week and reconfirmed my recollections. We had all the same kinds of contests and ballots back then, and we couldn't ever remember finishing after mid-night.

[troubleinwinter]

25. I have read your posts with care and extreme interest.

I appreciate your posts.

I am reading a great many items on the issue. Your posts have been encouraging and enlightening.

I still weigh the question of being 500,000 ordinary pollworkers short(25%), and wonder where we will get perhaps another 2,000,000 counters. I read that the greatest shortages tend to be in minority precincts. I read that counts in various areas take a long time (three NC counties that took evening, night and until noon next day), the ten-day recount for a single race in a state with 265,000.

I read the comment about pollworkers generally being retirees, and that counters may more likely be employed people. I wonder how an employed person works all day, counts all evening and through the night until noon and then goes to work??

So, you didn't get responses to your posts, but I tell you I read them with interest and appreciation to hear of some actual experience. Every puzzle-piece helps me to understand. How your experience 30 years ago might compare to overseeing a county of 3,000,000 registered voters, I don't know. I don't think the cheerleaders know either.

I don't get responses to my posted questions, except snark. It sometimes goes this way on DU.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. one thing that confused me about your account --

if I understand rightly, you say that the counters could tally 1000-2000 ballots, with 30 or more races each, in two to three hours. This was done by dividing the counters and observers into teams, and having each count a group of ballots.

That seems to give us something like 5 minutes per race. How many votes can a group count reliably in five minutes? How many groups are therefore required? How long does it take to aggregate the group counts?

[Febble]

41. Ooh! Pick me! Pick me!

A, right?

If only the Ukrainians had hand-counted their votes in 2004!

Oh, wait....



Seriously, kster, if you want an accurate vote-count, you need to do all kinds of things, and some of them may be more difficult if you have a complicated ballot. One of them is a secure chain of custody, and the faster the ballots are are counted, the more secure that chain will be. That's actually an argument for optical scanning, at least as the first pass. Another is random unpredictable recounts - audits, in other words. Those would be required even in an all-hand-count election. Optical scans with audits, and maybe hand-counts for the top races, seem like a good way to go to me. If we get STV in the UK, I expect we will use optical scanners . I hope we get STV. Without it, millions of voters are effectively disenfranchised in each election.

Have a happy holiday with your kids!

[kster]

47. OK, I pick you!! A is the correct answer,

and if it was me making the decision for one of our kids, I would have giving the same answer, Thank you.

Of course you had to give me the correct answer, because we both know that A is true, but then you try and dress down the fact that you had to give me the correct answer.

"Seriously, kster, if you want an accurate vote-count, you need to do all kinds of things, and some of them may be more difficult if you have a complicated ballot. One of them is a secure chain of custody, and the faster the ballots are are counted, the more secure that chain will be. That's actually an argument for optical scanning, at least as the first pass. Another is random unpredictable recounts - audits, in other words. Those would be required even in an all-hand-count election. Optical scans with audits, and maybe hand-counts for the top races, seem like a good way to go to me. If we get STV in the UK, I expect we will use optical scanners . I hope we get STV. Without it, millions of voters are effectively disenfranchised in each election".

We all know the ballots have to be secured, but this was not the question, thank you for adding all the additional information.

Your answer to the question was A, Hand Counted Paper Ballots, my Kids and I thank you for that.

Have a Safe and Happy Holiday :)

[kster]

20. This is only a A,B,C question, I'm not surprised

that you will not answer this SIMPLE question. ABC makes It real simple, but for SOME REASON you CAN not answer this simple question? WHY?

[eridani]

31. I answered your question, and now I have one for you

Would it have mattered if Warren County, OH had used handcounting during their fake "emergency terrorist threat" that justified closing off observation by the public? For all we know, maybe they did.

[eridani]

30. One race--hand count. More than one race--audited opscan. n/t

[kster]

45. I don't agree, but, thank you, for your straight forward answer

why would you want to use optiscan machines to count multiple races? In my question, speed in getting the vote count totals was not an issue, only the accuracy. If one of our kids lives depended on an accurate vote count, would it matter to you how long the counting took? Thanks again, for your straight forward answer.

[eridani]

49. As Febble has pointed out--

--chain of custody becomes far more of an issue for processes that take a long time. Besides which, opscan is more accurate for counting more than one race.

[kster]

53. Febble also picked "A" or Hand Counted Paper Ballots

if we were out to get the most accurate vote count total. Read up a couple of posts.

[eridani]

54. For ONE RACE AT A TIME!!! n/t

[kster]

55. You got all that, out of this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=462935&mesg_id=463091

You must be a mind reader. Febbles answer is "A" Hand Counted Paper Ballots.

I'll take another look, NO, it does not appear that Febble says one race at a time, Febbles answer to my question is "A" Hand Counted Paper Ballots.

[Febble]

57. No, she just

read a little further than you did:

Optical scans with audits, and maybe hand-counts for the top races, seem like a good way to go to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=462935&mesg_id=463091

I agree you need the most accurate - and least corruptible - counting method possible. I'm just not convinced that hand-counts are necessarily the answer, particularly when you have complex ballots. I disagree that it's a simple question, which is why I mentioned Ukraine. Hand-counts are not necessarily accurate, and certainly not incorruptible. Nor is any method. That's why, whatever method is used, there are so many other things you also have to get right, one of which is a secure chain of custody of the ballots. And the longer the count takes, the harder that will be to ensure.

[Febble]

56. Sorry, kster

I was being a little sarcastic - did you not get my point about Ukraine? (hand-counted paper ballots).

I don't know which counting method would be the most accurate for the US. I am worried about the security of precinct-level hand-counts for multiple races, simply because of how long they would take, and how difficult it would be to get enough truly bipartisan oversight. If you can implement good security, oversight and audit measures, maybe it would be the most accurate/least corruptible, but Ukraine makes me doubt that.

I certainly don't like DREs. They are demonstrably inaccurate, and paperless DREs are impossible to audit. Toilet roll DREs would be difficult.

Optical scans for multiple ballots seem to me the most likely way of getting an accurate count in the US, as long as the chain of custody is secure, and there is a rigorous random audit protocol, although I'd certainly favour a full hand count/recount of statewide races (president, senate, governor).

But where I do unequivocally agree with you is that an accurate count - and one in which voters have faith - is absolutely vital for a democracy. I'd also say that an electoral system that delivers a government that reflects the will of the majority is essential, and yours doesn't, and nor does ours. That's why I'd like to see Single Transferrable Vote in the UK (which would probably mean optically scanned ballots for us).

But the sad fact remains that in addition to a just electoral system, if you want the best for your kids, you also have to persuade a majority of the electorate to vote for a just government. That will always be the hard part.

Peace!

[kster]

59. No apology necessary

its all in fun, this thread was a riot, A simple ABC question gets me multiple paragraph answers, I luv it. Security wasn't an issue in my question, it was just a simple question.

If our kids lives, depended on getting the most accurate vote count on election day, which way would you want the votes counted, by hand, by touchscreen or by optiscan. :)

[Febble]

60. If my kid's life

depended on getting the most accurate vote count on election day, I'd want the most accurate vote count.

The question is: what is the best way of getting an accurate (and uncorrupted) vote count? I'm an enthusiast of big transparent hand-counts in our big Town Hall constituency counts, but they only take a few hours, and they are watched by hundreds (usually) of people, candidates, and TV cameras. I'd like to see real research done into the most accurate and incorruptible way of counting YOUR votes.

If you can convince me that the answer is precinct-level hand-counts then great. But you aren't quite there yet. :) I'm worried about security.

[kster]

61. Thats security in and of itself

"what is the best way of getting an accurate (and uncorrupted) vote count? I'm an enthusiast of big transparent hand-counts in our big Town Hall constituency counts, but they only take a few hours, and they are watched by hundreds (usually) of people, candidates, and TV cameras".

So are you suggesting that America should keep counting and tabulating our votes, inside of a little proprietary black box? Where the vote count can not be "watched by hundreds (usually) of people, candidates, and TV cameras".

Where is the security in that? You say

"I'm an enthusiast of big transparent hand-counts" but with a simple question like, "If our kids lives, depended on getting the most accurate vote count on election day, which way would you want the votes counted, by hand, by touchscreen or by optiscan. You won't give a straight answer, even when you know you are "an enthusiast of big transparent hand-counts".

If you are an enthusiast of big transparent hand-counts, Your answer should be "I would secure the ballots, then I would hand count them ballots, one race or 53 Races, one race at time, BY HAND.

Why would your answer be anything else?

[Febble]

62. No, I'm not suggesting that

America should keep counting and tabulating our votes, inside of a little proprietary black box? Where the vote count can not be "watched by hundreds (usually) of people, candidates, and TV cameras".

But nor can precinct-level hand-counts be "watched by hundreds (usually) of people, candidates, and TV cameras".

That's the problem. It is very difficult to figure out a way in which your election could be conducted with anything like the transparency of ours, given the complexity of your ballots. If you hand-count them all, you vastly increase the opportunity for tampering. And if you machine-count them all, ditto.

That's why I think the best system would probably involve optical scans of all ballots, hand-counts of the top races, and handcounts of a random sample of the remainder. Plus stringent non-partisan oversight over the chain of custody of the ballots and meticulous book-keeping so that votes can be traced to precincts and machines.

But I'm more than happy to discuss alternatives. Like you, I believe that you urgently need the most accurate and least corruptible count you can have.

[EST]

64. You have it nailed, tightly.

The reason "data processing" came into being was because the amount of information that had to be handled in an industrialized country had simply become unwieldy.

Any who have worked in the computer field, or least those of us who were involved in the century of automated data handling growing out of the 1880s, knows there is a history that leads us to now.

An early guiding light in data processing was a fellow named Hollerith.
He was heavily involved it the enormous question of getting accurate results in a timely enough manner to be usable, rather than ancient history.
Think of a stock trader and the value of accurate, instant information.

In the late nineteenth century, with the population growing by millions over millions, the US census information was taking nearly the entire ten years until the next census to become available, making it a decade out of date and, obviously, nearly useless.

The scheme for machine handling of all that information grew up around coding- into a machine recognizable format on paper-the Hollerith code.

That paper, with it's data stored on it by a system of holes punched in it, took the form of a card, an envelope-size (well, actually a little bigger than 3"X7") piece of thick paper.

This took the place of disk drives, CD drives, floppies, tapes--all the stuff we have now in incredible profusion that we love to hate.

The net result was that, over time, the error rate went down by something like 99% and the speed of processing (especially compared to the legions of hand counters and human tabulators, interestingly known as "computers") went stratospheric.

Machines make errors, sometimes, but those errors ultimately come back to human error, whether it be from data input mistakes, deliberate confusion-fraud-or poorly designed/fraudulently designed hardware or software.

If there are one hundred twenty million ballots cast with fifty races per ballot, ignoring the fact that there may be multiple contenders per race, that comes to at least six billion chunks of data.
Attempting to handle this fustercluck, or even the majority of it, by hand is preposterous. Some mechanized help is essential.

The interface between humans, making their choices and the final result of a properly certified candidate heading for that new job should be a piece of paper that the voters can hold in their hands and that can be machine or hand counted, recounted and put into secure storage, to be retained for re recounting as long as needed-at least until the next six year cycle.

The best tools are adequate oversight, photographic observation and non partisan management.

The nearest to ideal we can make this system, except for specific,high profile races-president most likely- is a simple as possible paper ballot, a mechanized reader with over/under/unreadable detection and rejection and a local tabulator, with results handed off to a centralized tabulator, and thence back to the voters as roster of winners and losers.

There are standards, real standards that electro/mechanical equipment must be held to, including but not limited to total transparency-if the manufacturers refuse to allow this, they don't need to play in this profitable field.

Hand counting of all the details of 120,000,000 ballots is an invitation to return to a century ago, with its attendant problems.

The real problem is the human element and with real, practical regulation and real nasty prosecution for fraud, that problem is manageable.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. well, seriously...

I doubt that Vermont uses volunteers in their hand recounts! (ON EDIT: yeesh, with that many people involved, maybe they have to. OK, I need to spend more time on Vermont. --Yup, I eat crow. Again. Sorry about that!) But it would be nice to have the advocates do some more work on their person-hour estimates.

[In Truth We Trust]

63. Hand Counted Paper Ballots NOW! K&R Good post Kster

[kster]

67. I,know, I keep saying twelve year old, but he just turned thirteen

and he can debate these people, like he is an adult. They do not have an argument, but it is goddamn funny to watch........ THIRTEEN?? and he knows better..........H C P B NOW!!!!