Do We Want Paper Receipts for Voters?

[BlueDog2u]

Poll question: Do We Want Paper Receipts for Voters?

I have read one serious objection to the idea of having a paper receipt for voters which identifies how they vote as part of the paper trail to secure voting systems. It is claimed that issuing a receipt to the voter will facilitate buying and selling of votes since voters would be able to prove how they voted and receive a cash payment for services rendered to a party or candidate.

I wonder how DU people feel about this -- is it a serious objection which should require us to rethink the value of having a receipt for the voter, or is it just a distraction?

Thanks for voting! Your vote will be accurately recorded.

[htuttle]

1. NOT A PAPER RECEIPT -- A PAPER BALLOT

There is an important difference. A paper ballot can be recounted, since it's a official ballot. A receipt is just that -- a 'receipt'. You can't recount receipts.

I'm not a big fan of allowing proof of votes to be taken off the voting site either, but what's most important is that there be a paper ballot that can be recounted.

[Eloriel]

8. Yes -- voter verified paper ballots, let in a lock box just like

you would do with your punchcard BALLOTS.

[neohippie]

9. rename receipt to ballot and you get my yes vote

BALLOTS not receipts....

[CitySky]

2. voter doesn't KEEP the receipt --

Voter VIEWS receipt through plexiglass, verifies it and hits a button to confirm, yes this is how I want to vote.

Receipt then falls into machine, ready to be re-counted later if necessary.

Best way, IMO.

[bunny planet]

39. I heard there was a two part receipt, one that was put in a secure locked

box that was then recounted and one copy the voter took home with them for verification. Like when you pay for something in a store with a debit card and you get the white (or yellow receipt) and the store keeps a copy to send to the credit card company. You check first to make sure they match.

[noiretextatique]

50. cross-reference receipts with ballots.

like actual accounting? what a concept!

[Junkdrawer]

3. AND AUDITS - A PAPER BALLOT IS USELESS UNLESS USED

Each candidate should be able to demand recounts for selected precincts.

[Ediacara]

4. I like the machines used in Venezuela

You put your thumb on a reader, it verifies you haven't voted yet, you make your selection on a touch screen, it prints out the ballot that you can double check, you put the ballot into a different machine that reads it (like an optical scanner machine), and then the ballot is kept in a box and can be counted by hand.

[Rumba]

7. Holy crap...

*Venezuela* has a better votiong system than the U.S.

Venezuela.

doh.

[masshole1979]

27. Venezuela IS a better democracy than ours, like almost ever other country

They have multiple parties, a wide range of issues discussed in the public forum, much less money in politics, and 46 years of continued elected governance in the face of hurdles the likes of which the USA has not seen since the civil war.

The US is one of the least democratic countries in the West.

In fact, almost every country (outside of the Middle East and Africa--and even inside of Africa lately) is more democratic in its national governance than the US. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. More parties, higher voter turnout, closer adherence of elected officials to their campaign promises, wider range of issues discussed, fewer politicians in the pocket of private interests--in short, better.

Just b/c we have frikkin 600 channels of TV doesn't make us an advanced nation in every respect.

We have a lot to learn from Venezuela and other countries in the world!

[BR_Parkway]

42. Awesome combination - who makes this system?

Hate to say "outsource" buying machinery, but if the US companies are more interested in keeping the machines with all the flaws, then we need to buy them from other places.

[Ediacara]

46. IIRC They're actually made in Florida!

[mopinko]

5. most of the discussion that i am aware of

is focused on a piece of paper that stays at the polling place. the issue is not a receipt, but a paper ballot that is available to the government. anything that the voter took with them would not be secure, or countable.

[lonestarnot]

40. Agree

Ballots must be paper and further for presidential elections, only presidential candidates on ballot, none of this two hour shit at the poll trying to figure out proposition and judge votes etc., just pres. vote in and get out on to the next ...

[SdivaD]

6. There must be two ways to count votes

The touchscreen computer should create a optical machine readable form. The forms can be fed to the optical scanner to come up with the second count and it must match the original total from the touchscreen computer.

[Eloriel]

10. and HUMAN readable ballot -- optical scanners can be just as

problematic as touchscreen machines. Same software, same hackability, same riggability.

[Carolab]

21. YES. FORGET ANY FORM OF E-VOTING.

NO DIGITIZING OF OUR VOTES. NO MACHINE COUNTING. NONE.

PAPER. HAND-COUNTED. BY HUMANS. PERIOD. BALLOT RECEIPT.

[bardgal]

43. EXACTLY!!! NO E-VOTING!!!!! Receipts just make e-voting more acceptable &

"clean" in the mind of the voter. E-voting is too easy to manipulate!!! They'll never allow a close enough election to warrant a recount. NO E-VOTING! PAPER PERIOD, counted by HUMANS.

[gristy]

11. you are seriously confused

The media helped get you in this state, I admit.

[BlueDog2u]

18. I have no idea what you are talking about /eom

:dem:

[BlueDog2u]

12. Thank You, Everyone

Who has voted and commented already.

Those how have not yet, please join the discussion. Since I imagine and hope that DU will continue to exert a major influence in shaping the debate over national standards and reforms, I believe it's important that we arrive at some kind of consensus, or at least strong majority opinion, about what kinds of reforms we endorse. All those who have participated in the discussion are contributing to the future of legitimate voting procedures in the USA! Ya.:dem:

[galadriel]

13. Good poll!

However, I am concerned that someone leaving with a receipt in his pocket could have that receipt turn into a will.

It's dangerous, BlueDog2u, don't you think? An invitation for bullies? So I voted for choice number three.

:)

[demodonkey]

14. BALLOT IS THE WORD - voter-verified paper ballot. NO take-home "receipt".

Machine prints it, voter checks it, it goes into a LOCKED BALLOT BOX.

Only a "ballot" is legal in a recount or audit.

[BlueDog2u]

15. Kick!

:dem:

[Merlot]

16. Receipt NO - Ballot YES

Issuing a receipt to the voter makes no sense. The voter should look at the ballot, approve it, and send it to a locked ballot box.

Why make a simple issue confusing with all this talk of reciepts and cash payments?

[sandnsea]

17. Mail-IN, Paper BALLOTS

This is the solution to the voting problems. It's simple and it works.

Now if we want to talk about receipts, let's get a signed registration receipt.

Simple simple simple. But will anybody listen? Oh hell no.

[KaliTracy]

20. no no no

Absentee ballots have too many people touching them, have a tendency to get "lost" (or not sent in the first place)-- and there is no way for the voter to actually know that it was recieved in a venue where it was immediately taken and put in the voting box (or whatever they use). Even if a note is sent confirming receipt, actually knowing that it was put into the right place is not known (unless all mail care-takers are videotaped.... that's getting to be to bigbrother for me). Absentee ballots often have political markings on them as well.

Now a paper ballot, in a polling place with X's for the candidate is how they do it in Canada, I *think* -- perhaps....that would work -- at least one wouldn't have to wait for hours -- they could set up 10s of little "cubbies" to do the vote before it again, goes into a Sleeve with an offical marking on the ballot sticking out of the sleeve to be deposited into the box.

Course in a LOT of optical scan places in Ohio they conveniently "ran out of pencils"

Tracy

[sandnsea]

23. It works in Oregon

They aren't absentee. EVERYBODY votes mail-in. Or, they drop it off at a local drop box, or take it straight to the county election office if they're so worried. There was NO report of ballots lost in the mail or anything else. The polling place can't run out of pencils, because the pencil is IN YOUR HOUSE. Or pen, as I use with mine. You can check to make sure your ballot actually counts, so that if there's a problem, you get to FIX IT. It is the best possible solution and people who were unsure about mail-in before we started it, are completely sold on it now. Plus, our turnout is something like 80%.

And Oregon managed to keep the same Dem & Nader voters we had in 2000. We didn't lose any margin of voters to Bush, at all.

[KaliTracy]

28. but you can't check

to see if it made it into the actual count.

ohio and florida had some very strange accounts with absentee ballots. I'm glad oregon is ethical enough to actually pull it off.

The *first* thing that came out of state-person's mouths after the fouled up long lines is that they were going to try to make it easier to vote absentee.... No Transparancy. I found it odd that they would opt to do that first, without figuring out that machine disparity was the number one reason for the long lines.

I think it's as dark hole to go into as going into a diebold box...

[sandnsea]

31. If everybody votes one way

Then you have to make sure there is transparancy. The ballots all go to ONE location per county to be counted. No multiple precincts uploading votes and all the rest of it. They're tracked as they come in. There are the same poll watchers looking over the ballots as anywhere else. Problems are detected early because all the ballots go out 2-3 weeks in advance. No waiting around until election day because there is no election day. You know you have a problem if you don't get your ballot.

If somebody is that worried about whether they marked their ballot correctly, take it to the county office in person.

It's simple and it works.

[badc0der]

22. absentee votes are where the fraud is

Traditionally absentee ballots are where fraud is more likely to take place since there is no way to verify that:
The voter was not intimidated or coached
The vote wasn't lost
The vote was kept secret

In the short term a paper ballot (not receipt) is definitely the way to go

So the concern that the original poster put forth is a red herring since it has nothing to do with the proposed solution.

In the long term a vote that could be checked by the voter after the fact (only in a controlled environment) has some merit, but given how fundamental of a change to our democracy this is I'm certainly not ready to jump on it with out more thought and widespread review.

[sandnsea]

24. ALL mail-in

Anybody who is going to vote the way somebody else tells them to, is going to do it in a voting booth anyway.

The rest of your stuff is just nonsense. ALL mail-in is better because you can actually make sure your vote counts BEFORE the final election day.

It works and it solves 90% of the voting day problems that keep happening in minority precincts.

[badc0der]

29. Not if it's your boss, union leader, health care provider, etc.

that is doing the pressuring.

[sandnsea]

32. How could they?

Your ballot is at home. How could they pressure somebody any more than they do now?

[htuttle]

38. A boss can say, 'bring your ballot to work, and I'll mail it in'...

'...otherwise you're fired.'

As could a dominating spouse.

That's the important thing about a public voting booth. It's a neutral space that should be entirely free of coercion or persuasion.

[KaliTracy]

19. print out that goes into lock box

just like punch card ballots. Voter would get to visually see vote, it goes into a Sleeve with the machine number and time stamp at top of ballot paper, voter watches while poll person puts it into lock box (or puts it them on his/her own) -- poll person does not get to see vote... maybe not a machine number, but only a time stamp -- as they often record which machine you are using on the poll books.

Only time lock box would be used would be in name of "recount" -- or machine problems, etc.

Computer techies would need to state whether it would be possible for a machine to record on paper something opposite that was put into the machine. Probably difficult to do -- but if possible, that would be another story...

I'm not sure how to answer poll with the word "receipt" used -- the voter *does not* get the print out -- it's still kept in the same polling place.

Tracy

[sandnsea]

25. Why???

You're talking about billions of dollars of machines. For what? And yes, the votes can be recorded differently than what is printed out. Nothing is difficult for a programmer.

Schools all over the country use bubble test sheets. We don't have SAT & ACT underscores and overscores. There is no reason for these optiscan machines not to work. The only reason we've got problems with the optiscan ballots is people at polls who are intentionally confusing the voters. With mail-in, you wouldn't have that crap anymore, would you?

[badc0der]

30. Because there is no way to accidentally undervote/overvote

Spoiled ballots from people changing their mind and erasing one choice and then picking the other will still happen. If anything it is more likely to occur with your proposed solution.

Using a voting machine as a glorified pencil is aimed at eliminating spoiled ballots from this and other “voter confusion” issues. I don’t see how moving the same system to someone’s home (where there isn’t a poll worker that is supposed to know what is going on) is going to help that at all.

[sandnsea]

33. Get a new ballot

With mail-in, you've got weeks to get a new ballot and all it takes is a quick phone call. You don't send in ballots if you've changed anything on it and you make it clear through the media. The whole country is on the same page, so there's no "untrained" poll worker there to tell you different.

[KaliTracy]

34. SAT and ACT

and other "optiscan" tests have TONS of problems -- but like voting errors -- they are seen as "glitches" and sometimes it doesn't matter and sometimes it does.

this year even teachers were denied degrees because of errors. and, there are kids who didn't graduate because of "machine error" ("fail" a high-stakes test -- then no diploma for you -- at least not with your graduating class.)


http://www.districtadministration.com/page.cfm?p=105

http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_atrocities.html?id=539

http://interversity.org/lists/arn-l/archives/Jul2004/msg00182.html

With Mail-in ballots you have No idea who has recieved your vote, if they put it in the proper counting place, or decided to "file 13" in the shredder. not an option for me in this time of election turmoil.

for the record -- I'm completely against high-stakes tests, and stopped teaching because of them (even before NCLB was initiated, Ohio had them)

http://stophighstakestests.org

[sandnsea]

36. Computer glitches?

I don't see anything about computer glitches in any of these articles.

And Yes you do know if your ballot has been received and is approved to be counted. You call the county and they tell you. I'm fairly sure in Oregon they will notify you if there's a problem with the ballot and you have an opportunity to fix the problem before the election. All you have to do to know if your vote is counted is to contact any political party in your city and ask whether your vote was recorded. There's a list printed after every election. It would be pretty obvious pretty quickly if people were trashing votes. It is an almost fool proof system. If we added signed registration carbon copy receipts, and required voter registration groups to keep a record of their volunteers' names and signatures, that problem would be resolved too. It works and is a whole lot easier to monitor than this mess we've got now.

[galadriel]

26. A kick

for you, BlueDog2u. Not very ladylike, I fear.

:crazy:

[skids]

35. kick n/t

[miyzelmouse]

37. kick n/t

[BlueDog2u]

41. Kick!

Thanks Miyzel.:hi:

[miyzelmouse]

44. Kick again plus message

You're more than welcome, BD2U.

:hug:

[BlueDog2u]

48. Kick Thanks Again!

:dem:

Just want to make sure everyone gets a chance to vote! Thanks for your participation.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

45. I think a lot of people use the word "receipt" incorrectly.

I have probably used the term carelessly myself. Voters should not receive "receipts" that they can take home that indicate how they voted. You are correct that it will facilitate the buying and selling of votes.

I think most serious voting advocates do not favor actual take-home receipts. But some people have pushed for the idea that if electronic voting machines are used, that they should at least print out a piece of paper that can be used in either the initial count or at least a recount. Some people call these "receipts," which is not quite accurate because they are not taken home by the voter.

[BlueDog2u]

49. I see the distinction you are making....

And agree, its important. But some systems have endorsed a receipt which voters would take with them, allowing them to check the results of their vote against an online data base. Such a system seems like a good idea until you consider the potential for vote buying.

[noiretextatique]

51. in california, we get receipts with paper ballots

they aren't numbered though...just a stub. i think numbered receipts are a good idea though, but not to take home, as a cross-referencing tool for counting or recounting. numbered ballot goes in one box, corresponding numbered receipt goes in another...voter takes home an unnumbered stub,with no voting information.

[BlueDog2u]

47. Kick!

Anyone else want to vote? :dem: