I knew the GA voted not to spend more money on electronic voting equipment, but I didn't know that meant maintenance of existing equipment. Today at my voting precinct , there was on voting machine and five 3-sided card enclosures strategically placed on tables so people could complete their paper ballots.

Maybe this is the County's way to put people to work - get rid of the voting machines and return to paper ballots so the county can hire people to count the votes.

Id prefer paper ballots to the electronic system. The electronic system felt much more like a black box than a ballot box...

They're switching back to paper because no one trusts the machines. They had mostly paper at my polling place when I voted in '08. Only a couple machines.

How will this affect the final results of the elections (time to read the ballots and determine the winnders)?

easy to beat paper too. I do prefer paper though as it leaves a paper record of the vote. I voted with paper.

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How will this affect the final results of the
> elections (time to read the ballots and determine
> the winnders)?

It shouldn't affect it too significantly. I think the big black box that collects the ballots actually counts them as they're inserted.

The big advantage to the paper ballots is that, if there's demand for a recount, they have the original votes in a big box, not a count of button presses. That way they can rescan the ballots or have a room full of people stare at the ballots to ensure they're counted properly. With the machines, it's just a printout "Machine 1034727 - Dude A: 10 votes - Dude B: 8050 votes"

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> easy to beat paper too. I do prefer paper though
> as it leaves a paper record of the vote. I voted
> with paper.

My understanding is yes, the ballot is automatically counted when you feed it in. Thats why you have to lay it flat and slide it in the slot. Not like a box that you simply just dump your ballot into.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do prefer paper though as it leaves
> a paper record of the vote. I voted
> with paper.


I prefer paper too.

In fact, I prefer those kind of ballots, what are they called - butterfly ballots - that requires you to poke a hole next to your candidate of choice.

Punching that hole in the ballot seems like it should be a more easily confirmed vote if it were ever necessary to have a re-count.

Don't you remember the hanging chad fiasco in Florida? That's the same kind of ballot that you are talking about. Give me paper.

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I knew the GA voted not to spend more money on
> electronic voting equipment, but I didn't know
> that meant maintenance of existing equipment.
> Today at my voting precinct , there was on voting
> machine and five 3-sided card enclosures
> strategically placed on tables so people could
> complete their paper ballots.
>
> Maybe this is the County's way to put people to
> work - get rid of the voting machines and return
> to paper ballots so the county can hire people to
> count the votes.


The state legislator refused to give Ffx. more funding for buying more machines, so they went with the scantrons instead. The computers are still there for your use if you prefer them.

RestonLass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How will this affect the final results of the
> elections (time to read the ballots and determine
> the winnders)?


They're scantrons, they same as we used in school for SOL testing in Ffx. (At least I did for my entire K-12). We also used them at least 50% of the time for general tests. They're fed into a scanning computer, and it runs the results and tallies them immediately. That will in turn cause for a receipt to be printed out, and in about an hour or less, I'm going with the CEO to run them in a secure case down to the Government Center.

my only concern is that the school bond referendum was on the back of the ballot by itself. though i was instructed to read both sides, i just feel like the average voter would fill out the front and skip right over the back

yourname Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> my only concern is that the school bond referendum
> was on the back of the ballot by itself. though i
> was instructed to read both sides, i just feel
> like the average voter would fill out the front
> and skip right over the back


Yeah, that could very well happen. My precinct is run by a family member of mine however, who happens to be very competent and meticulous, and the staff there was really on top of their game in regards to voter instructions and help. I'm with you though, I hope that every polling location was on the ball in notifying voters. The ballots could have possibly been marked in a better manner so as to clarify what you mentioned.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah, that could very well happen. My precinct is
> run by a family member of mine however, who
> happens to be very competent and meticulous, and
> the staff there was really on top of their game in
> regards to voter instructions and help.

One problem with the help. We're supposed to have secret ballots in this country. With the help floating around the scantrons, the help gets to see your vote. Not good.

They really should put the scantron behind a curtain somewhere & only if someone asks for help should the helpers be anywhere near it.

Did some people here not vote in the last presidential election? My precinct had the same paper ballots that are fed through the black scanning box.

I agree that having the help standing next to it is disconcerting as they can see how you voted. I would prefer if they would stand with their back to the machine so they can turn to show you where to put it but turn back when you take it out of the folder to have it scanned.

hard copies of votes is a good idea. however, electronic voting is also a good idea. my idea, is to have an electronic voting system that would record your vote electronically and print out a paper ballot of sorts that it keeps inside of itself. that way, should something go awry, you have the paper copies.

btw, diebold ruined electronic voting for everyone.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

The whole move to electronic voting was such a huge over-reaction - an obvious panic move - based on an isolated incident, largely turning on a single, poorly designed ballot in one district in Florida.

How many millions have we wasted on these machines?

Just improve the paper ballot, which is what we should have done in the first place. Design the ballots to have a clean punch with no hanging chads. How hard can that be?

Any system can be gamed, but the possibilities for gaming an electronic system seem much greater.

That said, if they could just figure out a *truly* secure and fraud-proof method to vote via the internet (not unlike making a purchase over the internet), that would be one way to really increase voter participation in our democracy, because under the present arrangement - having to haul your ass down to the local voting station and wait in line - the sheer hassle factor acts as a huge disincentive to our right and duty as citizens to vote.

WestfieldDad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Yeah, that could very well happen. My precinct
> is
> > run by a family member of mine however, who
> > happens to be very competent and meticulous,
> and
> > the staff there was really on top of their game
> in
> > regards to voter instructions and help.
>
> One problem with the help. We're supposed to have
> secret ballots in this country. With the help
> floating around the scantrons, the help gets to
> see your vote. Not good.
>
> They really should put the scantron behind a
> curtain somewhere & only if someone asks for help
> should the helpers be anywhere near it.


In my precinct we had privacy curtains set-up for that very reason. Did they have those where you were?

FL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That said, if they could just figure out a *truly*
> secure and fraud-proof method to vote via the
> internet (not unlike making a purchase over the
> internet), that would be one way to really
> increase voter participation in our democracy,
> because under the present arrangement - having to
> haul your ass down to the local voting station and
> wait in line - the sheer hassle factor acts as a
> huge disincentive to our right and duty as
> citizens to vote.


Even though I don't condsider it a hassle (It's right down the street), I had the EXACT same thought today in regards to some type of in home voting.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hard copies of votes is a good idea. however,
> electronic voting is also a good idea. my idea,
> is to have an electronic voting system that would
> record your vote electronically and print out a
> paper ballot of sorts that it keeps inside of
> itself. that way, should something go awry, you
> have the paper copies.
>
> btw, diebold ruined electronic voting for
> everyone.


The machines we've used throughout the years, always do in fact have paper copies kept within them. Before the current computers however, we used to have these big heavy boxes (I helped moved them every year when I was a kid). They were self-contained booths, complete with a privacy curtain and all. When casting your ballot, you pushed in the button near the name you chose to vote her, and a light would turn on next to each name to notify you of your selection. Then, when you were done, you'd press a hard "ENTER" button, and that was it. At the end of the day, the officials would take the paper receipts out from the locked and secure section of the machine, and that's how they'd tally the votes. The only real benefit to the new machines, is their mobility.

FL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That said, if they could just figure out a *truly*
> secure and fraud-proof method to vote via the
> internet (not unlike making a purchase over the
> internet), that would be one way to really
> increase voter participation in our democracy,
> because under the present arrangement - having to
> haul your ass down to the local voting station and
> wait in line - the sheer hassle factor acts as a
> huge disincentive to our right and duty as
> citizens to vote..


for something as important as voting, it should be done in person. if you want a real incentive and/or a way to make money, charge people for NOT voting. $100 "unused voting station" fee on your taxes would either get a zillion more people to vote or generate a shitload of money.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

"The help" didn't see my vote. By the way, "the help" is a derogatory name historically used to refer to "negroes" so you miiiight want to change what you're saying unless you wear a white pointy hat in your spare time.

I scanned in my own ballot. Everything went smoooothly and I like paper balloting over computers.

FL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> because under the present arrangement - having to
> haul your ass down to the local voting station and
> wait in line - the sheer hassle factor acts as a
> huge disincentive to our right and duty as
> citizens to vote.

I've never waited more than 10 minutes and it's right down the street. Come on.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never waited more than 10 minutes and it's
> right down the street. Come on.


I hear you, but look at how many people DON'T vote. It speaks for itself.

What matters is getting a legitimate vote - a decision which is made in the mind - not being physically present at a polling station, which has no particular significance or magic power (other than providing at least a potential - but quite limited - check on fraud).

pgens Wrote:
> I agree that having the help standing next to it
> is disconcerting as they can see how you voted.

When I lived in the Boston, MA, area, the way it worked was that you walked over to the machine and the poll workers standing there took your ballot from you, removed it from the hiding sleeve, read your ballots, and fed it into the machine for you. I asked WTF and they explained that they had to "inspect" each ballot and put it into the machine because voters were incompetent at marking the correct choices.

On the other hand, no ID of any form was required to vote.

On the other hand, I think they just stuff the boxes anyway.

It seems like in Fairfax, the voting procedure is probably less fraudulent.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2009 10:50AM by Spacy.

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WestfieldDad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ThePackLeader Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>

> > One problem with the help. We're supposed to
> have
> > secret ballots in this country. With the help
> > floating around the scantrons, the help gets to
> > see your vote. Not good.
> >
> > They really should put the scantron behind a
> > curtain somewhere & only if someone asks for
> help
> > should the helpers be anywhere near it.
>
>
> In my precinct we had privacy curtains set-up for
> that very reason. Did they have those where you
> were?

No they didn't. They set it up the same way they did last year. The scantron was in the middle of the room with nothing around it and help in/on the way.

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The help" didn't see my vote. By the way, "the
> help" is a derogatory name historically used to
> refer to "negroes" so you miiiight want to change
> what you're saying unless you wear a white pointy
> hat in your spare time.
>
> I scanned in my own ballot. Everything went
> smoooothly and I like paper balloting over
> computers.

You're actually old enough to vote?

I have a fake ID.

Spacy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> > I agree that having the help standing next to
> it
> > is disconcerting as they can see how you voted.
>
> When I lived in the Boston, MA, area, the way it
> worked was that you walked over to the machine and
> the poll workers standing there took your ballot
> from you, removed it from the hiding sleeve, read
> your ballots, and fed it into the machine for you.
> I asked WTF and they explained that they had to
> "inspect" each ballot and put it into the machine
> because voters were incompetent at marking the
> correct choices.
>
> On the other hand, no ID of any form was required
> to vote.
>
> On the other hand, I think they just stuff the
> boxes anyway.
>
> It seems like in Fairfax, the voting procedure is
> probably less fraudulent.


Talking about "Box Stuffing", a friend of mine from The Peoples Republik Of Kalifornia told me about 15 years ago how they were still voting in peoples garages, and they would write their vote on a piece of paper, and then stuff it into a cardboard box. That's how backward those people are.

nakedshoplifter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a fake ID.


I knew it. I bet you're actually Canadian. I would hide it too, don't feel bad.