What Is Wrong With Paper Ballots and Pencils?

Really, just copy the ballots and hand the people pencils. No computers, no hanging chad, not butterfly ballots. Just check the box. I dont' care if it takes a day to count them, I don't care it it takes a week to count them, I don't care if it takes a month to count them. If there's any question about the count, count them again. What would it cost? Three cents a copy? What in hell is the problem?

I have to wonder, how many folks vote in the largest precint in the country, maybe a hundred thousand? So, what's the problem?

Paper and Pencil. Paper and Pen. Paper and a lump of charcoal. The big Letter "X" in the box. That's all we need in this country. How hard is this?

that's why it "won't work".

...until when? When did the first 'voting machine' come into existence? Worked pretty well for 200 years or so, right? :shrug:

but we also wrote letters and had people carry them across nations to deliver them. It worked for many hundreds of years. Who needs email, right?

I don't understand this line of argument. We have used machines to tabulate for a very long time. why? Because they're MORE accurate than people. They're also less biased than people. If you think hand-counted paper ballots were NEVER manipulated, you're wrong.

That being said, we need a verifiable paper trail, and any machines used need their operating instructions open to public scrutiny. We need to fix the problem, not revert to a worse system.

at the counting places to assure accuracy...That's how we do it in Canada and it works well for us....

...the point was really, a verified paper trail - something all of us at DU can agree upon.

Btw, while e-mail is a wonderful and efficient tool, it doesn't (and can't) completely erase the necessity of having mail physically delivered from one location to another.

If you want that, go to the Lounge! :) Dookus, you are so great.

Call it a ballot...not a paper trail.

I'm merely arguing that removing machines from the equation will NOT make the system any more accurate or less biased.

Machines will be used because they're fast and accurate. We need to do everything, and here's we agree entirely, to make sure the instructions for those machines are unbiased, and that there is a backup to check (I call it paper trail, you call it ballots - I don't care which it is).

Lets see, we need a verifiable paper trail, but we dont need a paper ballot???

So in comparison, you are saying we will only need a band-aid to treat what is a highly infected laceration (on Democracy*), while knowing fully well that anti-biotics are both necessary and mandatory in order to treat the wound and allow its full recovery?

Your logic is illogical Dookus.

I'm not convinced we DO need one, but I never stated that.

If you'll notice, I referred only to the tabulation of votes. Not the casting of votes.

My point is that machines ARE faster and more accurate than humans at such a task. Don't read more into it than what I put there.

That would be... um... illogical?

I am a geek....a computer geek and a mechanical geek. For that reason I can say categorically that computers are not the end all answer to everything. The fact is is that hand counted paper ballots can be recounted...electrons passing through a computer cannot. If you think I am mistaken set a magnet on top of your hard drive and run your computer for a few minutes. After you get done reinstalling your OS come on back to the board and tell me everything that was on the hard drive. Better yet...I have a little file here that would save you the time and trouble of finding a magnet. The little file is comprised of MY instructions to your computer...not yours. I'll send you this file and invite you to execute it.

Most of us have filing cabinets in our home which contain our important documents. Using you logic this is as silly as hand delivered post, right? If you think it is...scan all your important documents into your computer and throw all that archaic paperwork and those nasty old file cabinets away! Hell you can always print out the contents right? Then again if you've executed that file I've offered to send you...what prints out might not be indicative of that which you scanned in....no worries though right? Technology is always better...it's always the answer.

I defy you to tell me how a paper ballot marked with a pen is a bad system...or a worse system. Less is more...simple solutions are always the best answer to a simple problem. Creating a system which is more complex than the problem itself is illogical.

RC

people who can't read damning my logic. :eyes:

I referred to TABULATING votes. I didn't say anything about electronic VOTING.

I'm a geek, too. Been working in Silicon Valley for 20 years. I believe machines are better suited to doing simple, repetitive tasks, such as counting. They do it faster and more reliably than people. I don't see why that's controversial.

made no referance to counting votes...he made referance to casting them...you replied with a quip about email...which being computer generated not machine generated led us to assume you were advocating the wonders of computerized voting.

Interesting that you mention machines being well suited to doing simple repetitive tasks....I deleted about two paragraphs of my post which said essentially the same thing you did in that regard.

RC

...for countries to conduct elections. We could put 3 million people to work on November 2, 2004 counting those across the country and still have valid accurate results by that midnight after the polls close. I suggest we make that absolutely mandatory in Florida and lets have a U.N. delegation watching over it:think: :nuke:

Everytime one of your election results has been questioned, I've wondered why you're not just doing it the old reliable way.
Here in Canada we've been doing our elections that way forever and NEVER have a problem with all these glitches you mention...We had our federal election and we knew who won within a couple of hours, for instance.....nobody challenged it....The latest gadgets are not always called for and I think elections are one time when we should forget the gadgets.....

The only race was the Presidential primary which listed all the candidates with the simple instrauctions: mark an X in the box next to the candidate you wish to vote for. It makes things pretty easy.

:)

We still use the fill-in-the-bubble ballots. I don't know where you are Thom, but I believe it'll be a little while before BBV makes its way to my precinct. I trust the voting here in WV, its the voters I don't always trust.

Near Morgantown. I walk in and two ladys sit at the desk. One looks up my name in the big book to see that I'm registered. The second hands me my ballot. I take it to the booth. There are standard yellow pencils in the booth. I check the boxes of my choice. I fold the ballot. I take it to the box, where two ladys sit. I hand the ballot to either one, who then puts it in the locked box.

This is not rocket science.

If the nation needs a Constititional Amendment this is the one it needs, to establish a simple requirement for a paper ballot - Nation-wide.

in Randolph County, where I vote. That's why I trust the process.

Despite my feelings of agreement that this may be the most "honest" system out there right now, I don't feel something like this would work on a voter roll the size of say, Dade or Orange counties. The process is too cumbersome. That said, I don't feel that BBV is a panacea either. I would rather have the ol "hanging chad" than BBV without a paper trail or at all.

Good to hear from another WV DU-er. I may vote in Elkins, but I live in Morgantown. We should try to get a WV-DU gathering going and get some activism started.

My mother-in-law used to be the principal there. Over in Bruceton Mills.

went to vote twice recently, and approached in trepidation, how much figuring out i would have to do. and given paper and pencil and easy as pie. lol lol. yup a good way to end my day. then again there was just two people running

nt

corporations that make voting machines don't get to make millions and millions of dollars. That would be just terrible!

since it will never be implemented, it will have a zero percent failure rate.

At least that way there will be a paper ballot!

Any replacement system should have to meet the verifiability of this standard. And to answer your question, paper ballots were replaced with mechanical machines and then punch-cards ostensibly to reduce fraud and speed reporting, but I wonder....

when i voted in the cali primary last week in sacramento, i used a pencil and paper ballot.

we used something called 'ink a vote'. You filled in the circle with a black ink pen, seemed to work fine to me. :thumbsup:

If you vote absentee, you always ensure that your vote counts (in my election ward there are one a half dozen absentee voters, and the Board of Elections keeps track of all counted ballots eg. Bill Smith voted absentee...).

I didn't see what was wrong with any ballot I have used over the past 20 years. Keep trying to improve the mouse trap, I guess.

It amazes me how we spend so much on democracy in terms of taxes and lives, and spend so little on mantaining it.

were to roll past 2004, I'd probably get behind paper. But then it might take fairly aggressive action at the local level to get the message across.

I agree. I voted for Kucinich on Tuesday by writing his name on a previously blank slip of paper.

Best method.

primitive method. You could never depend on such an outdated method in a modern day technological society like the US or Canada.

umm, Canada, no kidding?

nevermind

Ballot boxes can be stuffed, votes can be bought, ballots can be invalidated or lost. The ballot can be made incomprehensible.

On and on.

-Good- voting machines are a good idea. But there has to be a paper trail. That's just elementary.