Doug Jones: Are Absentee Ballots Really The Answer?

Are Absentee Ballots Really The Answer?

By Douglas W. Jones, the University of Iowa

June 23, 2006

The recently released Common Cause report (Malfunction and Malfeasance: A Report on the Electronic Voting Machine Debacle) recommends that voters vote by absentee ballots in order to avoid the use of direct record electronic machines. All the studies I've seen show that absentee ballot processing is itself worthy of a similar report. Furthermore, where DRE machines are used on a one-per-precinct basis but mark-sense ballots are also available in the precinct (as is common here in my home state of Iowa) the recommendation should be to vote on paper at the precinct, not to vote by absentee ballot.

snip

There are too many jurisdictions where the mark-sense scanner is the only and final judge of the markings on the ballot. Empirical data from Florida 2000 and from Arlington Virginia shows that such jurisdictions routinely ignore around 4 percent of all votes cast. My research in Maricopa County Arizona (on the District 20 recount in 2004) illustrates some of the problems that can go unnoticed under these rules.

It is irresponsible to recommend absentee voting in such a jurisdiction!

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1422&Itemid=26

This "solution" simply isn't worth it. Not only can Diebold's "Vote Remote" signature matching device be callibrated up or down be turned into a vote spoilage device, and the even Oregon's best of class system has never been audited to see if it works as well as they think, but also no matter what State's interpretation of this concept is used, they ALL depend on the U.S. Post Office.

Here's a nice little compendium with a subjective rankings of their relative pros and cons.

http://www.califelectprotect.net/No_to_Mail.pdf

absentee seems the least of multiple evils.

:)

there is a piece of paper that can be recount...

So what is the advantage, over the the objections of Jones, that you might cite?

And on the subject of recounts...well, I'm sure you realize they're hard to come by.

Clearly, if there is a DRE as the only other option, paper makes sense. But the discussion/Jones article is talking about precinct-based OpScan vs. absentee.

"Vote Absentee" is not neccessarily a good idea depending upon a number of factors, despite the imagined convenience of a neat little (and inaccurate) sound-bite. This is what Jones is attempting to convey.

The entire article.

As I said the other day:

"Actually what "defies all logic and reason" is the assumption by some absentee proponents that an absentee vote will be counted, counted accurately, and hand-counted, at that. Who said?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x435812

It's like saying accountability is best, but in its absence then no accountability will do.

How about YES to an Election Verification and Security protocol based on paper and
NO to a lose your ballot in the mail and we'll count them for you scheme!

absense any paper record would be second best.

ITWT, have you read the entire article and feel sure you understand the good doctor's prognosis and prescription?

Pop Quiz:

A paper ballot can be opscanned at the precinct or used for absentee voting. Which of the two does Jones recommend? Why?

The absentee's were taken on a DRE. Funny thing is, the absentees were about 1/3 of the total vote and Kerry won by a margin of 5 to 4. Then on election day, the DREs counted the other two thirds and Kerry lost that by 6 to 4.

What does that mean? The coding on the DRE was not set to steal votes on the absentees (prolly 'cause the dates stretched over such a long period, and the abs could be recounted if the need arose) but were programmed with an easter egg to change votes on one day - election day.

What this tells us is that there are various and sundry ways the machine votes can be altered. It pays to know what your local is doing and stay abreast of the maneuvers.

Do you mean "early voting"?

Since there is no federal law detailing how votes are recorded, states can pretty much do as they please.

I am in favor of a federal law that makes all federal offices be cast on paper and counted by hand. All federal means president, senate and representative.

Let the states decide how to do all other races, but federal races should all be done the same way.

I'm not clear about why, but there have been a number of posts suggesting early voting to be extremely fraud prone.

... but then there is much to know. What I do know is that where I voted, the fraud seemed to be on election day only.

"early voting" is inclusive of absentee voting. We know very well, because we've read the code thoroughly to figure out how is that that Con-ny McCormack gets away with not inclusing "early voting" including absentee voting in the 1% mandatory manual random audit. The Election Code says that the manual audit shall be inclusive of the entire official canvass of all precincts, and Con-ny has decided that "early voting" inclusive of absentee voting is precinctless. Outrageous, and I say illegal. Though Bowen has a new bill to state without any ambiguity that indeed the 1% is inclusive.

Early voting not only includes absentee voting, but also the satellite trailers that are used in advance of election day in LA., as well as how many communities allow people to come to libraries and like places a few days before an election. It also includes the military voting that takes places before the election.

The bottomline is that early voting means any voting before election day.

in some states, if you refuse to vote on the machine,
you might be given a provisional ballot instead.

I would rather take my chances with the machine than with a provisional.

Not all states offer a choice between voting on a machine
and voting on a legal paper ballot.

not the answer.

We had our first real taste of election fraud last year, and the reason was increased availability of absentee ballots. Formerly you had to give a reason for getting a postal ballot (being on holiday, whatever) but last year for the first time we had postal voting on demand. There are real risks of coercion of course, and vote sale, but the thing that hit the headlines was theft of postal ballots, apparently by a local Labour Party (shame) branch.

Not all paper solutions are perfect.

as the GOP has become famous for "stuffing" in various ways the count.

It should be outlawed in the US.

They are consistently wrong on big issues.

They did have one or two good pieces, but the rest are really suspicious.

Me thinks they corrupt.

Is this speculation, or do you have proof that Common Cause is corrupt?

I can see criticizing Common Cause on some things - but corruption?

Proof?


Additionally, several people from Vote Trust and other organizations participated in
the new report on Elections by Common Cause.

I finally had to question the League of Women Voters when they came out with a position statement against paper trails#?!!?#

There are things with which we disagree and things that are merely evidence of ignorance. But sometimes it's worse--it conjures up allegations of corruption.

For example if Kenneth Blackwell comes out against renewing the Voting Rights Act. Now that would raise my highbrows.

Now with Common Cause, they ought to know better; particularly, if VoteTrust people were on the panel. Did they listen to their advice or use them just like the Baker-Carter hearings used Carter's good name?

No, Einsteinia. YOU conjure up allegations of corruption. BIG difference.

You've done so on this board, and if the reports I received are correct, elswhere as well.

VERY disruptive IMO.


Hmmmmm. :tinfoilhat: A disruptive entity. Maybe you're...

....Common Cause is working for....

Diebold!!!
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::rofl:

I might suggest that their leaders are nickenpoops that were for Arnold's Special Election; namely, the redistricting ploy. Now, they're for absentee voting as a cure for all that ails us.

it works for me.

I love Oscar Wilde who says be in his book "Artistis as Critic," that recommends the partisan and passionate stance instead of faux indifference.

I don't think anyone is going to confuse my posts, stated in in first person by me, as anything other than my humble opinions.

"Partisan and passionate" have nothing to do with it.

It isn't "faux indifference" to make reasoned assertions.

Disrupting election reform boards isn't humble, in my un-humble opinion.

I know you have a head on your shoulders. And I know you know what I'd recommend you more often do with it.

with nasty innuendo. You claim to have heard about me and my ways. Sounds positively medievel.

Get yer stones out!

I thought you were a fair-minded person deserving of respect around here.

Please reread your post #18, with reference to Common Cause: "Me thinks they corrupt."

I respectfully suggest that this isn't the right thread for you to be complaining about "nasty innuendo."

that followed that explained my admittedly brash exhortation. Am I the first to do this here? Do I do that regularly? Or even once before? But with that said, it is MY opinion of them as of late. Do we offer the same standard when criticizing other organizations around here?

But my response that you're linking to was actually referring to Wilms vague assertion that he's heard about me from others?

Well, I won't say any more on this because it's getting more personal than substantitive, and we need not bore the daylights out of our beloved DUers.

frankly, if I had posted something inferring that a basically
good organization was corrupt, and I realized my mistake,
I would ask the mods to remove it.

Its just good form to clean up after making a mistake.

Anyone who has an opinion that is different than my opinion is "wrong" because I'm brilliant.

And if they are wrong, the only possible reason is they are corrupt. No. No. Don't try to defend them saying that because they're not brilliant like me, they've just made an honest mistake. Phooey. There are enough of my brilliant posts on DU that all they have to do is parrot them. Refusal to march lock-step with me is, on it's face, malfeasance.

And anyone who even dares to challenge me is corrupt, too. So don't even try it, bub.

Just remember. I am not paranoid. I'm brilliant.

Case (mind) closed.

you made me laugh.

Now that I have had my really good laugh today,
I am going to go outside, like a good little girl.

Hah!


Maybe I will have a cool one later on... enjoy life a bit

:beer:

....if "THEY" disagree "THEY" are working for....

Diebold!!!
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::rofl:

just that we should be careful about calling anyone corrupt.

I have had my own rants about CC, but I do believe that they
have done some good work.

I don't agree with everything they do.

Sorry if I sounded too harsh.

If they are scanned to count, absentee ballots becomes just as digital and susceptible to configuration and malicious error as DREs. See:

• Programming engineer Critical Security Issues with Diebold Optical Scan Design (.pdf format)
  
  
• Security expert tabulator examination "Hack the Vote"
  
  
• (credentials: B.S. & M.S. in Information Systems circa '98 an '99) Powerpoint presentation on which addresses Optiscans and DREs, Digital Vote Processing Systems for Dummies (download, 4.65Mb .ZIP file does not require MS-Powerpoint to view)
  

PLUS,
There is plenty of evidence that many jurisdictions simply don't count absentee ballots. If I'm not mistaken, CA-50's Bilbray was sworn-in while absentee ballots remain uncounted.

Absentee ballots are like provisional ballots; they provide a perfect opportunity for: WE VOTE, THEY DECIDE! - a very bad solution!

AND,
Just because absentee ballots are paper doesn't mean they will EVER be counted with human eyes! This bears repeating:

JUST BECAUSE ABSENTEE BALLOTS ARE PAPER DOESN'T MEAN THEY WILL EVER BE COUNTED WITH HUMAN EYES!

To say they CAN be hand-counted is specious and entirely misleading!

Paper ballots aren't worth the paper they are printed on if they are digitized to count and if they are never hand-counted. Without human eyes used in the counting of our ballots, our voting systems continue to be wide open to election fraud.

I have been at canvassing meetings where the county BOE had to decide if the
absentee ballot application had been completed correctly.

All i's dotted, all t's crossed.

While they tried to be fair, ballots were not counted for some
pitiful reasons about how the app was completed.

You have to try to figure out, for the time being - what is your best chance
of having your ballot counted.

In 2004 in San Diego, the Dem candidate for mayor lost by only 2,108 votes.This was after 5,551 absentee ballots were tossed. Why were they tossed? She was a write-in candidate, and although her name was clearly written in the correct space, the voters had neglected to check the box by the line where they had written in her name. (Palast-Armed Madhouse...pgs 237-238.)
Zip codes on envelopes can tell a lot about how the voter might be voting. In 2004, Palm Beach absentee envelopes had the voter's party affiliation printed on the return envelope. (Same source-pg 237)
As Palast states:
"Democrats by the millions, not trusting county elections officials to operate computers without tampering with them, mailed their ballots to these same officials on faith they will be acknowledged, opened, accepted and properly tallied. Absentee balloting in the USA is the greatest expression of mass faith since the Hebrews walked across the Red Sea bed trusting the Lord would keep the waters parted. The difference is, in 2004, the absentee voters mailed their ballots to Pharaoh's clerks." (pg 237)

Request. Receive. Fill out properly. Return properly. Return on time. Successfully received. Successfully tallied. No funny stuff during all of that.

Better idea: walk up to a machine and vote

Another risk in voting absentee that hasn't been mentioned yet (sorry if it has and I missed it) is that you send in your request and never receive your ballot back in the mail. Then you will be rejected if you try to vote on election day because they have a list of people who requested an absentee ballot.

This happened to thousands in S. Florida in '04.

In my post I should have indicated "no problems during all the additional steps." Doesn't have to be funny stuff. Any number of potential accidental problems also.

I remember all those missing absentee ballots in South Florida in '04, mailed too late after a screwup. Palm Beach, wasn't it? At first it was an incredible number and the source of outrage. Then it turned out to be a much lower figure but still substantial, and a ridiculous gaffe.

Best idea: walk into a neighborhood-sized precinct on election day that is manned by volunteers from opposing parties, cast a paper ballot and watch as the ballots are hand-counted at the precinct in front of your very eyes. DEMOCRACY AT WORK!