HCPB: Human Controlled Paper Ballots

Humans sort and stack paper ballots. Control.

Only part machines should play in elections is counting the number of papers in each stack.

Humans sort the ballots - according to each race - two, three or four stacks per race, as needed.

Then a simple counting machine counts the number of ballots in each stack.
Like is done with money after people have sorted the paper dollars in to stacks of ones, fives, tens, twenties, fifties and hundreds.

The similarity is that humans do the sorting, not machines. The machines count ony individual pieces of paper and perform no other function.

Hence the term: Human Controlled Paper Ballots.

Cheaper and easier and safer than ever. What do yall think?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_sheila_p_070511_hand_counted_paper_b.htm

K&R :)

You rock!

SORT AND STACK VIDEO:
http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/videos/State_WM9_256Kbps_download_NTSC.html




These videos are being made available to promote the use of hand counted paper ballot election systems nationwide.

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/2648

it's the way I'd do the job if somebody handed it to me and left me to my own devices. So that means it must be a brilliant idea....! ;)

We all are aware that you are indeed fairly brilliant.

But really, it is how they count millions of dollars everyday. I didn't invent this wheel. But thank you for helping me get it rolling.

manner...why bother with the simple counting machine? Precincts are supposed to be approximately 1000 voters max; on election day it usually amounts to 200 to 500 ballots ...a very manageable number to contend with by hand...

But we have to keep the machine heads happy.

And doing your way makes sense because then there is a check of the machines count.

But given there may be, all told, as many, or more than twenty races on a ballot, and therefore as many as forty stacks made and then a proper count and accounting made of all those stacks, it makes sense that a simple machine could help move things along, eh?

the machine heads as far as I'm concerned can GO TO HELL!

They sit here BULLSHITTING people with their "all we need to do to protect the ballot count is do an audit" Screw that and them, we will be counting the ballots by hand, and the "machine heads" can KISS MY ASS if they don't like it.

:evilgrin:

be trusted to count them accurately, or can they be "misinformed"?

Banks pretty much rely on the accurate machine counts, so there is a great history of that success.

On the other hand, the machines, if they have any code have a very simple code that is open sourced - meaning anyone can read the code and fix it when problems occur.

So, to answer your question.... Yes, they count accurately and if misinformed are found out quickly and then easily fixed. Not at all like diebold or and es&s way of vote counting, eh?

Hopefully congress will pass a law getting rid of computerized vote counts for, at the very least, federal elections.