E-Voting idea. How to do It fraudlessly.

The uses of electronic devices in voting does have a number of advantages, particularly in terms of accessibility to the blind, deaf and physically impaired and also those of non-English speaking backgrounds.

The major disadvantage seems to be due to stuffing the entire voting process into a single inscrutable and proprietary beige box.

To me the simplest solution seems to be, take a step backwards.

The voting machine "displays" each race in a manner that is best suited to each voter: onscreen; audio; or even Braille from a script.

The machine has a handful of physical buttons. Vote- yes/no/abstain and next/previous race.

All races default to the party ticket, it would be better if this wasn't the case, but I know people are lazy so it is unfortunately necessary. However, the voter must advance through all races one at a time with the next button, in the slight and probably vain hope that he/she will think about what they are voting for.

The voter may scroll back and forth through their ballot at will.

At the end the voter may choose to review, restart or accept their ballot.

Once a ballot has been accepted the machine records the vote on cardstock. Personally I like the idea of using cards pre-punched with holes around the edges, with three holes allocated per race and the vote recorded by cutting a notch that opens one hole of the three to the edge of the card. Thus ballots can be sorted with nothing more sophisticated than a knitting needle. It also offers the advantage of allowing sightless people to verify the card by touch.

Alternatively the card may marked with ink by the machine. to be read by an optical scanner.


The voter may then with the aid of a wall chart (or squinting at tiny print in the blank center of the card) verify that the recorded ballot is accurate. Or a reader could be made available for the voter to "read" the ballot back to them.

Once, and only when, the voter is satisfied, the ballot is dropped into a ballot box for counting at the end of the day.


For counting the ballots electronically the hardware should be as simple as possible. Nothing more than a reader and a tally counter. Such a device should cost no more than a few hundred dollars, allowing all votes to be tallied at the precinct level and preventing the switching of ballot boxes during transit.

Totals are called into a central tabulation center with registered scrutineers at each end to prevent fraud. A callback system could also be used for added security.

Once all votes have been tallied this way, the ballots from multiple precincts may be consolidated and recounted to confirm the result.


Done this way fraud becomes virtually impossible, since it requires the collusion of large numbers of people at every level of the vote collection and tallying process. Furthermore by using the precinct tabulator in a "verification mode" spoiled ballots can be caught before the voter leaves the voting station.

And if there is a question at any point, hand verification can be done either with the knitting needle for edge punched cards, or punched overlays for mark sense.


Thoughts people?

The REAL reason (before fraud entered the picture) for the introduction of electronic voting was to provide instant results for the TV networks to play with.

But instant results are a fairly new development. In 1968, we didn't know whether Nixon or Humphrey had won until about 2PM the next day. Big deal.

If you look over what I suggested, you will see that for the most part the electronics are there primarily to present/display the ballot in a manner that makes it accessible to as many people as humanly possible. There is no electronic record of a person's ballot. The record is an actual physical thing.

Electronic counting of the ballots is a matter of convenience and convenience only.

The electronic voting machine does exactly and only the job done by the mechanical, wall of levers monstrosity, that caused the Florida debacle. The format of the physical ballot might vary, but functionally it is identical.

Past that: A valid/invalid check at the time of submission nips "hanging chad" challenges aborning; counting at the precinct level prevents prevents fraud by switching ballot boxes in transit; machine readability gives speed and accuracy; and human verifabiliy maintains confidence.

An edge-punch system combines the best of all worlds, by allowing a manual count, with nothing more than a stick and a set of scales.

Moment of epiphany mate: Mark-sense is out. Edge-punch is the only way. The one true way.

With edge punch and three choices (Y/N/A) per race (one of which MUST be chosen) all ballots have identical weights.

Thus:

• Insert Knitting needle into "Abstain" slot and select all up and down votes. (discard abstains)
  
• Separate by reinserting needle into yes or no slot (choice irrelevant).
  
• Put each pile on a balance.
  
• Instant result.

Edit:

One person with nothing more than that knitting needle and scale balance can count 50 different races in less time than it would take that same person to count the same number of paper ballots for a single race (1, 2, 3, ...) and do it more accurately.

Without knowing HOW the machine is tabulating the votes, it doesn't matter of you mark your selection with check marks, written words or ping pong balls.

is as simple as the odometer in a motor vehicle. And with the right precautions as tamper proof.

to do it and talked about it on tv frequently.

I'm Aussie, so my info is basically the bitching about how bad the systems implemented are.

something and should not try to scan on the fly.

In any case, Dick Morris did write a book, Vote.com, and he was always on tv pushing his thoughts about voting on the internet. Given his reputation and the lies he generates about the Clintons, I was and still am totally suspicious - his lecturing about e-voting predated what we discovered about the thefts of our votes starting in this century.

Anyway, I read something wrong in this start of this thread - forget what I said, but keep Morris in the background. He's still kicking and sliming and predicting. Totally untrustworthy, imo.

reliable, and virtually unriggable, lever machines--that is, a mechanical solution. But I admit I'm not too clear on the picture.

The two key components of verifiable voting are, 1) a substantial audit (in the case of all machinery, especially electronic), and 2) precinct level hand-counting with results posted at the precinct level BEFORE any electronics are involved and BEFORE machines or ballots are transported anywhere.

In Venezuela, they use electronic voting, but they hand-count FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the paper ballot backup, cuz they don't trust the machines. And why in hell WE didn't do that from the beginning--in fact I think it should have been 100% in the first uses of electronic voting--and how the INSANITY of paperless voting ever gained currency, are a long dark story of profound corruption, going back to the "Help America Vote For Bush Act" of 2002, passed by the Anthrax Congress, and engineered by Tom Delay and Bob Ney (abetted by corporate 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd).

Whatever system is used, if a substantial audit and local counting/reporting are included--both, of course, premised on a paper ballot--then you have a good chance at reliable results. That electronic voting improves efficiency and convenience is entirely a myth of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and our bought-and-paid-for election officials and legislators. Millions of voters have been disenfranchised by machine "breakdowns," malfunctioning machines, inadequate number of machines, poll workers who can't fix machines and haven't a clue how they work, and machines switching and disappearing votes--not to mention the millions of mostly black voters who have been unfairly purged from the voting rolls electronically. And not to mention the SECRET INNARDS of the electronic voting machines--whether touchscreens, optiscans or the central tabulators--run on TRADE SECRET programming code, where ANYTHING can be taking place, including the theft of an entire presidential election, leaving no trace. We need to take a BIG STEP back from this technology.

And yes precinct level counting.

with sort and weigh to give instant/quick check.



And I suspect we know answers to your other questions. The fewer real people in the loop the easier it is to manipulate the system.