It's time to go back to paper election ballots throughout the United States.

[UCmeNdc]

Electronic Machines are too broken.

[Laffy Kat]

1. Never understood why we stopped in the first place.

I'd much rather have a more reliable system with slower results. I don't even know anyone who trusts the electronic system, Democratic or Repub.

[ananda]

16. Because the Reeps got in power ..

.. and it was their companies that made and
owned the machines.

Think about this.

Then add Russia to the equation.

[Amaryllis]

19. Exactly.

[Susan Calvin]

37. Yep. HAVA was a scam. nt

[certainot]

21. because democrats ignore rw radio and they continued the "hanging chad" success

in about 40 states where republican radio dominates messaging, and they sold that democrats were stealing votes and electronic machines were safer and cheaper and faster.

and then they used those radio stations to use the immigration issue to suggest voter fraud (now that's up to millions of illegal aliens voting for dems because dems and obama gave them drivers licenses) and that's how they passed suppression legislation all over and still are, because democrats still ignore rw radio.

and because democrats still ignore rw radio, r-cons will be able to beat back any attempt to get any real election reform.

even if dems come up with something with unassailable logic behind it they will just have to point out that the people in charge are related to democrats, it will cost more than an aircraft carrier, all we need to do is retrofit with some new super secure electronic russian chips instead, and make it impossible for any republicans to vote for it.

we'd have paper ballots in months if those 1000 radio stations were screaming for it instead of against it.

[SCVDem]

33. Really simple.

We got fascinated with computers.

Oversight cane much later.

[shraby]

2. Yup. If they won't even look at them in the states they are sure were hacked into, we don't want to

use them anymore. They're tainted.
Actually they're tainted in all the states to begin with.

[dalton99a]

3. There is a reason most EU countries don't allow electronic voting

It's Putin and his hackers

[Hekate]

4. Long past time

[unblock]

5. When I was a kid, I watched my parents vote on a giant mechanical machine

They flipped small levers for each candidate and then pulled a giant lever to actually cast the ballot.

Votes were tallied on wheels like old mechanical odometers, and the voter could see the final digit do you could see your candidate's total increment by one.

Very reliable, not easily hacked, and hard to "stuff" or "lose" ballots.

Automating voting is probably the stupidest misapplication of automation technology ever.

[Purveyor]

10. My first vote cast for President Carter was on one of those machines. That's were the

phrase "pull the lever" comes from.

That said,there are cases of tampering with those machines also.

Don't know if they created a paper trail or not but we must insist all voting creates a paper backup.

[Jim Beard]

36. Read an article about how the lever machines were rigged in the early years.

the election judge would make a tape of zeros and then set the machine. At the end of voting, the judge would remove the tape and reveal the higher or lower set of numbers.

[CurtEastPoint]

6. I think if we could get a powerful group like League of Women Voters and AARP to start making noise.

we could get traction.

Diebold et al are deeply ensconced in you know who's graces and pockets.



LOL... Sonny Perdue was NEVER this thin.... ^^^^^

[saidsimplesimon]

15. Thanks Kurt

Diebold is only one of several rumpublican tools. They are betting on voter suppression and Russian meddling as the "winning" strategy.

[samnsara]

7. wash state has them.. we mail them in as well. no polling places...

[Purveyor]

11. This system should go nationwide but it is up to the individual States to set their own

methods.

Compliance with a federal standard could be "encouraged" by using federal funds as a lever much like was done to encourage mandatory seatbelt laws.

[flibbitygiblets]

44. Oregon too. It rocks. R's hate it because it makes it MUCH easier for people to vote.

also to do one's research on propositions, candidates in ADVANCE (imagine).

[former9thward]

58. Oregon ballots are counted electronically.

Didn't you know that?

[flibbitygiblets]

66. Actually I did. They also verify signatures, and in case of audit there's a paper trail.

PS I thought your response was really unnecessarily snotty.

[UCmeNdc]

8. It is clearly time for a change of direction.

Electronic machines are the problem.

[FakeNoose]

9. Yes absolutely

[JoeOtterbein]

12. We need to repeat, over and over: "ALL elections must be with paper ballots and MUST be audited"

and over and over and over......

[oasis]

13. Screw the MSM, each one trying to be the first to call the elections.

I don't mind waiting two or three days, as long as election officials get it right.

[csziggy]

22. We could have paper ballots with preliminary results from optical scans

But official results would HAVE to be from hand counted ballots.

That should satisfy the instant result media and public but provide verifiable results that electronic voting machines do not. While it has been proven that optical scanners are as hackable as other electronic voting methods, knowing that results are not final or official until the hand counting is complete should prevent anyone from making the effort to hack them.

As for waiting, I will never forget waiting for recounts in 2000 and in 2016 - recounts which were NEVER completed and whose results were not any more reliable than the original results anyway.

[oasis]

57. Excellent point(s).

[OldRedneck]

34. And hand-counting . . .

. . . one for you, one for you, one for you . . . by election officials who are at the job 18 hours a day for 3, 4, 5, days with reporters and political party lawyers hounding them is more reliable than proven, secure digital scanners?

[oasis]

59. For how ever long it takes. nt

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. +1

[saidsimplesimon]

14. Electronic Machines are

all hackable. Give me a paper ballot by mail, and count it, please.

[McCamy Taylor]

17. Yes! If California leads the way other states will quickly follow.

Little known fact (outside of Tarrant County, Texas). After computers "lost" 20 k votes in a GOP primary about 10 years ago, we are always offered a choice of paper versus e-vote (in this county only). And that was the theft of a GOP primary in one county. This was national scale general election theft.

[bluecollar2]

41. not in my precinct

Electronic voting only...

[CK_John]

18. Machines are not the problem it is the lack of voters.

[csziggy]

23. The lack of voters may be partially a result of unreliable voting machines

When no one can be sure their vote will be counted accurately, why bother to vote at all? Between that, dissatisfaction with the candidates offered by the major parties, and voter suppression pushed by the Republicans, it is no wonder that many just don't take the time to vote.

The Democratic Party should be fighting for accurate verifiable voting methods and fighting against voter suppression. Instead, they push candidates that do not appeal to liberals or progressive, or to young voters.

While I vote for Democratic candidates, I have not been particularly happy with many of their selections so I "vote" against their choices by not donating money to the party.

[elleng]

20. It's BEEN time, for YEARS, but

obviously tptb don't want to hear it.

[blue-wave]

24. Yes, Yes, Yes

[Egnever]

31. No no no

The idea paper ballots are immune to tampering is complete garbage.

[mythology]

47. They would then move on to some other conspiracy theory

It doesn't matter to them that there is zero evidence of actual voting fraud.

[Lonestarblue]

25. Paper Ballots Campaign

It's time to start grass-roots movements to urge election officials to switch to paper ballots or at least to provide some paper backup that can easily be recounted in case elections are close. I live in a red state, but I'm ready to start advocating for paper trails. 2018 is fast approaching--we need to start now, especially in red states! Does anyone here think that online petitions (such as change.org) are useful? I'm willing to start one if people think it's helpful.

[Egnever]

29. No just no

Stuffing the ballot box is from the paper ballots. The idea paper ballots are impervious to cheating is nonsense.

[OldRedneck]

32. Do you even know how your state counts votes?

[Lonestarblue]

46. Yes, I do.

Precinct data are uploaded to a central vote accumulator, which is monitored by state officials. The system is tested before each election to ensure that it is working accurately. Obviously, the accumulator system is online, and thus hackable, at some point as precincts upload data. There is no paper trail for the electronic voting machines.

[Blue_true]

26. My county used paper ballots that are scanned and stored.

If the election is close, they are rescanned with both party's reps present. If needed, they can be hand counted.

[The Wielding Truth]

27. I vote is not valid unless it can be recounted. A paper ballot would assure it could be recounted.

And we should be given the number we are in the voting process at the poll that day.

[Egnever]

28. Fuck that

Maybe we should go back to buggies and whips too.
The machines we have in Nevada are just fine thanks.

[OldRedneck]

30. How will we count paper ballots?

So -- you are proposing that Fairfax County, VA -- with over 750,000 registered voters where over 543,000 voted in November 2016 -- be prepared to count over half-a-million ballots by hand?

Listen carefully: I'm the secretary of my county's electoral board in a small rural VA county. We use paper ballots that are fed by the voter into a digital scanner that counts the votes by reading the marks the voter made on the ballot. Digital scanning technology is reliable, secure, and tested -- you test it every day at the grocery checkout.

Because of problems with DRE -- Direct Recording-Electronic -- equipment, the entire county will be on paper ballots and digital scanners in a very few years.

The noise about hacking voting machines refers to certain old DRE equipment that was manufactured and certified long before current technical standards were applied.

Would be helpful if you had a clue as to what you are talking about.

[Egnever]

35. Thank you!

In Nevada we vote electronically but when you are done the machine prints a receipt with your votes which you sign if it is correct and it is then spooled into the machine so there is both a paper and digital copy.

Best of both worlds and nearly impossible to cheat.

Going back to paper is stupidity at it's finest.

[Nasruddin]

38. Paper receipt + digital count

This sounds pretty good to me - of course there is more to it to make
sure it's secure, but sounds like it's on the right path.

We definitely don't want to go back to an all paper system (just too
many voters to handle) for most places, and those horrible old mechanical
voting machines ... there were lots of opportunities for fraud, abuse,
and just plain breakdowns.

Maybe what we should be campaigning for is a national certification
system and auditing program for voting systems. You can have your local
system no matter what I or any other yahoo might feel about it, so long as it meets certain
objective standards (the details of which, the certification program establishes).

We also need some laws to deal with corrupted elections.

[TheFrenchRazor]

40. paper receipts are worthless. they will never see the light of day 99.999% of the time. nt

[Egnever]

53. The only time they would be needed is if there is some suspicion of vote fraud.

and how are paper ballots the end all be all but paper receipts worthless. Those are some awesome mental gymnastics you got going on there.

Plenty of problems with paper ballots the accurate counting of them being the biggest hurdle.

[TheFrenchRazor]

61. "suspicion" doesn't get you a state-wide hand/eye recount, does it? explain how you would obtain a

state-wide manual recount, unless an existing legal statute was triggered, i'e., the results being within a certain margin. you can't get a recount just because you feel like it and want one; that's why the ballots have to be counted right the first time, by hand. and your statements that hand counting is not accurate have no basis in fact.

[Egnever]

64. No basis in fact?

Seriously? Then why were there ever recounts? Hand counting is perfect right?

Ridiculous.

Even Careful Hand Counts Can Produce Election Errors

https://www.insidescience.org/news/even-careful-hand-counts-can-produce-election-errors

[retread]

45. Are the votes tallied at each precinct?

[TheFrenchRazor]

39. absolutely. all paper ballots, all hand counted. nt

[tiptonic]

42. Repulsives

The repulsives like it that way. Its the only way they can win. It will never change.

[boat-tail]

43. Need to find a place to lay a bet. THE bet.

No goddam way the Orange Baby won the election fairly. Virtually mathematically impossible to lose by 3 million votes and still win the electoral college. Oh right.... he just happened to win the three most critical states by razor thin margins. BULLSHIT. You know and I know the day is approaching that the truth will out.

Anyone know if there is currently a place to lay a bet that Hillary actually won that night. The sooner the bet's placed, the better the odds.

[Demsrule86]

48. I agree. But you do understand that states run elections and we have no power to

do this except in our own states.

[Initech]

49. The electronic voting machine experiment was an epic fail.

And those who created them can go to hell.

[thinkingagain]

50. would it be possible to do something like

carbon copy voter ballots?

every ballot would have a number, but sent out randomly (Wash st is all mail system) so that people in the same house would not have ballot # 1, 2, 3 etc.
If you wanted to check that nothing was changed you bring in your ballot copy they pull the original and it is cross checked. States would randomly select voters names send them a letter to bring in their copy and do the cross check.

If you vote at a machine it would “print out” a copy for your records.

[liberal N proud]

51. Paper ballots are verifiable

And they can still be electronically counted, then when there is a question about results, go straight to the paper.

[Egnever]

52. Or you can have machines like we do in Nevada

Touch-screen machines are used in all Clark County polling locations. Similar in appearance to an ATM machine, the machines make voting easy and assist you throughout the voting process. You register your choices and cast your ballot electronically by touching a screen. When you have made all your selections, a printer records your choices and you must confirm they are accurate before casting your ballot. If you have made an error, you void the paper record, correct your mistake on the touch-screen machine, and the printer reprints your selections. After you confirm the printout is accurate, you cast your ballot. The paper record then scrolls out of view and the machine resets for the next voter. The touch-screen machines allow you to vote in either English or Spanish and support audio voting for vision impaired persons as well as sip-and-puff technology.


Completely verifiable through the paper record yet can be tallied almost instantly. Way better than paper ballots.

[liberal N proud]

55. Had those in Ohio

You could look through a little window and see your selection, but the lense on the window is funky and if you don't stand perfectly, you can't see what it printed.
My experience from working in the polls is that the printers are not reliable at all and not all votes get printed.

Do a paper ballot with a no. 2 pencil. Fill in the oval, when done, it's all right there in front of you. Then take it over to the scanner and scan it, it becomes electronic and counted instantly.

[Egnever]

56. not here

The window is open you have to sign it after you verify it is correct. You can't make mistakes like voting for two different candidates for the same office the software does not let you. Paper ballots as we learned in Florida have all sorts of issues that these machines are not susceptible to.

[TheFrenchRazor]

62. how can you prove that the "official" result accurately reflects the paper receipts? you can't, beca

because they never get counted 99.999% of the time, do they? it's just giving people a false sense of security.

[Egnever]

63. Sounds pretty easy to fix

do mandatory random audits.

Problem solved.

Now how do you fix the myriad problems with paper ballots.

[TheFrenchRazor]

67. i'm guessing a good hacker could easily deal with the audit function; there has to be some code that

is entered or initiated to run an audit, and a good hack would simply allow that count to produce accurate results. i never said that hand-counting was perfect, but clearly the scale of the tampering would be less. if you don't believe that, we will have to agree to disagree.

[colsohlibgal]

65. +1000!

We need to do it ASAP. Bring in Switzerland or whoever to enforce strict custody and counting....with the counting being video taped.

Instead of something like that we have our shabby piecemeal system with CrossCheck and eminently hackable computerized voting.