Help! Need info on hand counting complex ballots.Canada? Other systems?

[Amaryllis]

In my state we have paper ballots but Diebold and ES & S tabulators. WE have an active group working on reform. Our ballots are very complex with many candidates for various offices, plus state and sometimes county ballot measures, and this all varies from county to county. WE can have many items on any one ballot. Maybe this is the case all over; I don't know. ???

We need information on how other systems/ countries etc. deal with this.
Does anyone have, or know where I can get, specifics on the Canadian system, or other systems in other countries? I don't know if anyone in the US hand counts.

Also, for you tech folks: Is there ANY secure way to count by machine? I know Andy said King County would be really hard to count by hand because of splits. I don't know what a split is, but does this necessitate using machines? The more research our group does, the more we conclude hand counting is the only way to go because it seems all the tech people say there is no way to adaquately ensure security on machine tabulation. I know hand counting is not without its vulnerabilities but it seems it is the easiest way to ensure security.

[AllegroRondo]

1. I know Germany uses a complete paper system

it takes them weeks to get the actual numbers.

But the exit polls are so accurate that no one really minds waiting.

[elare]

2. Canadian elections

You should be able to find all you need to know on this Elections Canada website

http://www.elections.ca/home.asp?textonly=false

[Amaryllis]

3. Thank you!

[bush_is_wacko]

4. Take a look at this thread. this is a really good system!

I have tried to post this MANY times, but I guess I haven't explained this very well. I saw the ballots they use and I attended a rally in Colorado where an observer gave a speech about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=292562&mesg_id=303194

[imenja]

19. machine counts?

I posted this on the thread you linked to but not sure if you'll see it. I thought you had insisted machines should not be used at all? The process you describe is based on a machine count of paper ballots, the very idea I was assailed for suggesting. Am I missing something here?

[bush_is_wacko]

20. Plian old fashioned money counters--no COMPUTERIZED connection

It can't get much more simple. I geuss I did say no machines, but I meant no computerized programmed machines. Hand counting is really not possible in a country this size. Sorry if I mislead you before.

[imenja]

21. this was precisely the sort of thing I had in mind

That everyone accused me of being a Republican sympathizer for advocating.

[bush_is_wacko]

22. I don't consider this to be the type of "machine" we are all in an uproar

about. If that is the case they must be misinformed. The old style money counters are designed to count period. They can not be manipulated. There is a version of these that is computerized, but THAT is not what I'm talking about. Maybe they don't quite see the ENORMOUS task of counting ballots. Or maybe they don't understand this is kind of like an abacus in it's simplicity. They are paper counters. And from what I can tell they are pretty accurate as long as they are calibrated correctly. I really can't see how these could be manipulated. I don't know.

If you got the impression I was vilifying you I am very sorry. My only beef is a machine that is programmable. I would really like someone to look into this particular method.

:shrug:

[imenja]

23. that machine must be calibrated

so even though it is not computerized, it could be intentionally miscalibrated. My fundamental point was to those who insisted, without evidence, that hand counts were "obviously" less corruptible. My point was never that machines as they exist now are not seriously flawed, but that we must think carefully when we come up with a solution and not forget the many historical cases of fraud involving hand counts. Machines by their nature do not produce fraudulent elections. Certainly there must be a way to build a machine that is very secure. We use them for banking all the time. Voting machines, at least in Florida, are not interconnected by a single server, so corruption has to happen at the factory level or in the central tabulation machine. Even though your proposed money counter is not computerized, it could also be purposefully miscalibrated. I'm not sure computers themselves are the enemy. At any rate, I find it interesting that posters didn't find your machine objectionable after becoming furious with me after I suggested machines might be made that could count paper ballots and verified through hand counts rather than relying on hand counts alone. I am far from an expert in technology, so I couldn't begin to design a
reliable voting machine. I do, however, know something about history and the high rates of fraud in past elections, especially when hand counts prevailed.

As for vilifying me, I did not mean you in particular. I had so many hostile reactions frankly I couldn't keep track of who they all were. It does seem, however, that many people seem to have adopted the idea of only hand counts because they have heard the idea repeated rather than seriously thinking about it as a solution. Voting machines were introduced in the very early twentieth century, so few people have any experience with hand counted elections.

[bush_is_wacko]

27. The "calibration" is much easier to determine both before and after

the counting process than is a computer program! It can be easily identified as a problem. This cannot be the ONLY change, obviously. But mechanics are much easier to control than computer programs are. The counting of all ballots in all precincts must be observed and conducted by representatives of all sides of every issue and representatives of each candidate. It must be conducted in ONE room with each observing the other. Believe me, THIS is VERY effective as a FRAUD detector and deterrent!

[imenja]

28. the system currently works this way in Florida

in fact, our counts are broadcasting on local cable access television. That was the case in 2000, 2002, and 2004 (and probably before, though I didn't live in the state then). They reviewed absentee and provisional ballots in front of cameras (as well as machine counts) and there was nonetheless great controversy over which ballots were thrown out and the results of these elections in general.

I don't claim any knowledge of machines, so I will defer to others about which apparatus, mechanical or computerized, is most reliable. I think it is important, however, not to rely completely on public observations for certifying elections. There will be places where it will be very difficult to find Democratic observers. They system itself needs to be made as verified. As I've said, I would advocate mandating that a certain percentage of ballots be checked by hand as the normal course of every election. It's also important to keep in mind what is politically realistic. An ideal system on paper is meaningless if we can't get it passed into law. In Florida, the state legislature will not cooperate with election reform. We have to take it directly to the people, so I need a solution--at least an improvement--that can be passed into law through a popular vote on a state constitutional amendment. I really want to get working on this because we must have it on the ballot in 2006.

[bush_is_wacko]

30. in 200 it was punchcard and butterfly ballots right?

That is not the kind of paper ballots I am talking about and then, of course, you have the computerized counting part.

There is NO perfect system. Elections all around the world have been manipulated before, they will ALWAYS be manipulated. The power of running a country attracts manipulation. It is our job to make the manipulation less conveniant. We will never eradicate it. Overzealotry is in the way right now. Reasonable minds must previal and a reasonable mind is one that can work with the best system we can get passed. I am no legislative writer so I can only offer a perspective of a person who has never missed a vote of any kind for any reason. I beleive EVERY vote regardless of the issue is important.

I even actually read the judge nominations recommendations. I realize most people don't bother and so I take this responsibility very seruiously. The lawyers that deal with these judges are very capable of telling the public how they operate and I refuse to appoint a judge that lawyers in large numbers disapprive of. Anyway, this is off topic and like I said before, we must work together to get these laws, bills, and amendments on the ballot accross the nation and soon!

[imenja]

31. yes, but he have to figure out what reforms we are going to implement

and how. As I said, I don't want to work for something (paper receipts) that many Democrats oppose. We also have political realities to face in terms of what he can accomplish in the short and long term.

[bush_is_wacko]

32. I totally agree. The reality is short term we NEED to get rid of Diebold

Sequoia (sp?) and opti-scan though. As long as they are in the mix the election WILL be EASILY manipulated. Get them out of the picture and I feel we have earned ourselves a little more time to create a good system. I think the one I have mentioned is a place to start. Laws, amendments, rules, and regulations can and should come out of bipartisan approaches to the problem, but THAT can't happen until we put our foot down on the computers. I know there are people that will argue this point and tell me it needs to be the opposite way around, but I'm not buying it. If the government at the state or federal level is given the chance to drag their heals on this issue they will. Why? Because that is how they operate and it takes real balls to tell an industry you are putting them out of business. It is that simple. Do that and you have created the change and bought the time to recreate the election system.

[imenja]

24. ps. I am very much interested in solutions people think of

because I had planned to try to organize an effort for
a constitutional amendment requiring a paper trail for our electronic voting machines in Florida. If people aren't going to support that as a solution, I would be wasting my time. The Florida Republican legislature has already refused to permit paper receipts, so a constitutional amendment may be our only recourse at the state level. And those amendments have to be simple, a sentence only. They don't provide for describing a complex counting system.

[bush_is_wacko]

29. I don't think you will get support for computerized machine counts EVEN

with verifiable paper ballots. I am very interested in what you are working on. Please keep me posted. BTW, I agree amendments to the state constitution must be simple. In order to make it simple things will have to be excluded from the amendment, but bills and laws can be quite complex. IMHO, both must be done simultaneously. And here's the kicker... In ALL 50 states and before 2006! This is indeed a seemingly insurmountable task.

As far as I can tell in my state NO one is working on this issue. It really is time for all grassroots efforts to come together and find the thinkers and writers of these bills, laws and amendments.

DU is such a wonderful place, but the reality is we cannot just sit back and rely on our Senators and representatives in Washington to fix this problem. We MUST become actively involved in solving this problem for ourselves. There are many ordinary American citizens that have the knowledge and wherewithal to accomplish this task.

In Colorado ordinary citizens have at least one initiative on EVERY ballot we have. We have effectively managed to curtail government overspending and it has been very effective. However, our government has tried for years to come up with a way to try and fear monger us into believing our TABOR amendment is debilitating our government. Try as they might they have been unable to get voters to overturn the restrictions on government spending we put on them with that amendment.

With regards to election reform we have a serious need to become organized on a nation-wide basis.

[harmonyguy]

5. Elections in Canada

As I've come to learn, a consequence of our parliamentary system is that we Canadians keep our elections per election day to a minimum, while the American system has rigid requirements for when the elections will occur, resulting in many, many races being contested all on the same day. If I understand it correctly, changing THAT part of the system ain't gonna happen in our life time.

Canadian Federal Elections
- usually only one race per election unless also an issue referendum.
- always only one race per ballot paper.
- hand counted at the polling place, with multiple scrutineers

Canadian Provincial Elections
- usually only one race per election unless also an issue referendum.
- always only one race per ballot paper.
(some provinces MAY use tabulators/scanners etc but I'm not aware of any)
- hand counted at the polling place, with multiple scrutineers

Canadian Municipal/Civic Elections
- usually multiple races/issues per election
- when hand-counted usually one race per ballot,
I've seen multiple races per ballot with optiscan
- hand counted/optiscan/and others (no single standard)
- depending on the Municipality, one can expect races to include Mayor/Reeve, one or more Alderpersons/Councillors , one or more School Board Trustees, and a number of issues/plebicites or referenda.

Typically, we don't elect our election-supervisors, sheriffs, judges, commissioners, weigh-scale technicians or dog-catchers, which takes a lot of pressure off the size of the ballot. ;-)


HG
(a Canadian vote counter)

[buzzard]

8. Harmony guy did you know our parliament has looked into electronic

voting and it has in fact been used in some elections.

http://papervotecanada.blogspot.com/2004/06/summary-of-canadian-electronic-voting.html

"The summary of the Canadian electronic voting situation is that although it hasn't happened yet at the Federal level, despite a worrying quote from Don Boudria,
there have been various instances at the municipal level, and the municipal politicians seem to like it a lot.

Also you may recall recently the political parties have tried electronic means of voting during their party conventions, with varying degrees of disaster.

As far as I know, the municipal electronic voting is not following any national, provincial, or local standards.

The one that got the most press was Markham, as it was not only electronic, but actually Internet based."

[harmonyguy]

9. Thanks for that link

I was aware of the 'wonderful' Markham experiment which has cracked the door open. Out west there's a lot of Diebold optical scan units ued in Municipal elections.
My understanding is that Elections Canada just isn't comfortable with anything beyone paper and pencil yet - thank goodness!!

HG

[Boswells_Johnson]

13. I remember watching an interview with Jean-Pierre Kingsley

in which he was asked about electronic voting, and he said that he had done some research on the topic, but that he felt there were still too many unresolved security issues to consider moving in that direction yet.

[Amaryllis]

12. So do you have elections really often if you are mostly doing one race

per election except for municipal/civic issues? Sometimes we have thirty or forty items on one ballot!

[KaliTracy]

6. why do we have to vote for so many things on the same day?

Or -- why can't we count Presidental Votes first -- then other offices -- then issues?

I don't know why it would be hard to count a hand ballot with a "split" if they used a coding system on the pages, and only had one race per code.

Smaller precincts
Possible change of day for voting for certain issues and offices
Database number tied to voter/pollbook/tear-off part of ballot (to prevent stuffing of ballot box, and to ensure registrations are not thrown away)

but I'm just thinking out loud.... no clue if it any of it would work or not

[harmonyguy]

7. I'm NOT an expert, but when I asked the question...

...it was explained to me that your General Election dates are cast in stone as are your State Elections Dates. Something to do with constitutions, I believe...
(come one folks, a cold guy in Canada shouldn't have to try explaining this - someone else chime in here fast, so maybe we'll all learn something!)

Don't know about your Civic elections - if they're not in stone, maybe they're just held on the same day for 'convenience'.
HG

[KaliTracy]

10. well, we have elections in the Spring and In the Fall - usually just local

in the Spring -- but wouldn't things like sherrifs and coroners, along with tax issues be easy to move if they already sometimes get Spring voting time (for example, a school bond issue that failed in the fall is up again in February here in West Chester, Ohio).

You have to forgive me.... I was 16 when I took my Government class.... I'm years away from that, I fear, and am trying mightily to get up to speed....

[Zan_of_Texas]

14. Well, yeah, election dates are known in advance.

Every two years we vote for US Reps.

Senators rotate, every six years, so 1/3 of them are voted on every 2 years.

Every 4 years it's President time. All three of these federal races are voted at the same time, in November, first Tuesday or something like that.

States basically are in charge of elections (except when the Supreme Court butts in, as it did in Florida's 2000 Presidential mess).

Here in Texas, we vote for Governor and municipal stuff in the "odd" year -- the year we don't vote for Congress.

Primaries add to the number of elections, as do referenda and bond elections. Constitutional amendments for state constitutions also add, as do judge races.


So, hg, take a look at this blog I picked off the internet and see what you think -- is it accurate?

Friday, October 03, 2003
blog: http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com/#106516635608139568

The boring Canadian province of Ontario had an election <http://www.cbc.ca/ontariovotes2003/> yesterday, and the voters finally managed to kick out the right-wing American-influenced tax cutters, replacing <http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3551012> them <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1065137245629_17///?hub=TopStories> with a party <http://www.ontarioliberal.on.ca/en/> whose main promise was that it would not cut taxes so that it would have enough money to pay for things considered inessential by the previous government, such as health care, education, public security and safety, and the electricity supply. A little sanity in an insane world. The interesting thing is the mechanics of the voting procedure. The election used paper ballots which were counted <http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/en/voters_what_after_en.shtml> by hand at each polling station, with the results telephoned in to the Returning Officers, who communicated the results to the media. Ontario is a huge <http://www.gov.on.ca/MBS/english/about/geography2.html> place, with over 11 million people on 415,000 square miles or over one million square kilometers (at the longest points, 1,000 miles high and 1,000 miles wide), and yet this old-fashioned system produced election results in about an hour, with the winner giving his victory speech less than two hours after the polls closed. Since paper ballots were used, and absolutely no computers were involved in the balloting process, the ballots can be recounted at any time should there be any dispute, and the ballots themselves serve as decisive evidence of the validity of the results. When I look at computer voting, I see a system which is in every possible way inferior to the paper ballot system:

Computers are significantly more expensive, and require constant maintenance and updating.

Computers can break down at any time, while paper ballots never break down.

Regardless of what the computer lover will tell you, I defy any computer voting system to produce results as fast as produced in the Ontario election.

Computers are essentially impossible to secure from cheating. They all use proprietary code, and it is impossible for anyone to be certain that there isn't some fixed result in the machine itself. Once hooked up to the internet, the problems associated with insecurity multiply enormously. It is simply impossible to be sure of the results if a 'black box' is used. It doesn't help that the actual machines produced by companies like Diebold have even more obvious flaws, making them essentially useless unless the desired result is to produce a cheating machine.

One of the most important principles of voting is the secrecy of the ballot. Many voting machines that simply print out a hard-copy ballot for use in the traditional voting procedure leave open the possibility that information associated with the voter can be connected to the choice of the voter. I can see such machines in limited circumstances being used to assist disabled voters (on the theory that the possible loss of privacy is outweighed by the help provided by the machine, with other methods of voting assistance removing privacy anyway), but see the privacy issue as being a possible problem if they are widely used. The use of voting machines to assist disabled voters seems to be a large part of the marketing campaign for these machines (and there are a number of options <http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/en/special_needs_en.shtml?nocache=true>, including such things as ballots printed in braille, which can be used with paper ballots).

I don't want to sound too sentimental, but there is something essentially democratic about the process of filling out a paper ballot and physically depositing it in a ballot box. That feeling is lost if you stand in front of a machine pushing buttons, completely unsure of whether your vote is going to count the way you intended it to count. Voting must not only be fair, it must be seen to be fair.

In spite of this, there is a huge push in the United States to introduce computer voting machines all over the country. Why is this?:

The computer voting industry reminds me of the pharmaceutical-industrial complex. The drug companies grab drugs developed with government money for nominal payments, and then spend billions of dollars promoting these drugs. A large part of the promotion is, as bizarre as it might seem, finding a disease for which they can purport to use the drug. In other words, they often have the drug first, and go looking for the marketable disease later. In fact, it is often not the drug that is marketed, but the disease itself. The computer voting machine makers have nice new computers hooked up to the nice new internet, and had to create the market for these unneeded machines. Since the old system worked spectacularly well, and was much, much cheaper, you would think they would have a difficult job foisting these useless machines on the public. Never underestimate the combination of heavy lobbying, bribing vile politicians and bureaucrats, and our almost monkey-like fascination with bright, shiny, new machines.

Let's face facts. The voting machine companies are all owned by doctrinaire extreme-right-wing Republicans. If the United States holds fair elections in the next round, the Republicans will lose. The Republicans need these machines. Their main purpose, after making money for their creators, is to cheat.

People should go after these awful voting machines like the Luddites went after automated weaving machines: with sledgehammers. Paper ballots have worked well and have formed the basis for the whole history of Anglo-American democracies (with marked shards in urns going back to ancient Athens), and there is no good reason for voting machines. Paper ballots, counted by hand!
posted 3:32 AM <2003_10_01_xymphora_archive.html>

[Amaryllis]

17. Thank you! You guys are giving me great info. This is so helpful!

[Amaryllis]

11. KaliTracy, can you explain a split? I keep seeing references and don't

know what it is.
thanks!

[KaliTracy]

15. A few different references... I think when 2 precincts share one or more

issues, but have several that are independent, too.

here are a couple of references in articles -- I'm sure someone else will have a better answers

Fro The Clarion Ledger:
"I do know there are more split precincts in legislative races than we have ever had and that makes it more complicated for everybody," he said.
http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0308/05/mvote.html

***

From The Cleveland Plain Dealer
"Blackwell allowed one exception: Election officials can count provisional ballots from voters who receive the wrong ballots in "split precincts," areas with multiple voting districts in the same precinct. One precinct, for example, may cover voters in two different school districts - requiring two different ballots."

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1095500001103810.xml

***

From Detroit Free Press

"Democrats say one of the Help America Vote Act's central purposes is to eliminate "arbitrary requirements" that a ballot be cast aside if a voter mistakenly appears at the wrong precinct.

But Thomas said in an affidavit that the act does not require the state to count provisional ballots of voters who are in the wrong polling spot and refuse to go to the correct one. He said 19 cities and townships are split by two congressional districts. He also said that Detroit is split into multiple districts for county, state and federal races. "

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw105562_20041012.htm

******


Here are some terms I just found -- i'm not sure they address your question though....


District - A specific geo-political area that defines a
boundary for a ballot contest. When defined, ballot contests are
associated with a specific district. Voters living in that district
should be able to vote on that contest. (e.g. Precinct, School District,
Congressional District, etc.)

Districts Split - Unique combination of all districts in a specific
jurisdiction. By having a unique combination of all districts in a
jurisdiction, a single ballot style can be associated with a single
Districts Split - reducing overall complexity. (AKA Precinct Split)

Ballot Style - Unique combination of contest and candidates. This is
essentially a list of issues on a particular ballot. It does not address
the physical presentation of a ballot.

Ballot Format - A format for rendering a ballot. Examples of ballot
formats include: Online Ballot, Individual Paper Ballot Format (ballots read by various election vendors' hardware - each a separate format), Full-face ballot display (for adhering to the front of booth-style voting devices)

Ballot Layout - A template for a physical ballot. This is the result of taking a ballot style and rendering it to a particular ballot format. Ballot Layout data includes detailed information including where issues appear on a ballot, candidate placement, fonts, colors, images, ballot and contest headers, footers, etc.


Rotation - Used in ballot layout data. The concept of
presenting candidates (for the same contest) in a different order for
different ballots. Rotation schemes may be very complex and vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Sequence - Order in which a candidate or contest appears on a
ballot. Contest sequence defines the order of importance of the issues
on the ballot. For simple ballot definitions, a candidate sequence
defines a default rotation position of a candidate under a contest.

Ballot Message - Used in ballot layout data. Fixed text, image,
instructions, etc. that appears on a ballot page.


Ballot Style Scenario - Ballot Rotation:

In some jurisdictions a voter's ballot may have the candidates
'rotated'. This prevents one candidate from being at the top of the
candidate list (for a particular contest) on every ballot. There may be many different iterations of a ballot with the exact same combination of contests and candidates, but with a different candidate order. In this scenario, there may be only one Ballot Style, but multiple Ballot Layouts (one ballot with each permutation of candidate order).

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services/200107/msg00008.html

***
hope this provides a jump-off point for you.... good luck!

[Amaryllis]

16. Wow! Thanks. This is great. Is there any chance of ever implementing hand

counting with these elaborate ballots...I am at a loss as far as what to push first...do we need ballot revision? Separate ballots? I am feeling discouraged.

[KaliTracy]

18. I've got ideas around this -- but I have never worked in a poll place

I was told my ideas were too complicated.

2 step process.

1st step -- database number for all registered voters.

1. New registrations have this number on the form (the person signing up the voters signs out registrations by lot -- 10070 through 10090 for example.

2. Registration forms make carbon copies -- copy for person registering the other to turn in.

3. Person getting the registration has to sign the form along with the person registering to vote.

pros --
cuts down on registrations being thrown away "lost" etc.
cuts down on people being told they didn't register
I would think this would make it easier for same day registration/voting

cons --
you tell me

2nd step -- every voter has a database number.
1. a sheet is printed out that coincides with the pollbook order with two stickers each with the database number.

2. Paper ballot is given in booklet form, one race per page. Top of each page has a unique symbol (square, circle, triangle, etc.)
a. this is to quickly separate by races.
b. "Big" races (such as president) counted first

3. When person gets booklet -- they
a. sign the poll book/sticker (which is placed in the pollbook)
b. the second sticker is placed outside the ballot book. the poll worker signs this sticker -- partially on book, partially on sticker.
c. Person votes in the many, many cubbies provided.
d. There is a box on each page that says I choose not to vote for this race/issue which allows intention to be known.
e. The ballots are ripped out of booklet by voter and put into a ballot sleeve to deposit into Lock Box.
f. Poll workers check shell of ballot book, which is deposited into separate lockbox.
g. Before ballots are counted -- poll book numbers are tabulated.
h. races separated in piles, and counted. Witnesses of course need to be present during all handling of ballots.
i. If necessary, cross-reference (Counting up the ballot book shells) can be done.

Need for Smaller Precincts
Need for trained poll workers.
Need for establishing the database system
Need for Clear Signage in Voting Place and Voting Directions there and prior to election.

Pros --
less likelihood for "stuffing" -
private voting
No machines to hack
With Database -- easily create queries to create reports and find out totals per precinct before election. Don't have to think of a "70% turnout possibility" -- if 100% came it wouldn't be a problem.


Cons --
implementing a database system
large precincts would be difficult to handle
must have poll workers/witness at both ballot boxes and at the tables (more than one poll worker at a table, but they are assigned the books that they oversee, if a change occurs, this has to be written up and signed by the official there.)


again, I'm just thinking out loud -- some of these pieces might work -- or none of them might work. The database is the easiest to do, but would require people to keep up with it on a timely basis (the first election cycle would be the hardest because entering of the people already registered.) Depending on what kind of system they currently use, this might be easy to update, or not.

[Andy_Stephenson]

26. First we must have a ballot.

In Georgia and Maryland they have no ballot. So even if we implemented hand counts...there is nothing to count.

[Dcitizen]

25. Australian system from IA U Computer Dept.

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/paper.html

The most alert part is to buy votes with one blank vote.