An EASY solution: VOTE INTEGRITY METHOD by Chuck Herrin

[Carolab]

An Easy Solution: The Vote Integrity Method:

Here's what I propose - let's call it the "Vote Integrity" method.

Before the election, distribute the ballots by mail to give people a chance to research and vote at their leisure, then voters bring them in and drop them off at a polling place on election day after showing an ID and signing in.

Giving voters the ability to vote in their own home will make for a better informed electorate, and will also cut down on lines and time spent at the polling place. The potential problem here is that some voters may not receive their ballots, but in the worst case, they can show up at the polls and get one on election day. Most voters have no idea who any of the local candidates are, and often show up without a clue as to which amendments/referendums they are voting for. Ballot distribution before election day would give everyone a chance to learn more about the issues they are voting for, and would cut way down on the 9-hour lines, which caused many voters to bail out and not vote in 2004.

When the voters come in to the polling place, they show an ID, sign in, and drop their single ballot in a locked plexiglass box. Poll workers can verify that not more than one ballot is being deposited by one person. Anyone who never received or lost their ballot can obtain another one there and vote normally. For any visually impaired voters, they can use a touchscreen that generates a paper ballot, which gets dropped into the same box. This touchscreen could even be delivered to the curb, if needed. Simple.

At the end of the day, we unlock the clear boxes and count the votes by hand, in public. We can take the tax money earmarked for DREs and pay local citizens to help us count. Problem solved, everybody wins, and everybody trusts the system.

What's so hard about that? There are no weaknesses introduced by this system that any other systems can fix (vote selling, etc.), it's more resistant to fraud than typical absentee or vote by mail (due to the authentication of the voter before the ballot is cast, the ID requirement helps prevent multiple votes), the time it takes to vote is shortened, the voters are better informed, it's cheaper, local people are employed to help count the votes rather than private corporations, and everyone trusts the results.

And isn't that the point? Why wouldn't this work?

I'd like to hear what people have to say about this method - why wouldn't it work? I think it would, but everybody likes their own ideas :-). Let me know.


Chuck

[e-mail]

subject=Vote Integrity Method

[Sawyer]

1. I like it.

The way to "verify that not more than one ballot is being deposited by one person" is for the voter to put the ballot in a blank envelope which is then handed to the official who sees that it is only one envelope and drops it in the box. The voter may, if he wants to, put two, three or no ballots in the envelope, but that would be detected at counting stage and that envelope would be disqualified.

The only problem that I see with this method is the manual counting of ballots when there are let's say 15 different races and half a dozen propositions on the ballot - which is the case in a lot of places. Not only would this take a lot of manpower to count, but it would be prone to error and would be very difficult to observe/verify properly. The only solution to that would be that the presidential and the senate/congress races should be done on separate day from all other races/propositions. Of course, the down side of it would be MUCH lower turnout for those other races.

[Carolab]

2. Please send the comment to Chuck.

[e-mail]

subject=Vote Integrity Method

My comment was that that a voter could CLAIM they didn't receive their ballot but in fact did. They could keep that ballot, show up at the polls on election day, say they DIDN'T and get another ballot. They could mail the other ballot in the day before and vote again on election day or they could give the ballot they got in the mail to another voter (vote selling).

I think that unless a careful record is kept of who got ballots and mailed them in (and this record could be wrong, too, of course) it's a problem. I think voters should be required to bring their ballots in, with ID and be checked off in the registration rolls. This can happen before or on election day, but either way, they have signed in and proven they are in fact the voter registered on the rolls.

[Amaryllis]

4. The signature verification system in Oregon works really well to prevent

what you are describing. There are two envelopes; the outside one that the voter signs has a bar code with unique info from their voter reg form and their address. They sign and the sig is verified by reading the
bar code and then comparing sigs w. sig on voter reg form, so if anyone tries to vote twice, or sign for someone else, they are caught. The ballot is inside that envelope in a secrecy envelope with no ID features.

[electropop]

23. My comments

First, no need for an envelope: simply fold the ballot in half, vote side to the inside. Second, I don't think the labor involved in manual ballot counting is that big of a deal. It's been done that way for centuries, and is done that way in most of the world today. The hue and cry about how hard it is, is just Repuke BS that many of us have found easy to believe, having grown up with various kinds of voting machines. These are mainly a 20th century only, USA only phenomenon, and are not really a necessity.

Regarding touchscreens for blind people, this makes no sense. You have to be able to see a touchscreen. What would work is a Braille instruction sheet/candidate list, fixed to a panel with a button next to each candidate. The buttons would be the latching kind, for easy verification before pressing the "finalize" button, which would clear the latched vote buttons. Ideally, it would print a ballot with text and Braille on it, which would allow the voter to check it, and counters/auditors to re-check it. One can imagine mis-matched Braille/text on the ballot, but auditors could check that pretty easily. The whole thing could be purely mechanical: the buttons would press the ballot against rubber stamps with candidate names, and also press the Braille version of the names into the paper.

[Carolab]

3. I'm really confused by a lack of response/debate on this.

What IS it with DUers? It seems everyone just wants to focus on PROVING FRAUD rather than on SOLUTIONS.

This is twice now that I've tried to get a thread going on ideas to solve the problem. People would rather jump on the "how they did it" than how to STOP THEM FROM DOING IT AGAIN.

[Kip Humphrey]

5. I have to agree...

I have to agree. DU has lost a lot of the resources we had last year. I miss the critical thinking, challenges and contributions. Case in point, my VOTERS CHOICE post.

One reality we are finding is a distinct lack of success pushing VVPBs anywhere. One approach is kind of back door method that also offers election officials simplification in their responsibilities and eliminates hidden digital ballots and secret counting. If we are going to have to vote digitally in 2006, at least let us have VOTERS CHOICE.

Please review http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x367884

[Carolab]

6. Well, here in MN we STILL have paper ballots.

Which are read by optiscan at the precinct or central tabulation level (although in a few rural precincts they are manually counted).

Lately I have been driving my reps nuts with e-mails regarding the latest bill and how it does nothing to address the issue of security. It states that the votes must be transmitted/counted "securely" but it does NOT define just HOW we are measuring that security.

I badger and cajole and pester and back it up with all sorts of links and documentation but it's like ramming a brick wall with my head and it's really starting to hurt.

What are we going to do????

[GuvWurld]

7. I've seen this too with the Voter Confidence Resolution

I don't post in any other parts of DU beside this one. Isn't there an activism board? Do you guys post over there, or anywhere else on DU? Perhaps the folks here in the election section would get behind something already started and supported by others on the site?

[kster]

10. I think

because proving election fraud,will get us to solutions a lot faster and definitely stops them from doing it again.

After three major articles on election fraud it makes you want to think that they can't hide this crime much longer,but you are right we do need to fight this on two fronts.

[smartvoter]

20. I know. I have posted before that if we spent as much time

trying to change the future as we do investigating the past we might really be making things happen.

[Bill Bored]

8. Sounds good to me.

Ballots will have to have serial numbers or something to prevent voting more than once, detachable to keep the vote secret.

The question is whether the BOEs and their lackies will WANT to do hand counts. I suppose if it's the law, they won't have a choice, but until then, it's just a dream.

[Amaryllis]

15. See my post # 4. Oregon has it all figured out how to keep people from

voting twice.

[Melissa G]

9. Why are we reinventing the wheel?

The are international standards for voting and organizations who monitor them. There are bound to be rankings or criteria for rankings of countries or places who do transparent elections best.
Do we know which countries do? Do these places (OSCE Carter' Foundation or others tell us of models we can emulate?

[Kip Humphrey]

14. With digital voting we are living in a nw paradygne which throws standards

on their ear. 90% of the world's democracies vote by hand counted papr ballots - a great standard but one going nowhere fast in the US. That's why we need a system that addresses digital voting while also advocating hand counted paper ballots (see VOTERS CHOICE post).

[Melissa G]

17. I get that Kip..but there are standards in other developed countries

Are they all as corrupt as ours? I think maybe not.....perhaps I'm wrong but the Carter center knows the drill and they were failing the US. To me, that implies someone, somewhere, is passing some standard operating procedure.:shrug:

edit for clarification

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

11. Does Chuck like spam?

Did anyone ask Chuck if he wanted his email posted here?

The guy is really busy, and I hate to see his email get jammed up.
This is an old article anyhow.

Imagine someone posting your email on a list serve that reaches the number of people this one does.

[Carolab]

12. Chuck's e-mail is ON his website.

He posted it there for input.

I e-mailed him with my comment and he responded right away.

He didn't say anything negative about my posting his suggestion or e-mail on DU.

Somehow I don't think spamming is a problem. I think he is LOOKING for e-mails. If you have suggestions to share with him about his idea, please let him know.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. sorry, didn't mean that how it sounded

Just know that having his email on his website is a little different than having it posted here. However, he is a really nice guy for someone so darn smart!

If only all republicans were like him!

[Febble]

16. I love it

In the UK, to vote, you go into the polling place, get a ballot, fill it out with a pencil in a booth (pencil provided, tied to the booth) and drop it in a box. No queues, no expense.

Votes are counted by hand, in public, and results are ready within a few hours at most. Candidates can demand a recount if the result is close, and no result is announced until all candidates are satisfied that the vote has been fair.

New government is installed the next day.

Not a problem.

[Melissa G]

19. Exactly Febble!

Too many men in govt.. They have to have new toys that go faster..( my female chauvinist comment):hi:

[Febble]

21. With you, sister!

Why do men assume that machines will do it better?

Most of the bank tellers who count the votes in the UK seem to be women.

Fast, accurate, trustworthy.

And I'll tell you something else - because pencils are cheap, and bank tellers plentiful, there is no rationing.

The right to vote should be as cheap and available as clean water.

It's just as important.

[eomer]

22. Yes...

and, sadly, toys that kill faster too.

I'm with you 100% that paper ballot, hand counted is the best system. And I'll bet that a very high percentage in this forum would agree too.

But what is the best strategy to follow? Should we push for this but be somewhat happy in those cases where we have to fall back to paper ballots, opscan counted or something like that? Or should we be hell-bent for hand counting? This is a question I've been puzzling over for a while.

And Melissa, :hi: (sorry, inside joke).

[smartvoter]

18. I like it. It makes sense... nt

[Coexist]

24. absentee ballots in Florida are like that

and you can drop them off on election day. But the stories about boxes of absentee ballots turning up uncounted under desks concerns me. Boxes of ballots from left-leaning districts could "disappear" like in the old days.

I like having the e-machines give a voter-verified paper trail.

[Nederland]

25. A Negative Response

Since all of the posts so far are positive, I thought I'd keep you honest. Here are two problems I can think of:

1) This solution relies on the notion that manual counts performed by bipartisan counters will be fraud free. However, experience has shown that manipulating the vote in these circumstances is extraordinarily easy. Counters can be bribed, ballots for one candidate can be set aside and destroyed when no one is looking, etc.

2) This solution does absolutely nothing to address the real source of problems: voter error. Depending on the precinct and the voting method, the data suggests that anywhere from 2% - 6% of all the ballots are spoiled. The beauty of computer balloting is that the computer can refuse your ballot until it is completed correctly.

I might suggest that you ditch the idea of people filling out their own ballots and instead have them be computer generated to prevent spoilage. Alternatively, you could use optical scan ballots that scan a voter's ballot upon submission to verify that it is not spoiled. Spoiled ballots would be rejected and the voter asked to fill another one out correctly.

Just my $0.02.

[Sawyer]

26. I like the Israeli election model

(although they vote for parties in a proportional representation parliament, not individual candidates, but it still applies). I believe it would take care of both of your points.

The voter goes into the booth. There are pieces of paper the size of stick-it note, with a big black letter on each, lying on the table. The voter picks the letter associated with the party (or in US version, the candidate) that he wants to vote for, puts that piece of paper in blank envelope, comes out of the booth, puts the envelope into the ballot box. (For those who cannot remember which letter of the alphabet stands for the party they want to vote for, it is also printed in small letters on the same piece of paper).

After the polls close, the envelopes are opened and the ballots are counted, one by one, with the counter holding up each ballot so that the observers (there can be a couple from each party plus some independent ones) can see the letter clearly. If there is more than one ballot in the envelope, that is a disqualification.

Of course, in order to do this in the US, the Presidential race will have to be split off from all others. That would probably cause a huge problem with turnout for all other races. There is no panacaea....

[Nederland]

28. Different method for president?

Seems like you are sending a message that the other races / votes don't matter...

[Sawyer]

31. Sure they do - but the other races are local

well, except the Senate/Congress ones, maybe bundle those with President, but that's it. It would make sense to separate the Federal offices away from the local ones.

[Carolab]

30. Can you please deliver your $0.02 to Chuck?

E-mail addy:

[e-mail]

[Wilms]

27. If we could add to that...

For the few mobility-limited voters that want to vote in secret, a "ballot marker" at the precinct.

Also, would it be OK for a person who wants to vote in a foriegn language to indicate that when they register??? Then, an appropriate ballot could be mailed to them.

[Eric J in MN]

29. And they should hold up each ballot to people in the room

during the public hand-count.