All Fifty States May Face Voting Machine Lawsuit

according to an announcement made by activist Bernie Ellis at the premier of David Earnhardt's film "Uncounted [The Movie]" all fifty states could be receiving subpoenas in the National Clean Election lawsuit. The documentary film, like the lawsuit, takes a look at the issue of voting machine failure and the need for a solid paper trail. "The lawsuit is aimed at prohibiting the use of all types of vote counting machines, and requiring hand-counting of all primary and general election ballots in full view of the public. The lawsuit has raised significant constitutional questions challenging the generally accepted practices of state election officials of relying on "black box" voting machines to record and count the votes at each polling station, and allow tallying of votes by election officials outside the view of the general public."

Comments

Re:Hand counting is a fraud too

[Z00L00K]

The possibility of hiding a skewed algorithm in an electronic voting machine is much easier than to get a really skewed result from hand-counting. This implies that there are several persons doing the hand counting, and that they are evenly distributed through the parties. A skewed algorithm in an electronic counting can easily drift to one side, while the hand-counting will have an error that is around the center. It's only if the outcome falls down to very few votes that it may matter.

All 50?

[Phroggy]

I'm perfectly happy with the way voting works in Oregon.

You get your ballot in the mail, and fill in the little bubbles with a pencil or pen, just like the standardized tests we're all familiar with. You fold it up and seal it in a "secrecy envelope" which does not have any personally identifying marks. Then you seal that in another envelope which has your name, mailing address, and a barcode on it; this envelope must be signed. You can either mail it, or drop it off in a secure ballot box somewhere (such as at a public library). You can do this at your convenience, it doesn't have to be on election day.

As ballots are received, they're scanned, unopened, and the signature is compared to what the state has on file from your voter registration. If the signature doesn't match, they'll contact you. If they receive two ballots from the same person, they'll contact you. If you don't receive your ballot, they'll send you another one with a different color outer envelope, so if they receive two, they know to discard the original one.

Finally, on election night, the outer envelopes are opened and the inner envelopes are mixed together, then the inner envelopes are opened and counted. It's done by machine, but could be done by hand just as well (it'd just take longer). They get the results very quickly.

Everything is done in the presence of observers from different political parties and members of the public (I haven't volunteered for this yet, but I think I'll look into it next year). All the machines involved are tested with a known quantity of sample ballots to make sure they're working properly. If somebody tried to rig the election, people would see it. Recounts are not a problem.

The only problem with our system is that it doesn't prevent vote buying, because someone could watch you fill out your ballot, seal it, sign the envelope, and drop it in the mail, then pay you for voting the way they wanted. But so far this hasn't been an issue, and in general, most Oregonians won't stand for that sort of thing. We'd much rather accept that risk in exchange for the convenience of being able to vote how we want when we want, without trying to get to a polling place on election day.

Re:Both Machine and Hand Counts

[Lars Clausen]

200,000,000 is a pretty big number to count all the way up to without making a mistake Not if you have enough people counting. At our polling station tonight, we had about 8000 voters and 25 people counting. That's an amazing 320 votes each will have to count. How long would it take you to sort through 320 pieces of paper according to where an X is marked? How about "not all damn night"?

-Lars

Tollfeed

[Z34107]

What we need to do is eliminate the electoral college and just go with the popular vote. Imagine a country where the voice of the people actually counted for something.

The electoral college is designed to punish candidates who appeal to a limited geographic region.

The only time the electoral college system makes any real difference is when the popular vote is close - then the number of states you won ends up making a difference.

The 2000 election is a good example. Al Gore won the popular vote by 0.5% - but Bush carried 9 more states, which earned him 5 more EC votes than Gore.

Is this a good system? I think so. It doesn't ignore "the voice of the people" - you elect the electors, and the system forces candidates to represent the entire country instead of just the East.

Re:Tollfeed

[qazwart]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Electoral College was created because we simply didn't know how to elect a president. The original Virginia articles (which our Constitution was based upon) had the Senate (which was elected by the House) elect the President. Almost all of the delegates protested this because it was completely against the idea of separation of powers. Pennsylvania proposed election by popular vote, but Virginia objected because they had more people than Pennsylvania, but had fewer voters (since they had such strict voting requirements).

The whole thing was sent off to committee to decide universal voting qualifications for president. This completely failed because Pennsylvania had almost universal suffrage while Virginia wanted ownership of a certain amount of land. New York wanted a certain payment of taxes, Massachusetts wanted ownership of a certain value of real estate, and you get the idea. No one could agree on a Constitutional provision of who could vote for President. Even worse, a few states insisted that the state legislatures should have a say in who is running the country.

In the end, a compromise was reached: Each state got a certain amount of votes, and it was up to the individual states to decide who and how these votes would be cast. Thus, the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was a complete failure from almost the very beginning. George Washington was an easy choice, Adams was his vice president, so he was chosen in the third election. The fourth presidential election was the very first truly contested presidential election and the Electoral College almost completely tore the country apart. Thomas Jefferson won the Electoral College over Adams, but he tied with his veep due to the way the Electors were chosen. Back then, every elector got two votes and the second place finisher was the Veep. Jefferson tied the electoral vote with his veep candidate Aaron Burr. However, Adams supporters convinced Burr to actually claim the Presidency. It took over a dozen votes in Congress before Jefferson actually won. Many states threatened revolt if Jefferson or Burr was elected. It was Hamilton who finally cleared the way for Jefferson's election. Hamilton got the Federalists to support Jefferson in order to keep the country together.

The result ended up being the Hamilton Burr dual and extremely strained relations between Jefferson and Burr (who Jefferson later had tried for Treason). The twelfth amendment changed the way the Electoral College worked in order to prevent this from happening again.

The Electoral College encouraged states to keep suffrage low since the states aren't punished due to limited suffrage. The South knew that if Blacks were kept from the polls, they still had just as much say in Congress and the Presidential elections.

The Electoral College encourages limited Presidential campaigns since each state votes in a large block. The Presidential campaign skips over California and Texas, the two largest states since the outcome is known in those states, and the campaign hits only a half dozen or so smaller states. For example, Al Gore won more votes in Texas than in New Jersey in 2000, but it was New Jersey's 17 electoral votes that mattered and not the millions of votes Gore received in Texas.

And for the same reason, the Electoral College keeps voting participation low. Why bother voting for the Democratic candidate in Texas or the Republican candidate in California since it really doesn't matter. Our voting participation rate for President averages just over 50%. However, battleground states usually have a voter turnout above 80% while most other states have voter turnout around 40% to 50%. Why bother to go to the polls in Texas? You know the Republican candidate is going to win. If you're a Democrat, it's just a waste of time. If you're a Republican, it still isn't worth it. Texas's 34 electoral votes will still go to the Republican candidate whether or not you vote. With the Electoral College, your vote doesn't matter i