Paper Ballots Will Return In MD and VA

cheezitmike writes "According to a story in the Washington Post, 'Maryland and Virginia are going old school after Tuesday's election. Maryland will scrap its $65 million electronic system and go back to paper ballots in time for the 2010 midterm elections. In Virginia, localities are moving to paper after the General Assembly voted last year to phase out electronic voting machines as they wear out. "The battle for the hearts and minds of voters on whether electronic systems are good or bad has been lost," Brace said. The academics and computer scientists who said they were unreliable "have won that battle."'"

Comments

suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[seanadams.com]

Every time you get the urge to use that tag, think of all the idiocy in the world - Sarah Palin might become president, damages for copying a CD are in the $100Ks, the patent system, the supreme court, credit default swaps, bankers not in jail, etc.

This story is nothing more than an "isolatedpocketofcommonsense"

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Deflagro]

I think "Common sense" is inherently wrong though. If it were so common, wouldn't we see it more?
I think we need more "Uncommon sense", as the norm seems to be something I try to avoid.

I'm in Texas and apparently 23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim.

Common sense? Not likely...

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[erroneus]

I am also in Texas and I don't know about the "believes he's a Muslim" rate, but I know I just voted and there is no paper trail or anything indicating on paper that my vote was recorded properly.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[seanadams.com]

And yet, they keep saying that Palin is inexperienced?

Actually I didn't say that, but now that you mention it... even if she were "merely inexperienced", the fact remains she's an utter nincompoop.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[steelfood]

No, there's been an outbreak of common sense lately. It still hasn't become ubiquitous, but it's a serious improvement over two years ago.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[thedonger]

Your system is entirely based upon the notion that people are reasonable. That is not the case. A person - singular - is reasonable. When we get together in large groups we become much more stupiderer.

As the good book says, "None of us is as dumb as all of us."

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

He never gave his reasons for the possibility of Palin becoming PotUS being a sign of idiocy :P. Sure, he could be a Democrat and all, and he could subscribe to the party line, but the reason you gave might not be his reason for saying that.

Unless he uses the experience argument, then there are no pots or kettles involved.

You could say not giving any reason(s) to back up such a strong statement is a bigger sign of idiocy, though.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your claim that Sarah Palin might become President is a sign of idiocy laughable on its face. Aren't the dems the ones who keep saying that no experience can prepare you for president (since Obama has no experience)? And yet, they keep saying that Palin is inexperienced? Pot? Kettle?

I think the difference here is that Obama comes off as professional and competent. Palin comes off as "Lol, wasn't that cute?" Blonde and Ditzy. Also, Obama has infinitely more experience than Palin, for Palin has zero experience in areas, such as foreign policy.

Initially, I thought Palin was a good move for the GOP but now I'm not very happy with her. I think both presidents have a "good chance" of dieing in office, and I think both VPs are something to be feared. So, just so you know what my slant is, I am still undecided.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[ozamosi]

Being someone from the side of the Atlantic where half the population doesn't consist of idiots stupid enough to consider voting for the side that supports Palin, let me enlighten you on the topic.

The problem isn't that Palin is inexperienced. The problem is that she's batshit insane.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[thedonger]

Our data suggests that a greater number of Democrats than Republicans or Independents are excluded from voting under Indiana's voter identification laws.

But if a larger percentage of Democratic and poorer voters aren't working within the rules, then I don't see a problem. Either the rules don't work and need to be changed or the people aren't following them.

This is very similar to the hot-button topic of alleged racial inequality in prison. Without trying to come down on one side or another, if a certain group of people commits crime in a larger proportion than another, it stands to reason that a larger percentage of that group will be in jail.

Be careful to separate how people came to the point of committing crime and the actual commission of said crime. We cloud the issue by not clearly defining the two parts. Same with voter exclusion: look at the reasons why individuals are excluded, not the group which they represent.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[geobeck]

...one who has the *most* experience, holding a national record for both length of senate term and age to be a senator...

Would he also happen to be the most recent senator to be convicted of accepting and not reporting 'gifts'?

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[roguetrick]

While I agree with that, a government elected by a process I'm not a part of is invalid in my eyes. I'd imagine that the amount of people voting more than once would be a very tiny minority compared to the amount of valid voters with flawed paperwork. This is due to the driving around involved, and the logistics of moving around large amounts of people and keeping it secret.

Its all a balancing game really, I just wish more people saw both sides. A poser below mentioned staining of fingers, which might be the best idea.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Misch]

PS: In-person voter fraud doesn't happen in statistically significant numbers. Despite a five year crackdown by the Department of Justice, there were a whopping 120 prosecutions nationwide resulting in 86 convictions. (Sorry, registration required. Try news.google.com search for "In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud")

Only a handful of these were for double voting. A large chunk involved vote-buying in down-ticket races. Many were for illegal registration (legal resident non-citizens registering to vote), often filling out a "motor voter" section on a drivers licesnse application.

Remember, this big push to prosecute the non-existant voter fraud led to the firing of US attornies by the Bush administration.

Voter fraud is just a strawman argument rasied by Republicans to disenfranchise voters.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[AK Marc]

Bottom line: "one person, one vote" must mean exactly that; otherwise, elections can't be trusted.

I agree. But you don't seem to. You seem to be stating that one-person no-vote is desierable over one-person two-votes. Neither state is one-person one-vote. To achieve that, you should have flexible laws that accommodate changes in names for marriage, address changes, and such that get people excluded. Get them to vote on a contested ballot and verify it later, but don't just turn them away because of a typo on a form or a recent marriage that didn't get name changes synchronized on all the databases. But from what you say, you'd rather have many people unable to vote than let one vote twice.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[lgw]

Popular democracy has been tried before. Athens functioned, but barely, and was only strong when they had a charismatic leader (and they made some enourmous gaffes where decisions with far-reaching consquences were reversed on the spur of the moment). There's a reason Aristotle called democracy the corrupt form of a republic.

Also, Athens knew it could not defend itself as a democracy, so when a war started going badly they would become a dictatorship by appointing an Archon (the periods of actual democracy were quite literally anarchy). This *never* ended well. Our current system works *much* better: in war time we pass laws violating all sorts of constitutional rights, which gives the leader a bit of extra power for just long enough for those laws to make it to the Supreme Court and get tossed out.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

But if a larger percentage of Democratic and poorer voters aren't working within the rules, then I don't see a problem. Either the rules don't work and need to be changed or the people aren't following them.

Um, voting is a right of citizens who aren't disqualified by very specific criteria (too young, court declaration of mental incompetence, or the utterly repugnant, common practice of denying the vote to felons). The right follows from the fact that the person is a citizen; it's not a privilege that's gained by adhering to certain rules.

The only valid arguments for disenfranchising somebody have to do with whether allowing them to vote violates somebody else's right to vote. The reason we have rules for voting is that if we didn't have them, then somebody could cheat at the polls, and violate everybody else's right to vote. But other than that, the government should really make a good-faith effort not to disenfranchise anybody who's entitled to cast a vote.

There are simple things that can be done for that--if somebody shows up at the polls and there's a doubt whether they're allowed to vote, then you can have them cast a provisional ballot. (But of course, you have to process these ballots fairly, and there are serious questions whether various states have been doing so.)

The USA has a serious problem in that in many states, the people who run the election occupy partisan posts. The federal government should mandate that the states create neutral election departments, headed by a officers subject to approval by a supermajority of the state legislatures.

This is very similar to the hot-button topic of alleged racial inequality in prison. Without trying to come down on one side or another, if a certain group of people commits crime in a larger proportion than another, it stands to reason that a larger percentage of that group will be in jail.

But here you're completely, absolutely missing the point. The problem is that there is bias across multiple levels, after you control for the variables:

1. Racial profiling: police are more likely to intervene with minorities than with white people in similar situations. They're also more likely to get searched.
2. When the police intervene in an incident, minority members are more likely to get arrested, after controlling for other factors.
3. The prosecutors are more likely to bring charges, than when dealing with an equivalent white suspect.
4. The attorneys are less willing to defend than an equivalent white defendant, and more likely to recommend plea bargains.
5. The courts are more likely to find them guilty than a comparable white defendant, and to give them longer sentences for the same crimes.
6. Parole boards treat them less leniently than comparable white felons.

Just as a simple example, a lot of people smoke pot. When cops stop somebody in the street, however, they're less likely to perform a search on a white guy than on a black guy. So in the aggregate, white pot smokers get found out by the cops less often than black ones.

Multiply similar effects across the whole criminal justice system, and you'll understand what the problem is with racial inequality in the system, and how it's got relatively little to do with the base rate at which minority members commit crimes.

Re:suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[AK Marc]

But I've yet to see a cogent argument as to why they're immoral if the idea is to weed out the disinterested or incompetent.

Because everyone has the right to vote, even the disinterested and incompetent.

The idea that certain minorities would naturally be excluded by a fair test always seemed extremely racist to me.

Ok, and if I find the cracks in a sidewalk to be racist doesn't make it true. If you were to state that people with debilitating diseases can't vote either, because they can't have the best interests of the long term in mind isn't racist (ignoring whether it's a good idea or not). But then, make sure that HIV positive/AIDS, sickle cell anemia, and such fall under that definition. You come up with a "reasonable" goal, and I'm sure I could make it racist. The idea of a reasonable test is fine. But the requirements for ID knowing full well that black people are less likely to have an up to date and valid government ID is racist. Complaining that they should live up to the white standard of having a valid government ID doesn't make it any less racist, even if true. Just because it is a just cause and backed by true statements does not mean it isn't also racist.

You can be a good citizen without seeking to affect public policy. But please, ask yourself, do you care about the outcome of the election, or do you just care about pulling a lever.

I will ask myself that, as long as you ask yourself why you are so interested in exlcuding voters from their right to vote because you want to protect the "integrity" of the election (which I would assert is jeapordized by turning away even a single properly registered voter, with or without ID).

I for one

[Cornwallis]

welcome the return or our hanging-chad overlords.

Re:No Barr in CT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's nice to see the Dems and Reps act like they're two different parties but the truth is that they're the same power system with some internal struggles. What's even more rich is that the idiots on the street are still buying into this lie.

Re:No Barr in CT

[robinsonne]

This to me is the one of the saddest things about voting in America today, that legitimate candidates aren't even included on the ballot simply because they're not Republocrats.

Listening to the experts

[autocracy]

If the guy with his pilot's license says that his Cessna can't fly a tank, listen to him. If the majority of computer professionals say using a computer to replace paper ballots is a stupid idea, listen to them.

People who can't program their VCRs (how long before people stare at me when I mention "VCR"?) shouldn't make decisions about the suitability of high technology for mission critical tasks.

Re:Listening to the experts

[ivan256]

The majority of computer professionals think using a computer to replace/augment paper ballots is just fine. The experts also agreed that these particular computers and the software they ran were improperly designed for the job.

Electronic voting done properly should result in fewer errors and less fraud than paper ballots and human counting.

It's not just academics who are saying. . .

[smooth wombat]

electronic voting machines are unreliable. It is the evidence itself which shows they are unreliable and prone to losing/changing votes.

Do a search and you will find issues from the current early voting process where machines aren't recording votes correctly. Add in the documented cases from around the country where votes were simply "lost", and you don't need an academic to tell you you need a verifiable paper trail, not the assurance of a company, that votes will be recorded correctly.

It's funny how you get a paper trail to prove your purchases at the grocery/drug/clothes/whatever store, but people are fighting tooth-and-nail NOT to have a paper trail when it comes to recording votes.

The simplest solution is to use an electronic machine for people to select their choices but at the end, provide a sheet with all their votes recorded which they deposit in a box. The machine votes are recorded but you have a paper trail in case electronic votes are "lost".

Just add printers!

[b0bby]

I've used the machines in MD, and I like them. They're pretty clear and easy to use. What I really don't like, however, is the lack of a paper backup. It's such a simple thing, just add a printout which can be easily read and, if needed, optically scanned. That way you can verify the vote totals if there are any questions, and you get the advantages of the machines. I'd much rather they spent the money to add the printers, if possible, than scrap the whole system. If printers can't be added, then ok, get rid of them because there's too much uncertainty over results.

It wasn't us! Do your job properly.

[sweatyboatman]

Voters don't care how they vote, as long as it's easy and they can have confidence that their vote will be counted.

Considering that these states implemented relatively untested systems in a slap-dash manner that showed no regard for the integrity of the vote, I don't think it's fair to blame this on "academics and computer scientists".

Done properly (as in, with a physical record), electronic voting is a good alternative to our increasingly antiquated voting systems. However, the combination of unscrupulous businessmen and ethically/intellectually-challenged election officials led these states to spend oodles of money on sub-standard products.

The predictable (and predicted) end result was a process built more around satisfying the vendors desire to push units than satisfying the public's need for a reliable vote. Then the manure hit the wind-blowing machine and vote tallies came out screwy. People started to notice this particular gov't boondoggle and what we're seeing is elected officials starting to sweat.

Unfortunately it appears the lesson they took from this was that e-voting is bad bad bad (look away and never mention it again) and they're going Luddite.

Maybe in 10 years they'll get the nerve to try again, this time with an open, verifiable system that we can trust. Or, more likely. some other snake-oil salesman will take the opportunity to bilk the public trust for more millions of dollars.

MD politics is dominated by the Democrats

[PeeAitchPee]

The same Democrat-controlled state legislature originally blocked our previous (Republican) governor's efforts to get rid of these machines. Now that we have a Democrat governor, they're getting rid of the machines so as to take credit for it. They're doing the same thing with slot machines -- the previous governor tried to get slot machines legalized, and the state legislature blocked him. Now, slots are up for referendum with the support of our current (Democrat) governor and the Legislature who had previously opposed them.

Not that it makes a damn bit of difference (we're fucked anyway), but I just wanted folks to know all the facts before they start rambling about the evils of the Republican party here in MD. Maryland is about as solidly Democrat as you can get -- the huge black majorities in Baltimore City and Prince Georges County have ensured that for decades.

Re:MD politics is dominated by the Democrats

[b0bby]

Maryland is about as solidly Democrat as you can get -- the huge black majorities in Baltimore City and Prince Georges County have ensured that for decades.

Umm, what? Maryland is 30% African-American. I always understood that the reason we're solidly democratic is because of the highly educated population. For example, Montgomery County has almost 30% of residents over 25 with an advanced degree, 15% African American (since you seem hung up on that), solidly democratic. I'm an independent, btw.

Re:Makes it sound bad?

[CyberLord Seven]

"Welcome to the paper-less office."

Remember that from the Sixties and Seventies? Do you see any sign of it today? No? Why not?

Well, maybe because paper is light-weight, foldable, and will last beyond your lifespan with minimal care.

Let's try an experiment. I solved the secrets of the Universe and wrote them on ordinary paper with an ordinary ball-point pen back in the 1970s. I also wrote those same secrets on an Apple ][. The paper was shoved into my copy of Encyclopaedia Brittanica and put back on the shelf. The Apple ][ copy was manually copied onto an IBM PC circa 1982, using a 3.5" floppy where it sits to this day. Which copy of the SECRETS OF THE UNIVERSE! would you like: paper or electronic?

Oh, just for fun, let's say I copied the floppy onto a CD back in 1997. Then I copied that onto a USB stick in 2002. OH, almost forgot to mention that the file format is the same Apple ][ format from the 1970s. :)

Re:I'm not convinced

[YrWrstNtmr]

Elections should be based on the popular vote, not the outdated electoral college system and electronic voting is really the only way to make it happen.

Generally, the same candidate appeals to the metro areas of NYC/Chicago/LA. That's who we would have, the rest of the country be damned.
Always.

Re:Makes it sound bad?

[nine-times]

Well I could see a more valid complaint about, "Damn those intellectuals and computer scientists. They pushed us into electronic voting against common sense!" I mean were that the case, I could understand the complaint.

But you have *computer scientists* telling people, "Don't use computers for this purpose. It's a very bad idea because there are inherent security problems. Either address all those security problems in a reasonable way, or stick to a low-tech solution." Those are the people who know what they're talking about, and they're also the people who would generally want to push you towards high-tech solutions-- you know the whole, "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail" thing.

So why the hell shouldn't we listen to those people in this case?

Re:Makes it sound bad?

[HTH NE1]

OH, almost forgot to mention that the file format is the same Apple ][ format from the 1970s. :)

That would be a file of type T, which is just a flat text file with line (or paragraph) ends delimited with Carriage Return (CR) instead of any of Line Feed (LF), CRLF, or LFCR and no other special formatting.

Simple file formats last longest.

Re:An alternative

[dwheeler]

You don't get receipts, because that would invite fraud.

"Hi! If you vote for me, I'll pay you $20. If you pose as several other people, I'll pay $20 each. Just hand over your receipts when you're done, and once I've confirmed that you voted 'correctly', you get your $20".

This is one of the reasons why voting systems are harder to build than ATMs. With ATMs, you record who does what with a camera, and keep a strict log of every transaction. If there's funny business, you have a chance of convicting the user. In a voting system, you MUST NOT record who made which vote, and you MUST NOT give the voter any way to prove who they voted for. Voting systems are trickier than they appear, because they have really unusual security requirements... and because power is at stake, so people really DO attack security weak points.

Re:An alternative

[NeutronCowboy]

You know how to deal with that "problem"? Print-out occurs behind a glass plate. Voter can confirm vote on print-out, and push a button that says "Confirm". No take-home, no problem.

The problem is not with the recording. The problem is what a voter is allowed to take home. Which, as you said, should be nothing.