What? They are using paper ballots? Can you believe it?

And

"EI advocates have had in helping to expose the failures of electronic voting systems"

Well said. All that bad stuff was stopped long ago:

In 1988 Ronnie Dugger wrote the definitive article on computerized vote fixing... DURING the past quarter of a century, with hardly anyone noticing, the inner workings of democracy have been computerized. All our elections, from mayor to President, are counted locally, in about ten thousand five hundred political jurisdictions, and gradually, since 1964, different kinds of computer-based voting systems have been installed in town after town, city after city, county after county. This year, fifty-five per cent of all votes-seventy-five per cent in the largest jurisdictions-will be counted electronically. If ninety-five million Americans vote on Tuesday, November 8th, the decisions expressed by about fifty-two million of them will be tabulated according to rules that programmers and operators unknown to the public have fed into computers.

(EI Progress Movement stops bad guys in 1988). The government confirmed it:

4.13 Summary Of Problem Types

4.13.1 Insufficient Pre-election Testing
4.13.2 Failure to Implement an Adequate Audit Trail
4.13.3 Failure to Provide for a Partial Manual Recount
4.13.4 Inadequate Ballots or Ballot-Reader Operation
4.13.5 Inadequate Security and Management Control
4.13.6 Inadequate Contingency Planning
4.13.7 Inadequate System Acceptance Procedures

(National Institute of Standards and Testing, 1988). Ever since 1988 there has been progress, by progressives, to the progressive place we are today.

Rejoice. Because this progress even goes back ten years before 1988, because Ronnie Dugger quoted above, in 1988 sedd:

DURING the past quarter of a century

(1988 minus 25 years is 1963), the year of the Kennedy assasination.

PROGRESS, in the words of a 1989 EI movement revolutionary:

First words spoken by
President-elect, George Bush,
November 8, 1988 victory speech
in Houston, Texas, 11:30 PM EST

"Once, during the time when days were darker, I made a promise. Thanks, New Hampshire!"

(Deja Vu all over again, cause its progress).

Now these paper ballot thingies ... that Stalin used ... gives new meaning to "Stalinism in voting is a thing of the past ..." doesn't it?

When is paper not paper ... when the "progressives" say so McFeignfully.

It ain't HANES until inspector 99 says so, and it ain't paper until inspector 99 says it is paper.

A change of names to protect the guilty. Blogger "PAPER" changed his name to "paper".

So, one can say it was a big deal or a BIG deal, but one can not too.

Is there any "proof" that there has been a lack of transparency, a lack of security, voter intimidation, election fraud, ballot mishandling, and no secret ballots? Or is the "angst" about this system just fear-mongering?

See, this is the argument partisan liberals (especially those who claim they aren't partisan liberals) have used against voter ID laws. We've seen these arguments introduced into meritless dissenting opinions by some Supreme Court Justices.

A verifiable but secret ballot from a legal voter is not an easy thing to do.

It requires much more thought on the process to protect privacy but also assure that the vote cast is accurately counted according to the voter's intent.

I would like to see BradBlog open a continuing discussion thread and start by posting the current known solutions on how we can achieve the above. Perhaps a separate post for each possible solution....

With one or more reasonable verifiable voting solutions in hand a populist movement can be generated at each state level to adopt reasonable solutions to uphold democracy.

Then again.... we need honest citizens to run for office too.

SteveIL #3

A bank with its doors open overnight is not proof that a bank robbery took place.

Yet not many will argue that there is no problem with that scenario.

And if we take the discipline of accounting, they have a term of art called "the paper trail".

I do not know why it is a current "progressive" tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water. All or nothing politics is really not bringing "progress" ... a useless word.

What we want is solutions. So the better movement is the solution movement, not the progress movement.

In accounting the paper trail is composed of anything and everything that would identify any culprit anywhere that would mess with valuables.

I do not, to this very day, understand why "progressives" get their shorts all tied up in a know over the method of voting, when the greatest voter fraud genious of all time, Stalin, clearly pointed out that the voters are not the place to look (and by extrapolation the method of voting), the place to look is the counting, because "the voters decide nothing, those who count decide everything".

Counting and accounting and paper trail must be linked in a solution way, not a "progressive" way.

The way to tell if the bank that was left open all night was had or not is to look at "the paper trail", which would be composed of all relevant evidence.

ArchiCoot #4

I will add to your point by pointing out that Arthur Anderson ("paper trailers") where a reputable accounting firm until they weren't anymore.

Without honest people there is no democracy, no matter how the vote is cast or counted. There is only the illusion of democracy (demockcrazy), because in point of fact, democracy is an apex of honesty.

BTW Bradblog is one of the closest things to a continuing discussion of election and vote problems that I am aware of.

Very interesting article, Brad. Thanks for the post. Since I live in Oregon, I can relate to the things you discuss. The Oregon vote-by-mail system is incredibly convenient for the voters (you have weeks, not minutes, to study and fill out your ballot). Yet it does lack some transparency. It is an unfortunate reality that while the perception here is that the system works great, it would only take a few bad apples over the course of time to really drive it in the gutter (not mentioning any names, but "George Bush" comes to mind). So it is a good idea to install better safeguards and procedures into law.

One thing you left out in your list are the "ballot collection" efforts that often happen, whereby a candidate and/or organization will go out and collect ballots to be turned in to the elections office. There is no way to be certain the ballot will end up where they say it will.

A note of caution, though. I would hate to throw out the baby with the bathwater on this system. With greater oversight, I feel the vote-by-mail could be the best system out there. Lacking a national holiday for people to go vote, it is very voter-friendly. If safeguards can be put in place, with ways to better mandate transparency and accountability, it would go a long way to a convenient, reliable democracy.

Archiecoot (#4):
It's mathematically impossible to have an election process that is both verifiable and anonymous. If there is a constitutional requirement secret ballots, then only very limited verifiability is possible.

If the election process is verifiable, then each voter must be able to verify that his or her vote was counted correctly, but that also means that said voter can demonstrate that to others.

This last primary the letter carrier deliberately withheld my absentee ballot so I couldn't vote. This was in retaliation for a personal complaint that we'd made to the branch post office because the carrier was amusing herself by crumpling the mail up into balls before putting it in the mailbox. This is not paranoia. The carrier actually stopped delivering mail to us last summer and we had to beg the supervisor to get our mail started again. I know the carrier deliberately withheld the mail because the absentee ballot arrived with a whole bunch of mail and a triumphant note from the letter carrier claiming we hadn't emptied the box, which was a lie.

I complained to the Postmaster for San Francisco, asking her to move the carrier to a different route and NOTHING was done because the same letter carrier is still on the route. I complained to Debbie Bowen and her investigator took a report.

It's incredible that no one supervises the letter carriers re delivery of an absentee ballot but apparently no one does.

SteveIL #3 foolishly asked:

Is there any "proof" that there has been a lack of transparency, a lack of security, voter intimidation, election fraud, ballot mishandling, and no secret ballots?

Yes, of course. Miles of it. As a matter of fact, if you bother to actually read the available studies on voter fraud, you'll find that where it exists, it's largely via absentee balloting.

As I say, miles of proof. The very proof you anti-democracy folks use to claim polling place Photo ID restrictions are necessary, when it truth, polling place Photo ID does nothing to stop such fraud, since most of it occurs via absentee.

See, this is the argument partisan liberals (especially those who claim they aren't partisan liberals) have used against voter ID laws.

Wrong. The entirety of your evidence-free comment is without merit.

Archicoot #4 said:

A verifiable but secret ballot from a legal voter is not an easy thing to do.

It requires much more thought on the process to protect privacy but also assure that the vote cast is accurately counted according to the voter's intent.

I would like to see BradBlog open a continuing discussion thread and start by posting the current known solutions on how we can achieve the above. Perhaps a separate post for each possible solution....

You say it's "not that easy". I argue that it's quite simple. We've made it complicated. Needlessly.

In short: Voters vote on paper, put it into transparent box on the table where all can see it, all day long. At end of day, ballots are removed from box, counted then and there, publicly, by anybody and everybody. Results are posted at the precinct before those ballots are ever moved anywhere.

Simple, secure, secret, accurate.

Problem now solved? Yeah, I thought so

Dredd sedd #5:

I do not, to this very day, understand why "progressives" get their shorts all tied up in a know over the method of voting, when the greatest voter fraud genious of all time, Stalin, clearly pointed out that the voters are not the place to look (and by extrapolation the method of voting), the place to look is the counting, because "the voters decide nothing, those who count decide everything".

Stalin was not a "voter fraud genius", he was an "election fraud genius". You, of all people, Dredd, should well know the difference. As well as well knowing the dangers of conflating the two ideas.

Dredd then further sedd #6:

Without honest people there is no democracy, no matter how the vote is cast or counted.

There will always be honest people in a democracy. The trick is to let them be able to count and/or oversee the counting of their own votes. When you allow transparency to disappear, secret counting to occur, and a system is allowed to take over which relies on the "honesty" of the vote counters (be they man or machine), you are asking for trouble.

That's what happened under Stalin, as you mention so frequently, Dredd. Nobody wants that (well, nobody here, anyway...well, no serious person here anyway).

Remove the counting from visibility and anything can happen. Trusting that your vote counters will be honest (even if they are) is foolish folly and begging for disaster.

NateTG #8 said:

It's mathematically impossible to have an election process that is both verifiable and anonymous. If there is a constitutional requirement secret ballots, then only very limited verifiability is possible.

I wholeheartedly disagree. See my response at #11 to Archicoot, and feel free to let me know what's wrong with it.

I don't need to verify that MY ballot was counted accurately. I need to verify that everyone's ballot was counted accurately. I believe you are laboring under a false premise.

NoVBM.com

I run the No Vote By Mail Project out of Washington State. For those of you that don't think problems exist with vote-by mail, I suggest you check the site. I've documented every type of fraud suggested by VBM critics. Granny Farming is a good one to learn about to start.

Getting rid of the secret ballot, which vote-by mail does, IS a very bad idea.

Why Voting By Mail Is a Bad Idea

89 Articles Why VBM is a Very Bad Idea

And my personal favorite of late, who'd pushing this agenda nationally... Democrats.

That's just for starters...

Too bad we have to deal with the world that actually exists, and unfortunately the minds in it? The one some call it "reality"?

And that really is a problem in Amurka, whether or not it also is in America. There are no clear plastic boxes with everyone watching. It does not work like that, so to inject a fantasy into a real debate is only going to bring "progress", not a solution.

And we may find that blogs are not the place that will bring it about.

Today on THE VIEW, of all places to think gutsy journalism would be practiced, preznit blush was criticized for talking about NAZI appeasers when in fact his grandfather (a senator who put the APPEASER in appeaser) had his assets seized during WWII for violating the American Trading With The Enemy Act (he dealt with the NAZI's).

When progressives claim to have THE VIEW, but don't in point of fact, may housewives on THE VIEW will have to carry the day.

Yep, it would be easy if it was easy, but since it isn't it isn't. Especially in a world where money is just as good as cash.

I'm one of the anti-democracy folks? This is a tad off-topic, but you supported that recent California Supreme Court travesty where 4 tyrants in black robes (you erroneously referred to them as conservatives) completely disregarded the 4.6 million people (61.4%) who voted to define marriage the way they did. If that isn't anti-democracy, I don't know what is.

Yeah, I presented no evidence on this. But neither did you regarding the actual Oregon VBM setup. I'm not talking absentee ballots in general, but what Oregon is doing in particular. Where is the proof?

First of all Oregon has all the same problems any Optical Scan voting systems encounter. Of course the additional problem of counting folded absentees is something that has not been affectively dealt with anywhere so far.

Second, Vote-by Mail is sold as the "solution to computer vote counting" when it is actually using the same computers. Um, this should concern people. The same people who sold the country on Touchscreens and proprietary voting machines are now selling the cure... and marketing it as such.

Third, Oregon does have problems. 35,000 double ballots out there this time. But most of the time the transparency of the system will not show any problems... because it makes it virtually impossible to see problems.

I will not, however, continue to argue with people who think that there are no problems, without having them actually do some reading on the subject. Oregon is having problems. Just because you don't know what they are, does not mean that they don't exist.

Wow, where do these rocket scientists come from? What's all this stuff about "no proof", "no evidence"? This whole freakin' BLOG is dripping with proof and evidence - that's what it's here for!

Thanks, Mr. Freidman, for doing this most essential work!

Bradd sedd:

Stalin was not a "voter fraud genius", he was an "election fraud genius". You, of all people, Dredd, should well know the difference. As well as well knowing the dangers of conflating the two ideas.

Staw man on the attack Brad, shame on you. Stalin was a genious who knew the amoral truth that the voters do not count, only the counters count.

Stalin was an evil genious who used paper ballots, and verified results too. It is just that as in all things voting, "verified" like the counting is not a matter of the voter, it is a matter of the counter.

In these daze McFeign supporters criticize a Senator for diplomatic leanings, while they support another Senator who hugs a fascist who's grandfather, a Senator, had his American assets taken away under American law for supporting the real enemy Hitler. Yep, hug a NAZI for progress.

As in those daze, these daze might makes right and the people get what is left.

Shame for sure, but also real for sure. It really would be nice if he had democracy like the Ukraine where American progressives would be in context.

Steve #18

Much of "journalism", whether voting journalizm or journalism that counts, is damage control. Take this story for example:

Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler

(FOX NEWS). How is that damage control? Read what is tries to divert from:

Both Harrimans and Bush were partners in the New York investment firm of Brown Brothers, Harriman and Co., which handled the financial transactions of the bank as well as other financial dealings with several other companies linked to Bank voor Handel that were confiscated by the U.S. government during World War II. Union Banking was seized by the government in October 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act ...

Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen. The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush's Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression. Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American

(Larissa, at-Largely). Yep, just because issues are talked about at Fox News doesn't "prove" the matter I guess.

SteveIL #16 continues his foolery:

I'm one of the anti-democracy folks?

Yes.

This is a tad off-topic, but you supported that recent California Supreme Court travesty where 4 tyrants in black robes (you erroneously referred to them as conservatives)...

No, I didn't. Do not misquote, or mischaracterize what I wrote, simply because you're not able to make your case honestly. I said it was a Republican majority court (true) and that their decision was a conservative one (true) in that it simply minded the rights and protections as written into the state Constitution and did not attempt to legislative from the bench.

...completely disregarded the 4.6 million people (61.4%) who voted to define marriage the way they did. If that isn't anti-democracy, I don't know what is.

Well then, apparently you don't know what is.

Our system of democracy is based on laws established by a Constitution which protects the rights of the minority. While the majority is supposed to be the decider at the ballot box, the Constitution is meant to protect the minority.

Thankfully, that's what happened in California. You would be wise to learn how our system of democracy works in this country.

Yeah, I presented no evidence on this. But neither did you regarding the actual Oregon VBM setup. I'm not talking absentee ballots in general, but what Oregon is doing in particular. Where is the proof?

Actually, I did present such evidence. Beginning with the 35,000 voters who received two ballots each due to Oregon's VBM system.

You're cool with 35,000 double voters in the state of Oregon?

For the rest of the evidence you ask for, you needn't look very far if you actually care to learn about it. Though I suspect you don't, and that your partisan political nonsense takes precedence over the right to vote and to have that vote counted accurately and transparently.

Dredd sedd @ #19 (when he was staying on topic for a minute):

It is just that as in all things voting, "verified" like the counting is not a matter of the voter, it is a matter of the counter.

Right. Which is why the voter needs to be the counter. That principle is perhaps best exemplified by the mission noted by the Creekside Declaration ("To encourage citizen ownership of transparent, participatory democracy") serves to underscore almost all that we do here.

If you believe that mission is not a reality-based one, then I'm not sure why you'd waste your time here. I believe the goal, and the prospects of seeing it continually come to fruition in this country, to be exceedingly real.

If you wish to respond, please remain on topic, Dredd, if possible. Thank you.

Reading with great interest the comment here. Sorry for the long post. . . but all on topic:

* Lack of Transparency -Yes, it's hard to have both secrecy and transparency.

At Election Office I worked in (and the particular job I had), there was little opportunity for fraud than there would be in your scenario with as many ballots cast. Lots of observers and ballot baby-sitting with three people (supervisor, and an election worker from both major parties) present at all times.

From my vantage point, I could clearly see the path of the ballots as they were brought in by the Sheriff or Deputy, to my station where ballot boxes were checked in with the presence of three other people (boxes were new, properly sealed and appropriately marked), and then went directly to one of the boards. Only then, in the presence of the board and overseen by supervisory election staff, observers and myself, were the boxes opened to be processed.

Ballots would be taken, past my station to be counted, which was also in my purview and, again with at least three election workers in the same arrangement (super and 1 from each party).

After counting, the ballots were re-packed and sealed in their original box and sent to a vault which looked like a bank vault and quite secure. It was just past me and down the hall.

There were elections officials and other observers present at all times who had the same ability to take in as much of the scene as I.

If the ballots we received were the ballots voted, there certainly is a paper trail to check inaccuracies by the ballot-counting machines. In some ways a large central counting area provides a greater opportunity for observation by many participants and less possibility for fraud by an inside few.

In order to implement your suggestions, we would need more precincts and far more election workers. If only there was more public interest in further participation in this process.

* Lack of Security - I do feel this is a weakness in our system. This could (and is) better addressed by depositing ballots directly to the Elections Office or by precinct voting on election day.

"Any unmarked contest on a ballot can be marked by someone other than the voter when the ballots are opened for counting." Brad.

This wasn't a likely problem at the office in which I worked. All eyes were on the boards, no markers on the tables. At the counting machine, again many observers and really no table to place a ballot down and mark it surreptitiously.

* Voter Intimidation - The kind of voter intimidation you describe involves the participation of the voter. You'd have to bring in your ballot. In that situation, simply voting early or fouling the ballot and going to the nearest Elections Office and voting there, instead is a possibility.

* Election Fraud - With VBM you do have time to handle things through the elections office should you not receive a ballot. For those without disabilities or who do not need assistance in voting, it's easy to tell helpful people that you've already voted. Most certainly the elderly and those with disabilities are vulnerable, but they can choose to vote in their precinct and would likely be able to find transportation should they seek it in advance.

* Potential for Ballot Mishandling - Oregon maintains precinct voting as an option for voters. However, many "early birds" take ballots to the Elections Office rather than send them through the mail.

* Lack of Secret Ballot - We do want to have a secret ballot, but we want to be able to verify that our vote is counted. Both are ideal goals.

Brad, even in your own scenario --- how do we know that participants are who they say they are, should be voting in the precinct and are not leaving one precinct to go vote in another?

Having said that, I do not feel that there is much "voter fraud", but that "election fraud" is another story. The problem is, if there is a loophole, it can be utilized and the whole idea is to ensure every vote counts. It seems to me that we have a problem of limited time and scale of voters. There does have to be a way to solve this.

Thanks Brad & everyone --

Brad #22

I don't waste my time by pointing out that this stuff is in its 45th year (1963 - 2008) [post #1].

Who else on this blog is pointing out that the same tired and obvious is not news it is olds?

Stalin was a paper ballot verified vote user. I point that out. Stalin was a genious. I point that out. He was an evil genious. I point that out.

The election system in any country with paper ballots and verification is not the major issue. I point that out.

Honesty is the major issue. It does not matter who is counting, those counters decide everything. I point that out.

If the counters are honest in any nation every election is honest, and if the counters are not honest that election is not honest. I point that out.

You make a big deal about how the votes are cast, as if that was what controls the results, and brings about an honest election. I point that out.

You recoil on that point, and argue for a perfect system not mentioning honesty. Even if "the people", "the computers", "the magic citizens in a magic land", the whatever, are not honest neither will the election be honest. No matter if rocks are used as ballots. I point that out.

Bush and McFeign are fascists. I point that out.

Good debate does not waste anyone's time. I point that out.

Elaine -

I couldn't tell if "your office" was in Oregon or elsewhere. So hopefully your comments speak for themselves. I'll respond to just a couple of points you made, however, under the presumption you're speaking about Oregon...

If the ballots we received were the ballots voted...

That's a big "if", of course, and one that is difficult to know in a VBM system. With precinct-based counting (whether by hand or op-scan) it's much easier to know that, and track whether the number of folks who signed in, match with the number of ballots you are counting.

...there certainly is a paper trail to check inaccuracies by the ballot-counting machines. In some ways a large central counting area provides a greater opportunity for observation by many participants and less possibility for fraud by an inside few.

Not if you have no idea what you are counting, if those are the actual voted ballots, if those are all of them, etc.

Decentralized counting, at the precincts, counted publicly and announced publicly before the ballots move anywhere, makes it much harder to game the system or effect an election (at least without getting caught.)

In order to implement your suggestions, we would need more precincts and far more election workers. If only there was more public interest in further participation in this process.

I suggest there is plenty of "public interest in further participation in this process." In places, such as NH, where they do a great deal of handcounting, they have plenty of volunteers for it, as I understand.

It's difficult getting pollworkers these days to do endless hours, of overly-technical work requiring training and almost no pay.

But if it was announced that the people were needed to hand-count ballots at the polls, on Election Night, I suspect turnout would be big.

Even so, even precinct-based op-scan counting is better than central-based op-scan counting, which is better than VBM central-based counting. And precinct-based op-scan, which has it's own concerns, doesn't take many folks at all. It just takes a machine.

Hand counts and/or audits would be preferred. But if you're gonna op-scan anyway (as you do in OR), it might as well be decentralized at the precincts where it's easier to track, and harder to game.

Brad, even in your own scenario --- how do we know that participants are who they say they are, should be voting in the precinct and are not leaving one precinct to go vote in another?

That's a "problem" that's already been solved in the majority of precincts across the country. You are assigned to a specific polling place, and must vote there, where you appear in the register and must sign-in when you vote.

I can't go to a different precinct here in L.A., for example, after I've voted at my assigned precinct. And, as study after study has shown, in-person voter impersonation fraud is incredibly rare, in no small part because it's very difficult to effect an election that way, and there are severe fines in place (5 years in jail, $10,000 etc.) for doing so. Those have proven to be very effective deterrents.

Finally, there are no such deterrents w/ VBM. By and large, I can "sell" my vote to anybody who wants it, or, in turn, intimidate others into voting the way I want them to. There is almost nothing that can be done about that. And where voter fraud actually exists, it's by and large via absentee balloting, of the kind used for nearly 100% of the voting in Oregon.

I love vote by mail. I can see where there might be problems, but Oregon is known for its relatively clean politics. The newspapers publish when ballots are mailed, so if you don't get one you can call the PO or the Elections Office to see what happened; you don't have to mail it, there are drop boxes at every library or you can hand carry it to the Elections Office; as soon as you vote those horrible phone calls stop. My only regret is that parents no longer get to take their small children with them to the polling place - that is how I taught my kids about voting and why it's important.

Of course it could be subverted, but I still trust it over Diebold.

In Oregon, people get to vote by mail and 75% of The Beaver State's likely voters do so. Granted it makes things easier, but they can cast their ballots weeks in advance of the actual election day and that can be problematic. For instance, in the GOP primary for the 5th Congressional seat, it was revealed only days before today’s election day that a “pro-life” (anti-choice; we're all pro-life) candidate had allegedly gotten a woman pregnant a while back and paid for her abortion. “Hey, I wanna change my vote! I don't wanna vote for a hypocrite!” That’s a tough proposition for most voters, but hey, why didn't you wait to cast your ballot? (There's always more at http://QNNamerica.com.)

So why not have vote-by-mail, but require voters to show up in person to deliver their ballot? Voters would still have ample time to fill out their ballot and analyze issues, but they would be required to do more than just drop the ballot back in the mailbox. This would satisfy at least some of the concerns listed.

In addition, storing the ballots in a more transparent fashion, then hand-counting them on election day, seems like the way to go.

Brad in post #11, Elaine in post #23 and Dredd in many posts continued the conversation well, addressing many points.

I think that voting and dropping your ballot into a clear container is only a small part of the voting process.

Prior to that is actually accessing a ballot in hand to vote with that is not confusing, or slanted for or against the candidates.

And after one votes how is the ballot counted and the counts officially reported up the chain to the Secretary of State?
As Dredd points out unscrupulous counters committing election fraud is one major issue for US all.

The answer is not simple at all... but to start with an unalterable record of the vote is the only basis of later verification.

So... I will propose a National Ballot Design Standard using :
chadless punch cards
This standard can be designed and sponsored through a private competition sponsored by BradBlog and other blogs.
The popular consensus ballot design standard can then be proposed for adoption by each state legislature.
The ballot design must be able to:
1. Clearly present the voting choices
2. Be easily counted using a mechanical (not optical) process
3. Be verifiable without ambiguity
4. The process of one ballot per voter while maintaining privacy is to be addressed

I also propose that all voting starts on a Friday at 8am and end on a Monday at 5pm with the polls open from 8am to 5pm each day (including Sunday.)
So no mailing and thereby adding to a chain of custody with possible misdirection of the ballots.

Anyone else have comments or ideas?

ps: Thanks Brad for having this forum.

Actually, I did present such evidence. Beginning with the 35,000 voters who received two ballots each due to Oregon's VBM system.

You're cool with 35,000 double voters in the state of Oregon?

You presented evidence of an error, not fraud.

Just so you know, it (VBM) doesn't seem like a good idea to me either, especially with the errors you point out. However, your opposition to VBM uses many of the same arguments I would make regarding the use of a photo ID for voting, providing they do so in a manner similar to Indiana. The arguments against valid photo ID laws haven't been convincing, especially in that woeful dissent from Justice Souter.

As far as the California case, it wasn't anything resembling a conservative opinion, especially since California recognizes gay unions already, calling them marriages in all but name only. Nothing in the California constitution covers "sexual orientation" or "sexual preference" or any such thing. Neither does the U.S. Constitution. It was judicial tyranny by these liberal judges.

There is an enormous error in your complaint that I can refute off the top of my head. There is actually a way to verify who sent in the ballot. Ballots are checked against signatures that are on file from registration. Accordingly, the other complaints you listed are inherent in voting. Ballots will always have the potential to be mishandled in any state. You really failed to bring up any unique problems with VBM that don't also exist with other types of voting. I'll take my ballot by mail over a polling place any day.

Brad #25

In response to Elaine you sedd:

there are severe fines in place (5 years in jail, $10,000 etc.) for doing so. Those have proven to be very effective deterrents.

How can you prove anything has been deterred until you prove it was happening? How many elections were stolen and how many have not been stolen since these "deterrents" you speak of?

The most effective deterrent is good character ... honesty. If we fail to teach our kids honesty (I did not fail), then try to deter them with fear after failing ... well get ready to visit them in jail.

Canada is a good contrast to consider. In 2003:

The violent crime rate has generally declined since the early 1990s ... Since 1993, it has fallen 11%, and in 2003, it remained virtually unchanged ... Most violent crime categories recorded declines in 2003 ... The national homicide rate fell ... to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported ...

Penalties have not been going up to account for the downward trend (they do not execute). But for an entire nation of about 35 million to have only 548 murders, compared to the US's 16,528 that year, argues against a deterrent theory.

The US per capita murder rate is about 10 times as much as Canad, and Canada does not have the death penalty "deterrent" the US has.

Honesty and good upbringing are the only hope for honest elections. Honest people do not cheat in elections, nor dthey murder their fellow citizens.

There is no evidence I know of that suggests hacking eVote machines, other election fraud, or voter fraud has been deterred by fines, the death penalty, or jail.

SteveIL

A conservative reading of the Constitution, by anyone, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, is that it is outright illegal to deprive anyone of their rights... civil rights, human rights.... The State cannot tell anyone who they can marry, that option is a basic human right. I would also argue that the number of people one can marry is up to the individual/s, not the State. I would also argue that the State has no business meddling in marriage at all, but as long as it does, it ought not compound the error by placing conditions on it. AMERICANS might hate having to live and let live, but we agree that is the basis of our republic. We hate having to be humane to murderers also but THAT TOO is the conservative reading of the Constitution, and some of us are also trying to uphold that.

The Republican majority in our State Supreme Court finally put the Constitution above party, and I am extremely proud of them for that.

Archicoot #29 -

I think that voting and dropping your ballot into a clear container is only a small part of the voting process.

Prior to that is actually accessing a ballot in hand to vote with that is not confusing, or slanted for or against the candidates.

And after one votes how is the ballot counted and the counts officially reported up the chain to the Secretary of State?

Of course, ballot design must be good, however that is not a problem addressed by VBM (since ballot design must be good there as well).

Concerns about how ballots are counted are also unsatisfactorily addressed by VBM which counts ballots essentially the way most central-count op-scan systems do, but in a way that is harder to see and/or verify that all ballots cast have actually be counted.

Your other suggestions are all largely good ones that I have no problem with (and might have included had I been doing more than originally trying to offer you just the simple meat and potatoes of how to simply, securely and transparently hold elections which require neither rocket science, or any new amazing inventions).

In short: vote on a paper ballot on Election Day, store the ballot transparently to all at the precinct, count the ballot transparently to, and witnessed by all at the precinct. Done.

Extending election day, making it a holiday, ensuring good ballot design, enough precincts, transparent, accurate registration rolls, etc. are all obviously part of what needs to be done. But those are largely obvious. It is the simple things (how to cast and count the vote transparently, securely and verifiably accurately) which seems to be escaping Americans seeking some technology solution to a non-technological problem.

As Dredd points out unscrupulous counters committing election fraud is one major issue for US all.

With all due respect to my friend Dredd, he's out to lunch on this issue. The assumption must always be that counters are unscrupulous, even when they are not. You must have a system that works even with dishonest counters.

There again, full, public transparency, ever step of the way, is your answer. See above. Again and again, as necessary.

SteveIL #30 kept digging:

You presented evidence of an error, not fraud.

My original article (you may wish to review it above) was not about fraud. It was about what is wrong with VBM. One of the problems is fraud, as easily seen in the ability to buy/sell/intimidate via absentee balloting. Other problems, such as lack of privacy, mishandled ballots, etc. are also self-evident. If you're unfamiliar how you lose your privacy with absentee ballots, it sounds like you need to go learn a little bit about it.

your opposition to VBM uses many of the same arguments I would make regarding the use of a photo ID for voting, providing they do so in a manner similar to Indiana.

My arguments about probs with VBM are based on facts and evidence. It's a FACT that the post office mishandles mail. It's a FACT that ballot privacy is lost in absentee ballots. It's a FACT that votes are bought and sold via absentee. It's a FACT that the bulk of voter fraud occurs via same.

It's also a FACT that there is almost zero in-person voter impersonation of the type that Photo ID restriction proponents claim their measure is meant to deter. Similarly, it's a FACT that voters lose their constitutional RIGHT to cast a ballot under such measures.

Your argument is woefully off the mark. But nice try.

The arguments against valid photo ID laws haven't been convincing, especially in that woeful dissent from Justice Souter.

To who, you? They've apparently been convincing to the Missouri Republican legislature, and to the Kansas Democratic governor, both of whom have turned back your attempts at Photo ID voter disenfranchisement in the last several days.

As far as the California case, it wasn't anything resembling a conservative opinion...Nothing in the California constitution covers "sexual orientation" or "sexual preference" or any such thing. Neither does the U.S. Constitution. It was judicial tyranny by these liberal judges.

Apparently, you need to go look up the word "conservative" because you don't seem to have a clue what it means. You just made the argument against yourself above.

That's right, there's nothing in the Constitution referring to sexual orientation, therefore, there is nothing in the constitution that keeps same-sex couples from marrying. There are, however, provisions in the Constitution that require equal protection under the law for all, as well as the right not to be discriminated against.

Therefore, conservatively following the Constitution (again, go look up the word "conservative", and not at Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush's site, because neither have a clue what the word means) the Republican-majority CA Supreme Court, similar to the Democratic-majority MA Supreme Court, made a conservative decision, and avoided the judicial activism you apparently would have preferred they carried out.

Kevin #31 said:

There is an enormous error in your complaint that I can refute off the top of my head. There is actually a way to verify who sent in the ballot. Ballots are checked against signatures that are on file from registration.

And if I've sent my ballot in, but it never arrives, and is thus never counted, then what?

Accordingly, the other complaints you listed are inherent in voting.

Nope. Vote buying/selling is very hard (if not impossible) with in-person precinct-based voting. Ballot mishandling could, but should be visible when it happens in a decent system, whereas I have no way of knowing if the post office will mishandle my ballot, or if election officials will actually be sure to count it should it arrive.

Further, I don't lose my secret ballot when voting in person at the polling place. I could go on, but you may not wish to hear it, since you seem to like VBM. That's fine, but the points in the original article are accurate and seriously serve to undermine (and endanger) several important tenets of our American style of democracy as I see it.

Dredd sedd #32:

Honesty and good upbringing are the only hope for honest elections.

Nope. Transparency is.

You love bringing up Stalin, and incorrectly state that he had "verifiable paper ballots" or some such, but continuously fail to note that his counting procedures were decidedly NOT transparent (they were done in secret, akin to the way electronic voting systems count ballots in secret).

Further, I did not say that fines/jail time, etc. have proven to be good deterrents to Administrative election fraud, but rather, good deterrents to in-person polling place voter impersonation fraud.

Again, you should know better than to conflate those ideas. If you are uknowingly doing so, I'd ask you to pay a bit closer attention. If you are disingenuously doing so, I'd ask you to stop, since you really ought to know better given the many years you've been here at The BRAD BLOG.

Damn Brad, when it comes to the counting.. what works... open-source-code-op-scan , or whAt ? The double audit check the score constantly with your own EYES...peoples back up?
Geez, just think how that can be transparently obtained in your own damn precinct!
Should the feds take note....
WE WILL CARE
Were ready, just give the nod TO CERTIFIABLE DEMOCRACY.

They've apparently been convincing to the Missouri Republican legislature, and to the Kansas Democratic governor, both of whom have turned back your attempts at Photo ID voter disenfranchisement in the last several days.

Hey, that's fine. But if they change their minds some day, there's a nice Supreme Court case that doesn't call it disenfranchisement, and calls such laws constitutional.

There are, however, provisions in the Constitution that require equal protection under the law for all, as well as the right not to be discriminated against.

Two things wrong with that statement. As far as the California proposition is concerned, where is there discrimination? Same-sex couples get equal treatment before the law as married couples in California. Calling it marriage doesn't change that. Second, Don't even try that discrimination argument; polygamous marriages, even those sanctioned by a religion, aren't recognized, and neither would a "marriage" between two opposite-sex immediate family members, and so on. It doesn't mean they can't engage in sexual activities and call it "marriage", but it still doesn't make that a "marriage" as recognized by the law. So there's already plenty of discrimination of minorities when it comes to marriage, if one wants to call it that. The gay lobby seems to think the group they represent deserve something special. Four liberal judges thought so too, as compared to the 4.6 million people who thought they were exercising their rights in the democratic process. Maybe you should take another gander at the Constitution.

Apparently, you need to go look up the word "conservative" because you don't seem to have a clue what it means. You just made the argument against yourself above.

Since I am an actual conservative, I already know what one is. Besides, I don't think a liberal can provide a proper definition of a "conservative".

Brad Said in Post #11

In short: Voters vote on paper, put it into transparent box on the table where all can see it, all day long. At end of day, ballots are removed from box, counted then and there, publicly, by anybody and everybody. Results are posted at the precinct before those ballots are ever moved anywhere.

Simple, secure, secret, accurate.

Problem now solved? Yeah, I thought so

In order for you to ensure that your vote is counted, you must be able to track your ballot from the time that you stick it into the box until it is added to the tally (and through each tally thereafter). That means that anyone who observes the process can do the same and tell how you voted.

Any method that shuffles ballots in a way that provides anonymity must prevent the tracking of individual ballots, and creates a vulnerability to ballot-swapping.

Nate --- Nobody's name is on their ballot; nobody will tamper with the ballots while they are in a clear ballot box in front of everybody at the polling place throughout the day. When the ballots are counted --- without ever having left public view --- right there in public view --- nobody is going to know whose ballot is whose, but everyone will know who got how many votes for certain. Quit trying to complicate something so dirt simple a first grader could understand it thoroughly.

SteveIL, now in desperation wrote:

there's a nice Supreme Court case that doesn't call it disenfranchisement, and calls such laws constitutional.

You might want to read it a little closer. I predict that decision will be undone by one down the road. It didn't say it wasn't disenfranchisement, it said, essentially, that the petitioner didn't adequately make their case, and then left the future door wide open.

As far as the California proposition is concerned, where is there discrimination? Same-sex couples get equal treatment before the law as married couples in California. Calling it marriage doesn't change that.

Of course it does. You wouldn't be okay with a law that let everyone but people named Steve be married, right? Even if you were given "equal treatment before the law" (which you would not be, under that circumstance).

The gay lobby seems to think the group they represent deserve something special.

Yes. The same rights as everyone else. And I guess that would be special to someone like you.

Four liberal judges thought so too, as compared to the 4.6 million people who thought they were exercising their rights in the democratic process. Maybe you should take another gander at the Constitution.

I gander it all the time. And if you understood it, you were know that it is meant to protect the MINORITY and the equal rights of all. But you don't understand it, I'm sorry to see.

Since I am an actual conservative, I already know what one is. Besides, I don't think a liberal can provide a proper definition of a "conservative".

There's a lot you don't think about. Including having a clue about whether the person you are talking to, be it the Republican Chief Justice of the CA Supremes (who wrote the majority opinion) or me.

Next you'll tell us that Richard Viguerie isn't a conservative either. Here's an article I wrote about him last week, and what he thinks of you and your phony "conservative" friends, and here's my radio interview with him for further enlightenment for ya, boss.

Gosh, Brad, you lost me on this one. I'm a loyal follower of your efforts, but you and those anti-VBM folks are stretching it here. I have some old parents that love the mail ballot concept and they won't be fooled by anyone. The other arguments are weak, too.

Look, I've worked for the government and private companies. Lots of mistakes are made in the former and unethical attitudes exist in the latter. Yet we have the government running our elections and military, and private entities are prevalent elsewhere as well as infiltrating our government operations. There has been, is, and will be errors, fraud and immoral activities in all of the things where humans are involved until education and leadership at home and all political levels improves.

I commend your gallant effort, but your time could be better spent on the machine issues, etc., rather than VBM. Don't spread you supreme energy too thin. Good luck and thank you.

This is how verifiable voting is done.
See Nancy Tobi's three hand count videos:

http://www.democracyforn...shire.com/node/view/2648

So...I just ran the numbers on Oregon's vote by mail system and got a lot of surprises, and I think it's time to dispel some myths --- one of which is that vote by mail causes a higher turnout. The facts are: No, Oregon is right in the middle of the pack when it comes to voter turnout, and that's according to the numbers their own secretary of state submitted to the EAC. I have the whole article here:

http://www.bbvforums.org...messages/1954/74040.html

Here's part of it: Kentucky is a big problem, Oregon is just plain strange. I'll start with Oregon's all mail-in voting system before I tell you the really disturbing news about Kentucky. In Oregon, 100 percent of votes are absentee, or mail-in, although citizens do have the option to take their mailed ballot to an elections office to drop it off.

OREGON'S SURPRISING ELECTION DATA*

*Source: http://www.eac.gov/files...2006/Copy%20of%20eacdata(3).xls (Excel spreadsheet, huge mamajama, allow time to download. And see end of this article for tips on how to use.)

1. EVER WONDER ABOUT SIGNATURE VERIFICATION? Here's a little pop quiz: Out of 1.4 million Oregon votes in 2006, and knowing how people's signatures change over the years, how many signatures would you expect to mismatch?

ANSWER: Out of 1.4 million, the state of Oregon claims that 29 counties had ZERO mismatched signatures, and in the 10 remaining counties that reported mismatches, the grand total was (drum roll please)..... 34 ballots.

Yes, out of 1.4 million, just 34 signatures did not match. With those figures, it seems equally plausible that the dog's pawprint that made it through a couple election cycles in Washington State as would have fared just as well in Oregon. Heck, a scribble drawing or a blob of spaghetti might work fine too, we just don't know.

But what we do know is that according to data submitted by the state of Oregon to the EAC, Clackamas County had 146,968 ballots cast and not a single signature was too squiggly, scrawly or tilted to mismatch, and that Oregon has one of the lowest signature mismatch rates in America.

We're not wanting to disenfranchise people, but accepting every signature that floats in the door may not be a good thing. It puts extra pressure on the validity of the voter registration database and the postal delivery system, that's for sure.

2. FALSE: Oregon's claim that forced mail-in voting gives them higher turnout figures is simply not true. Oregon is squarely in the middle of the pack when it comes to voter turnout, when compared to the other 50 states in the same election.

3. MIRACLE POST OFFICE: Oregon also has a remarkably, some would say impossibly effective postal service. Here's what I know: Black Box Voting does periodic mailings, and we consider a mailing of 8,000 pieces to be spectacularly large, for us. Thirty-one of Oregon's counties mail more ballots in every election than we ever do, yet they never seem to have ballots arrive late or flop around battered and bruised, to be returned months later.

That's not our experience. Some of our mailers arrive late, some probably not at all, and a few look like they've taken a bruising trip to Mongolia before they belatedly return to us.

Yet out of 2.5 million ballots mailed out in the 2006 general election, Oregon reports ZERO ballots returned undeliverable, and only 54 reportedly came in after the deadline. Oddly, 44 of those were in one county. (Not Mulnomah, the biggest county, where Portland sits. It was Washington County).

4. VOTING MACHINES: Contrary to many citizens' beliefs, Oregon uses computerized voting machines statewide, almost all ES&S scanners, and if you'd like more information on the hackability of those, check out the EVEREST Report, choose the 334-page Academic Report and look up Election Systems & Software. Every component of the ES&S machines were found to be tamperable.

MOONSHINE MATH IN KENTUCKY

Kentucky never has accounted for its 2006 election math, as can be seen by examining the data reports published by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in the above link.*

(*See end of this article for hints on how to use the two EAC Inspector Gadget obstructo-matic secret decoder rings needed to make sense of this file)

That file contains the raw data submitted by each secretary of state, with details right down to the number of absentee ballots in the wrong envelope and the reasons voters were taken off lists. What it DOESN'T contain, however, is the number of votes counted in Kentucky in the 2006 General Election. When you search the minimal information presented in news reports back then, you see a glimmer of a hint that Kentucky had a statewide voting computer meltdown in 2006.

Kentucky submitted thousands of data points for the EAC 2006 survey for every one of its 120 counties but omitted --- you guessed it --- the votes. Results have been posted on Web sites, but I find myself wondering, given the all-too-real 2006 meltdown of the voting tally system in 96 counties, whether people in the Kentucky Secretary of State's office may have been reluctant to sign a federally required report committing to those very problematic results.

THE BULLITT COUNTY MISMATCH WENT STATEWIDE ...

The founding mamas and papas often called the states "experiments".

The idea was to allow variation, individualism in people, but also variation and individualism in the separate sovereign states.

We now have 50 "experiments" or ways of seeking freedom of expression, 50 "states".

In a nation of honesty there must be at least 50 good, but different, ways to do elections honestly.

In a dishonest nation there must be "50 ways to leave your lover".

So until there is recognition and discussion in the EI movement as to the impact of all the diversity in ways of doing elections, other than to call different wrong; and until there is recognition that there is really only one wrong way to do an election - dishonestly - I will remember that "progressives" have called for change for 45 years (post #1), but the change that is called is really for it to be all the same ... "my way or the highway".

In the final analysis, it does not matter if all votes must be cast into see-thru glass, or plastic, we will still have to trust those other states we can't go to.

Trust what someone else tells us from those other "experiments".

Is that icky?

"We'll Check" showed up for the first time to say:

you and those anti-VBM folks are stretching it here. I have some old parents that love the mail ballot concept and they won't be fooled by anyone.

Really? So how is it your lovely parents make sure that the op-scan counters back at headquarters count their vote accurately? Or at all? Or, for that matter, how do they know the Post Office even delivered the ballots to the county?

While I appreciate the many reasons that some need to vote by mail/absentee, they should know the chances of it counting as equally as a ballot cast on paper at the polling place is diminished.

Further, if we used your "they love it" yardstick to determine whether it's a good voting system, then I guess it's touch-screens for everyone, given the recent report that showed a vast majority of those who used touch-screens enjoyed doing so! (Add pac-man to it, and they'd love it even more! Doesn't mean their vote will be counted accurately on such systems, of course.)

The other arguments are weak, too.

Wow, really? Speaking of weak arguments, get back to me when you got some other than that. It's weak.

There has been, is, and will be errors, fraud and immoral activities in all of the things where humans are involved until education and leadership at home and all political levels improves.

Nonesense. There will always be errors, fraud and immoral activities no matter how much "education and leadership...improves".

That's why, if you actually cared about accurate democracy (which I don't sense, given your rather Orwellian last graf there) you'd join me in fighting to assure transparency in the voting system so it doesn't rely on anybody but we, the people.

I trust we, the people, far more than the private, secret corporations with no oversight, who you seem fine selling off our democracy to. Count me out. Thanks!

And who is going to watch the magic ballot boxes; who is going to insure the video cam is not switched to another transparent ballot box in a nanosecond?

It is a transparent argument that says there can be no flaws in such a system. Where there is dishonesty in the heart, theft will take place.

And who is going to report that they watched the boxes all day and all night? Forty cazillion transparent boxes ...

Someone you have to trust, that is who. Someone who can be bribed or fooled in some way?

Perfection election, in the final analysis, is someone ordering the rest to believe it was perfect or one of trust that it was perfect.

Stalin was a master at the former, but I prefer the American way, even tho it necessitates honesty and trust.

I know a McFeigner when I see one, they become corrupt by their own bullshit given enough time, and we know and write about who they are all the time.

With an honest bad ass press, and honest bad ass prosecutors, they go to jail.

So I expect the "my way or the highway" billshit to go on another 45 years in the EI "movement" whether elections are honest or not.

Dredd #46 -

I have never said "my way or the highway". There are many different ways to run transparent elections which can be overseen by the citizenry. Many that I'm sure I haven't even thought of.

I am fine with any of them, as long as they can be verified as accurate by any citizen who wishes to do so. But only fully transparent systems allow for that.

Transparency is your key, because it relies on nobody to be honest. In case you haven't noticed

Brad sedd:

Further, I did not say that fines/jail time, etc. have proven to be good deterrents to Administrative election fraud, but rather, good deterrents to in-person polling place voter impersonation fraud.

Sorry Brad, "Administrative election fraud" does not appear in my post. Your canard.

You still have to show why it would be a deterrent to the one, and not the other. Or to either one for that matter.

And that can't be shown either. Except that any of us can prove anything to ourselves. So what?

Again, it takes honesty ... hey ... I just thought of an election bumper sticker ... got Honesty?

SteveIl: Comment #16 says "California Supreme Court travesty where 4 tyrants in black robes (you erroneously referred to them as conservatives) completely disregarded the 4.6 million people (61.4%) who voted to define marriage the way they did. If that isn't anti-democracy, I don't know what is."

I thought the courts interpret the law, and they rule on what is right...not what a majority of people say. Right is right. Right isn't always what the majority of people say is right. Is that what "right" is? What the majority of people say that "right" is? I don't think so!

The majority of people, 70%, say Bush is doing a bad job. So, let's dump him then...

What business of it is yours? If 2 consenting gay people want to get married? How does this affect you?

Since much ink has been spent on Sen. Barack Obama's troubles with the white work class vote - "[it has been] painted as a fatal flaw in his campaign," as Keith Olberman noted - it is important to note that the Senator had big time success among that very constituency in Oregon's primary on Tuesday.

White voters - the only ones in the exit polls because the state is so homogeneous - went to the Senator in overwhelming numbers. In fact, every age group, except those older than 60, preferred Obama to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpos...-obamas-wh_n_102792.html

Does this mean the GOP push for photo id is actually disenfranchizing McCain voters? (backfiring)

Dredd @ #50 sedd:

Sorry Brad, "Administrative election fraud" does not appear in my post. Your canard.

Wrong. You spoke about "stolen elections" and "election fraud", which are both largely distinct from voter fraud, as I'm unaware of any election that has been stolen by voter fraud. Administrative election fraud yes, but voter fraud (of the sort we've been discussing here of late, as in in-person polling place voter impersonation) no.

You still have to show why it would be a deterrent to the one, and not the other. Or to either one for that matter.

I'm not saying it "would be", I'm saying that studies have shown it likely is a deterrent when it comes to voter fraud. Since most voter fraud only nets you a single fraudulent vote, it's kind dumb to risk years in jail and thousands in fines.

On the other hand, Election fraud (eg. flipping an election with a push of a button on a central tabulator) offers much greater possible gains, perhaps well worth the minimal risk of getting caught even.

Again, it takes honesty

Cool, when you figure out how to ensure that, leap off the turnip truck, and let me know how it came about (and how you can possibly know it will continue). Until then, I'll stick with the only thing that actually has a fighting chance of deterring fraud and/or making it exceedingly difficult to accomplish successfully: transparency.

Hey I got an Idea, let's attack each other and screw everything up and trip over our own pants while down. Come on, we are all frustrated. No reason to start shooting each other, I learned a lesson tonight. VBM sucks, Mr. Postman can not be trusted any more than the friggin SOS.

WE ALL KNOW THAT.

Please stop fighting each other.

Most of us already had our #1 candidates killed off early in this nonsense.

Why can't there be a focus on that?

Whereas the corporate fascists pushed nonsense and the crap b0rked machines fscked up with yet more nonsense and no votes could be validated, and time delayed to investigate, which is frigging pretty well pointless cause no candidate has ever been removed from election fraud yet (tell me I am wrong), because of invisible signals flop or flip, or cards were stolen or code stolen or rigged, or ballots were destroyed or rolls were purged, and all the while the corporate fascists just drooled with extacy with their pants down around their ankles spewing out lies and spin with commercials of light beer, lies from wall street and fake fluff news to smoke the whole thing up in a giant orgasm of greed.

That smiling MF brit hume comes to mind.

AMEN, PHIL! Ditto, ditto, ditto.

"Most of us already had our #1 candidates killed off early in this nonsense. Why can't there be a focus on that?"

...adding: What DID happen in NEW HAMPSHIRE, my people? We're falling off the log, jumping sharks. Distracted and fractured--saddens me no end.

And STEVEIL~you have every right to express your opinion, but methinks you doth protest the GAYS too much. Telling. Know any good show tunes?

STEVEIL is a troll. (no personal attack there)

Forget STEVEIL, EVIL, VEIL, STEAL. I am talking about us regulars, the only folks that give a crap about this complete mathematical and physically impossible nonsense. I am talking about the few of us that know the truth, and where we are headed if things don't change real quick. I am talking about fumbling and falling and nonsense that always seems to be timed perfectly to stop sanity and protection of the Constitution. I am sick and tired of all the excuses, I am sick and tired of all the reasons. It's time to shine and shine our light LIGHTER than that crap ass LITE BEERS we been drinking and dulling down our senses with. It's time to stop tripping over our mistakes and schedule and plan our success instead. It's not just going to take a "foot in the door" although that is one way to start this, you got to be serious and fed up with the fed and everything else, you got to be willing to spend every waking hour to fight by hitting your representatives every frigging day with your opinion. VOTING IS NOT ENOUGH ANYMORE.

I just notice the term (I just posted) "voting is not enough anymore" could potentially fucking affiliate me with many groups out there that I don't want to be affiliated with after I just searched that term. I SAID that term in my own words with my own definition, I came to my own fucking conclusion, not affiliated with ANY URL or webpage or blog. So take the homegrown terrorism bullshit and stuff it and a strunk and white up you ass Mr. FBI agent AND Mr. DHS who have done nothing about *real* (like rush limbaugh telling people to attack the DNC) domestic terrorists.

My definition is that it's so fucked up with candidates and voting, and corruption and loss of integrity, that it REALLY ain't enough to just vote and trust some fukwad candidates anymore.

Sorry if my language is harsh, you really wouldn't wanna hear me in your face now, and this actually filters it down to something that I think is acceptable for the public, since the fascist media and the FCC are one and the same at this point in the state of America. They think the word fuck is bad, it's just a word.

My intent is to not be pissed off, cause anger raises my blood pressure and that will kill me.

I been pretty cool about this lately. Lowered 15 points off it. from 165 to 155. Using the DASH diet and out thinking these fascists.

Think Weaser - Good Life

math is skewed 165 -155 = 10 so 10. But in my mind it's 15!

Brad #49, #54

Not so. You fall back on transparency once again, which I criticize in post #48. Why do people in some countries not lock their doors and their cops not carry guns? Because of honesty they do not need to.

Yes, I know Amurka is not that place ... they can't even be honest with themselves there. In Amurka "transparency" is what they have now, and such transparency can be gamed as pointed out in #48. So ... you want transparent transparent transparency?

And you offer opinion as a counter to my deterrent argument. Which you have supported only by "studies have shown", and seem to forget some of your arguments (to election officials) in the past that it doesn't work. Knowing that for every study there is an equal and opposite "study" neutralizes your argument.

Bev Harris #45

I have read the section of history concerning the people of the sovereign state of Oregon, and their desire to mandate votes by mail.

It would seem to me (see post #46) that a state has a right under our constitution to do mail voting. Some Oregon groups agree:

League of Women Voters, Oregon League of Conservation Voters, AARP of Oregon, American Association of University Women, Oregon Common Cause, AFL-CIO Oregon, OSPIRG, NW Oregon Labor Council, Oregon Education Association, Special Districts Association of Oregon, National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 82, Oregon NARAL, Oregon Woman's Rights Coalition, Oregon Public Employees Union, SEIU Local 503, Oregon Fire District Directors Association

(Facts About Oregon VBM). A holier than thou attitude and an "it could happen" argument is going to fall short of condemning this 1998 Oregon law in my opinion.

I say this because all the arguments against and for it were voiced during the campaign for and against it. AND THE PEOPLE OF OREGON SPOKE, and Brad's arguments were rejected by those people.

Even tho Brad's arguments have merit, so did those who argued against his arguments. And Brad lost that argument in the eyes of the voters in 1998.

No extra charge for time travel ...

Phil #58

"Voting is not enough", because it is said of the bobbies of England, who do not carry guns, and the cops of America who do:

But opponents are convinced that more extensive arming of police won't help. Police in the U.S. are almost always armed; 230 died in the line of duty in 2001, compared to about 70 in Britain in the last 30 years.

(Time). At the time of the article, about two unarmed British police die a year, and 200 ARMED American police die each year.

Deterrent? No, simply habit. Like our elections, since we are a very, very corrupt society, we have to do everything without considering honesty of character. It never shows up at the debate.

But honestly, I never put transparent diapers on my kids or my grandkids (the latter are half as old as the Oregon VBM law), because there are other ways to tell when they have "relieved themselves" or taken a cookie from the jar.

But here in Amurka, which is virtual prison filled with liars who hate honesty, I advocate any and all tools wardens in prisons use to do elections.

Yep, just imagine how you would do an election in a prison for the criminally insane and I think that sums up the EI movement's position in Amurka.

I hardly think I'm in "desperation mode"; in fact, this statement seems to indicate that I'm not the one in "desperation mode":

I predict that decision will be undone by one down the road. It didn't say it wasn't disenfranchisement, it said, essentially, that the petitioner didn't adequately make their case, and then left the future door wide open.

It's always good to have hope.

I said:

As far as the California proposition is concerned, where is there discrimination? Same-sex couples get equal treatment before the law as married couples in California. Calling it marriage doesn't change that.

And then you came back with:

Of course it does. You wouldn't be okay with a law that let everyone but people named Steve be married, right? Even if you were given "equal treatment before the law" (which you would not be, under that circumstance).

You come back with "Of course it does.", but don't come back with anything as it relates to discrimination in California law, which has a very strong domestic partnership law that provides people in same-sex relationships with all the benefits and rights of marriage without it being called a marriage. When I said that the gay lobby is looking for something special, you came back with "The same rights as everyone else." No, they already have equal protection under the law; now they want more, something beyond the rights of "everyone else".

As far as Viguerie, he's right. But being a Republican doesn't equate to being a conservative, and those "Republican" judges on the CA Supreme Court acted like liberals, and issued a completely liberal ruling, making up the law, not enforcing it.

One issue lightly addressed in this thread is the current lack of USPS mail security now that they have been privatized.... as a result of the unPatriot Act with der Homeland Security.

One personal example through observation....
I consulted with the USPS in the 90's when mail security was so imperative that the mail was closely guarded by an Internal Affairs division using enclosed catwalks for visual observation plus CCTV cameras.

Last year I complained at my local PO that it appeared that my mail was being opened. In the 90's and earlier the Postmaster would have initiated an investigation though USPS Internal Affairs to look into the allegation.
What happened to me was that the PO Supervisor publicly called out to my carrier my complaint and both publicly refuted my claim. Calling attention to me and trivializing my complaint.
So... welcome to privatization... the new USPS policy for whistleblower complaints.... Big Brother is watching.... and reading too it appears.
The mail is no longer secure and therefore neither are mailed in ballots.

The people of Oregon choose VBM by a large margin (757,204 to 334,021). ARE THE PEOPLE OF OREGON TERRORISTS?

White voters - the only ones in the exit polls because the state is so homogeneous - went to the Senator in overwhelming numbers. In fact, every age group, except those older than 60, preferred Obama to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Obama, in addition, won the majority of voters whose total family incomes where less than $50,000 as well as all income groups, save for the smallest: $15,000 to $29,999. Union households, moreover, went to Obama by a margin of 60 percent to 37 percent.

Clinton, as has traditionally proven the case, bested Obama among those Oregon voters whose highest level of education was a high school degree, by a margin of 53 to 44 percent. But among Catholics, which have proven to be, perhaps, Clinton's largest and most sturdy contingent of supporters, Obama actually did better: 49 to 48 percent.

(HuffPo,I). McFeign a la campaign sedd that terrorists support Obama:

"BARACK OBAMA - THE CHOICE OF TERRORISTS"

(HuffPo, II). Yep, gotta keep a close eye on the criminally insane McSame. Gotta have transparency and all the other good stuff!

How can honesty be measured? When is temptation too much to resist and what was solid honesty become dishonesty. It can't be measured, because time always moves forward. You might move back in time and say, "this or that person was honest." And with that have a truthful measurement of honesty.

But you can't move forward in time and say, "this or that person will be honest." One might gamble that because this or that person was honest in the past they might be honest in the future, but that is still a gamble, a risk that is far from a given known value. Honesty might be a virtue but a virtue can not always be depended upon in the future.

I suggest the following hypothetical situation. An honorably discharged marine with medals of valor and purple hearts decides to apply for a job as a mail carrier. His resume looks great, has discipline, has high security clearances, never went awol, pays taxes, no article 15's no LOR's, etc.

But as time goes on, this honest mail carrier notices the direction the country, notices the constitution being destroyed, he decides enough is enough. For a month during the normal junk mail segment of the election, he quietly makes a list of who is a democrat, republican, independent, green, libertarian, etc. After he creates this list he always brings a special plastic bag with him. (In this hypothetical situation we'll say he's a democrat) So every time a VBM ballot comes from address's blacklisted, he puts it in the envelope and removes it each day to be destroyed. This not hard to do, it could simply be in his lunch bag. As he appears to be honest and trusted nobody will be the wiser.

It doesn't make Oregonian's terrorists. It makes the people that presented VBM initially dishonest as they did not fully disclose security problems in the idea in the first place. Was it the printing of the bill, measure, or vote that was not forthcoming? Was it the corporate fascist media not doing their job again by not investigating this new idea? Did the people vote on the idea with electronic vote tabulation devices that were rigged? All of it is irrelevant at this point because now it's the law of the land.

Shifting gears, some folks might leave their door unlocked in a country or location that they trust others, but they would be stupid to run an unpatched operating system with no firewall with all their personal information on it, connected to the web 27/7/365. They won't be robbed through their front door but invisibly via electronic signal.

All I ask here is that we not fight and trip each other up. Isn't that what's been happening already? We can't seem to agree on anything because the facts are never fully disclosed to begin with.

The Creekside Declaration doesn't allow just plain blind honesty to protect the vote, it calls for those who do vote to become part of the process itself. With the current state of information coming from corporate interests, such a philosophy is hard to swallow by those sucking down their beers and charging up on credit the latest gadget they see being advertised. There is no forthcoming information about bad voting practices because there is no corporate broadcaster willing to discuss and investigate anything until after the next train wreck. And even after that it's still against their interests to shine a bright light down on the cesspool below. To fulfill the spirit of "The Creekside Declaration" requires that corporate interests are nullified, and public access to programming content is used in such a way as to actually have real debate and full disclosure. Voting isn't rocket science, but corporate fascists would have you believe it is. They further obfuscate hard evidence by using physics and electronics that are invisible to humans, and too technical for Joe 6-pack to begin to dissect. Sure Joe 6-pack might be able to take apart a wall clock and put it back together again, but not a voting machine. He wouldn't even qualify to touch it with the bogus loyalist rules and regulations in place currently.

Flashing back, The mail man could have been a Republican, ditching democrat's ballots just the same.

To blame Americans for the censorship and lack forthcoming information, and discussion and debate and label everyone terrorists is just pure nonsense.

The current state of America is not all the people's fault, it's because those with money and power bum rushed the doors and gates of liberty, justice, oversight and cleared and swept all traces of integrity out, replacing it with loyalists to continue to jam the gears of progress.

Now please, please, let's not trip again. It's important to keep balance from here on out because one more trip might just be our last fall.

Absentee ballots are not "secret ballots."

Absentee ballots are still counted by the same privately owned voting machines that have been in the news, including Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and all the rest. In many cases, like King County, WA, the Post Office no longer controls the incoming mail, instead a private company sorts incoming absentee ballots into precincts before giving them back to county for counting. This breaks down any chain of custody rules that may have been in place, and privatizes another link in the chain. From beginning to end, the whole system of Absentee Ballots is insecure, as ballots are no longer strictly controlled by the County and citizen poll workers in the individual Precincts.

The cost of running an all mail voting system can actually be greater than a poll based voting system.

The Signature Verification Process is error prone and routinely disenfranchises thousands of voters when it is used. Ballots rejected for having invalid signatures are treated as “Guilty before proven innocent.”

Voter Suppression, Vote Buying, Vote Stuffing become far easier in this system.

Accidental double voting can and does happen.

Some studies show a short term spike, but long term decline in voter participation, in 100% absentee systems. Claims that Vote-By Mail will increase turnout have no real evidence supporting this assertion.

The post office loses mail or just misplaces it for years, the county loses ballots, and people lose their own ballots.

The Absentee System greatly alters the Precinct System.

Vote-By Mail systems vastly increase the time it takes to count elections.

Vote-By Mail systems eliminate "Election Day” and replace it with “Election Month," thereby greatly increasing the costs campaigns must spend on GOTV (Get-Out the Vote) efforts.

Many, many people have gone to jail already for rigging elections using absentees, throughout the country and around the world. This is occurring in the here and now, not some distant past. These are not “isolated incidents.”

Vote-By Mail systems alter the time-table of the election cycle. The change to Vote-By Mail means many voters will vote before all the information has been presented by candidates, civic institutions are forced then to either adjust their calendars, or as is currently the case, they don't change their forum dates, rather fewer voters have a chance to see candidates in person at these forums.

The fully working version of this list available here:
What's Wrong With Voting By Mail

Sorry the formatting did not come through like it did in the preview window.

{Ed Note: I put some spaces in for you... to make it more readable. --99}

http://www.mcelections.o...mation/vbm_options.shtml

Another way of looking at VBM is 100% absentee voting. I would hope that Oregon (where I live) has a system for counting votes that would hold up to the light of day.

It is very convenient, but you do have the potential for ballots being lost. Not a problem for the voter because they can request a replacement, but mailing them is subject to handling problems by the Post Office. But given the fact that they rarely lose anything and someone trying to "withold" votes wouldn't know what they were witholding, there's little point. There is potential for all or many votes from a county leaning an "unpreferred" way to disappear.

I like to drop my ballot off at a drop site to remove USPS from the equation.

I'd like to see a system where someone voting by mail could register the fact that they were returning their ballot on a website that has appropriate safeguards. The state/locality would then have a way to insure that every vote was received.

Mr. BradBlog doesn't deserve to be attacked. He facillitates dialogue. Everyone is allowed to post, unless they willingly supply disinformation. He's done as much as anyone to publicize election integrity issues.

It's the Ballot Definition File!!!

Wilms posted a link and excerpt from Michael Dean's outstanding blogpost on election machine issues. Then he wrote,

Thanks to the author!

And, pardon Brad, but it's about time!

Then Wilms added some smilies further inferring some kind of slam on Brad Friedman.

The posting at Democratic Underground is quite insidious. That is fairly transparent at this point.

An election fraud debunker then showed up. Instead of responding to that post, Bill Bored went after Brad instead.

Nice to see the Gray Lady finally covering election fraud, instead of just DREs!

It must be tough for Brad to be scooped like this. Now he knows how NYT must feel.

Pretty soon they'll be calling his blog "The Gray Lady" or, even worse, "The Blog of Record."

Here's another quote from my NOVEMBER 2005 POST:

"They should start printing these ballot definition files on the sides of milk cartons! After all, they are missing and exploited right?"

Pithy huh?

Keep on bloggin'!

Melissa G

Ugh, I was starting to trust Melissa G because she had stood up to Mark Lindeman's bullshit and his febble attempts to obfuscate election fraud. {pun intended}

But in this thread, she gives a plug to the Verified Voting Foundation and "computer experts" who will provide us with paper trail audits and whatnot.

Maybe she just doesn't understand that corporate whores don't care what annoying citizens with hobby horses think.

There is an information war going on. I think anyone who questions Brad should at least help him out against those who have been trolling him.

Soc -

Only time to go on record for now to say that I know Wilms personally, and I know him to be a very good guy. Can't speak for the others use mention, however.

Remember, just cuz someone may or may not agree w/ me from time to time, does not make them a bad guy. Just a wrong guy

I hear you. People can research the archives from DU and Kos, use search engines. The reader can decide about Lindeman, Febble, Kos, Kelvin Mace, Hertzberg, Anonymous Army, et al.

This has been an effective thread, because you spelled out exactly what is wrong with voting by mail. You also have allowed others to add their own perspectives.

For example, one of the problems with vbm, what I now coin the Newman Principle {Seinfeld}, could be resolved by providing dropoff lock boxes for the votes. There could be a chain of custody or whatever where these votes could be immediately counted, with full transparency. Though, I do see your point of how the right to a secret ballot could still be corrupted.

All that money being wasted on war could be used to hire counters. When we had the depression, FDR created programs with jobs to get the country working again. I'm sure there are a lot of good people who would be quite willing to help ensure that every vote gets counted.

My only fear is that the progressive side of the election integrity movement has been squeezed out of both the Democratic Underground and DailyKos. Sure, you and other good jakes are still allowed at DU. But there is also the noise machine which drowns out the progressive side's insights into election fraud.

Seeing that the Democratic Underground has banned Bev Harris, John Dean, Kathy Dopp, and many others, it just doesn't seem right that DU's admins allow such ad hominem attacks to flourish without the chance for one to counter such ill-sourced ideas.

Here is Wilms from the second link above. I will take your word that he is a good guy. Yes, sometimes people can just be wrong on things.

Wilms on Kathy Dopp:

They make "as much sense as any of the other methods proposed" because they ARE the other methods!

I don't know about Kathy presenting "The Election Archive Model(s)(c)(sic)" on a number of different occasions, but she has published a number of different models. Seems the MO is dissing other people's work, then copying it, and then playing with the copyright dates to make it appear her work proceeded theirs.

In this case, she claims a 2007 "copyright"(c)(sic) while citing Aslam, Popa, and Rivest whose paper was not published until 2008.

Now, by "presented" do you mean repeatedly showing up and making a scene at national election reform events? She's needlessly knocked herself out of the loop.

As someone who has done signature verification at the county elections office, I think people aren't understanding the process.

You must sign the outside of your outer envelope. On that envelope is your name, address, etc. as well as a bar code. That bar code is scanned into the computer. If more than one ballot comes in for you, it's immediately flagged and all ballots cast are pulled. The last ballot issued is the one that counts (this happens mostly when people switch their party reg last minute and get two ballots).

Those ballots are then sorted by precinct and placed in batches.

You can pull up a batch on the computer, which shows you the signature for each voter.

You compare the signature on the ballot envelope to the one on the screen. All signature checkers go through training by experts on how to tell if a signature is authentic before they can do this comparison.

If it doesn't appear to match, you flag the ballot. The ballot is then checked by supervisors. If it still doesn't match, the voter is notified.

This is where things like an old signature, hand injury, etc. come into play. The voter has the chance to come into county elections, prove they are indeed the voter, and submit a new signature. Their ballot with then indeed count.

This is why there are so few signatures at the end not matching. People are pretty quick to rush into the elections office once contacted because they want their vote counted.

Believe me, there are plenty that go through the system. Personally in 2004 I worked the front counter at Multnomah County Elections on multiple occasions where someone had come into the office because they were notified their signature hadn't matched.

Phil #67

You ask "How can honesty be measured?", and in the context of this thread, we are talking about the people of Oregon and their mail in paper ballot system (except for some admins who are talkin gay stuff - but they are gummit of de blog so they can dow whatever they want).

I would say honesty cannot be measured by accusations that Oregon Americans are out to lunch as a state for exercising their state uniqueness and individualism.

And BTW you are not quite accurate when you say:

"It makes the people that presented VBM initially dishonest as they did not fully disclose security problems in the idea in the first place"

You can go to the link I provided in post #62, which shows the people DID consider the security arguments, and then rejected them.

New Hampshire uses paper ballots, but as we saw, we have no idea if they have counted those paper ballots yet. Oregon does not count only 20% of the paper ballots ... of the mail in paper ballots, like NH does, instead they count them all.

The short and long of it is that honesty applies to criticism too, and unfair and unfounded criticism is not to be measured as fully honest.

Socrates #74

I suggest that you read the Oregon statute as it addresses the issues you raise.

Never buy a pig in a poke, find out for yourself.

Jenni Simonis #75 -

If it came across otherwise in my original article above, I was not attacking Oregon's VBM system specifically, but rather, the idea of VBM in general. As I noted in the article, the success of OR's program to date, is due in no small part to procedures put in place by Bradbury which may or may not be there in the future, and which may or may not (probably not) be in other states who chose to go with the same method.

That said, if a second ballot comes in from me, you say they discard the first. How do they know which ballot that is if it's already been separated from the outer envelope that had my signature on it?

Are they able to find it due to the bar code? If so, can't they as easily find anybody's ballot they wish, thus violating the privacy of the voter?

Your answer and expertise is appreciated.

Dredd #76 -

We'll call this my last effort at helping you understand how you've mis-considered your central thesis that "honesty" is the key to fair, accurate and verifiable elections, versus "transparency" as I have argued.

For a start though, please see my note to Jenni Simonis above. My article was not to say Oregon was crazy or should abolish their VBM system. It was to point out the problems with VBM in general. Be it in Oregon, or more to the point, elsewhere were such schemes are being rushed into (notably by Dems) faster than they even rushed into e-voting.

That aside then...I'll offer you my one last argument to demonstrate just how offbase you are in your "honesty" argument. After that, you'll sink or swim as you please.

Hopefully you've been around The BRAD BLOG enough years that you've come to know me a bit, who I am, after reading thousands of my words, likely hearing me yack for hours on end the radio and elsewhere to at least have some confidence in my "honesty" even if you may not always agree with everything I write here.

If so, then I'm glad you believe me to be honest. Hopefully enough that you'd feel quite comfortable if I happened to be entrusted to Administer one of your elections down there (which I'd be honored to do).

However, I suspect that others, such as "SteveIL" above, or any other number of short-sighted, self-destructive wingnuts who parade through here to blow wind from time to time would not feel quite so comfortable in my "honesty" that they'd want me to be the arbiter of their elections.

And, whether they know it or appreciate it or not, I agree with them. I trust me implicitly. I also happen to know I'm about as honest (self-destructively so) as you'll ever find. But they probably don't agree, and nor should they have to.

I am fighting as much for their right to participate in an election they can have full confidence in, as I am in fighting for one that I or you might have confidence in. (You're welcome, wingnuts.)

"Honesty", however, doesn't get us there. Whether it exists or doesn't. What you may have "faith" in, others may not. And I suspect we can agree that faith-based elections get us no where.

Only transparency gets us there, or at least gives us a fair shot at getting there anyway.

For me, you and wingnuts like "SteveIL" who may be wholly misinformed, but still gets to enjoy the rights offered by the Constitution, and the promise our American democracy. We all deserve that, and thus, that's what I will continue to fight for, whether you manage to see where you have gone wrong or not.

Peace.

As an Oregon voter, but not one directly involved it the vote counting process, I feel obligate to defend my state's voting system. Here's a break-down of the objections:

1)Lack of Transparency- Our votes are counted in courthouses and city halls. They are public places and the Oregon Secretary of State works to ensure they are staffed with reliable people who watch out for each other.

2)Lack of Security- Were you aware that stealing mail is a felony? This principal has been so thoroughly ingrained in our collective psyche that I don't see a huge amount of “lack of security” as being a potential problem.

3)Voter Intimidation- When I, or anyone else I know, vote I'm in the privacy of my own home. There's no logical reason to take a ballot that the post office has delivered to my home and drive to “churches or union halls with people looking over” my shoulder. Now, I won't discount the possibility of an abusive spouse intimidating someone to vote. But that type of situation occurs whether people go to poling places with the abuser of votes at home, and should be addressed as a domestic abuse issue 365 days a year.

4)Election Fraud- Each and every ballot envelope in Oregon is signed, and each signature is verified before the vote is certified as valid. I know this because I changed my signature without notifying the state about my change. When I tried to vote, I received a letter telling me my vote had been disqualified and the procedures I would have to go through to change that decision.

5)Potential for Ballot Mishandling- Yes, I know, who ever heard of the mail being slow or mishandled? But have you ever had your 1040 forms delayed on the way to the IRS? Think of the volume of mail each year on April 15. If thousands of mail-in ballots come into the post office in the same two weeks, the post office will be more than likely to shift them all into the same delivery bin.

6)Lack of Secret Ballot- Outside of the typical information that would differentiate a ballot, (precinct, party registration) no identifying information is on the Oregon ballot itself. We place our ballots in a “secrecy envelope” which is placed inside another envelope with our signatures and a bar code that lets the election office know which signature to verify against.

I realize that if mail-in ballots were done wrong, as they may be in many states, there could be a potential for serious problems. Please recognize that the Oregon voters have thought of these issues and addressed them ahead of time.

Once we changed the vote-by-mail the quantity of votes increased and I feel our elections stopped being a state that was dominated by special interests whose “get out the vote” efforts brought their voters to an election in an inequitable way.

And, as a progressive, I've been pretty happy with the outcome of the last few elections.

CH Swinford,

I will leave it to others to address your other points, but the main point I will adress is the secret ballot. The secret ballot is not something that you can take and show to others. The secret ballot is a ballot that you are physically incapable of ever revealing to another person. The only way I know of currently to create a truly secret ballot is to vote in a public forum behind a privacy curtain or in a voting booth. Your reference to abusive spouses is off target because a spouse could force you to vote how they wanted with a mail ballot but could not do this with a precinct poll based voting system. Absentee ballots are simply not secret ballots, and until people begin to understand this basic basic principle our democracy is doomed to follow this path blindly accepting that the vote by mail ballot is super duper because it is convenient. Sacrificing accuracy, security and transparency on the altar of convenience is a very bad idea. For more info on the secret ballot, try this:

Harvard’s Ben Adida on Vote By Mail and the Secret Ballot

One other point is the old adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I've documented major problems with VBM nationally for over two years. Mayors rigging their own elections and such. The problem with Oregon is that if no one is really bothering to look for a problem no one is going to find any.

Brad #78

Well what threw me off was the multiple use of the word "Oregon" and the criticism of "Bradbury" of Oregon in your post. And add to that (I think) ... that they are the only all VBM state.

Which would naturally make them a target of anti-VBM arguments, most likely in the form of using them as an example.

Anyway, no disrespect intended in my zeal. I haven't had any court cases in awhile, so I need to keep in practice ...

So, you are correct, I do not have any reason to think you or any of the greater bulk of bloggers here are not honest.

Nor do I have any distaste for transparency or any other concept that is designed to "keep the government honest". Such as the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

I was urging that we realize where we are, that it is not where the government MSM says we are, and the nations around us are most aware of that.

Britain's cops don't carry guns and our cops are armed to the teeth and our cops slain in one year is more that Britain's in a generation. Some country's do not need to lock doors and don't have enough weaponry to destroy all life on earth a thousand times over ... like we have.

So we are different and we must handle elections differently, because there is a dearth of honesty in the land, and it is most absent in the government.

Keep up the good work Brad!

"Anyway, no disrespect intended in my zeal. I haven't had any court cases in awhile, so I need to keep in practice..."

GOOD GOD, DREDD! You know how much I respect and admire you, but is this the best use of our time? Keeping your BAR on PAR?

Doing so while Brad and 99 have their hands full with so many UBER-TROLLS disputing and nay-saying the very real EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS presented, intentionally mis-directing and discrediting the info/ making it harder to address some of the most informative comments in this thread...you are giving me a goiter.

I'm ALL FOR open discussions and grand debates, but if we are going to be reduced to this AGAIN--this roundnroundnround with EACH OTHER, AND AGAIN--in a CRITICAL ELECTION YEAR, without ever reaching out to the VOTERS with our most important info/ UNIFIED/ ALL TOGETHER THRUSTING ENGINES and PROACTIVE efforts and SOLUTION PACKAGES in place--then this movement isn't MOVING FORWARD, is it?

So frustrated with everyone's OUTPUT BOX overflowing their INPUT, makes me wanna spit bricks, get that tattoo I always dreamed of, become morbidly obese, move to the sticks and watch AMERICAN IDOL all day. Might be a better use of my time.

Agent 99 & Brad:

In order for someone to verify that the vote was correct, that person must be able to demonstrate that each voter's vote is tallied for that voter's choice.

In order for a ballot to be secret, it must be impossible to demonstrate that any particular voter's voice was tallied for a particular choice.

It's clearly impossible to have both.

The 'transparent ballot box' assumes that people watching the ballot box and tallies will be able to track each ballot so that it doesn't get lost, but will simultaneously be unable to track the path of any single particular ballot.

NateTG -

I disagree with your argument. In a sane, transparent system, I can go to the precinct, observe the empty transparent ballot box at the start of the day, vote on a paper ballot, put it in the box, watch the box all day, and then watch as it (and all the others that have been put it) are moved and counted.

That's transparent, and the secret ballot remains a secret.

I can also count all the ballots again and again as many times as I'd like, and as long as the chain of custody is kept secure for those ballots, I will always be able to personally, if I wish, verify the results of any election.

Your "it's impossible" argument seems to have no basis.

Jeannie Dean #82

I only sue people much bigger than me, such as judges, state officials, and rich lawyers. And I have no intention of changing that, cause it would take all the desperation out of it ... (scored a few grand last time - this year). And I only like to do socially uplifting cases (socially uplifting some bubba oppressor's ass a foot or two off the ground with my litigation boot).

Sometimes I challenge those I love cause we need sharp thinking and to keep ourselves alert.

Hey, also Linda, I got CHANGE stickers on my bumpah babe ...

love and peace

Brad:
What you're suggesting is a good idea. It makes for a more reliable election and counting process, but doesn't make the election verifiable.

You're assuming that having people watch the ballots will make it impossible for undetected irregularities to occur. But many performers seem to do that sort of thing regularly and reliably.

A verifiable process is one that can be tested - for example by repeating it. For example, if each precinct publishes the local tally, then the central tabulation is verifiable: anyone can make a list of precinct totals, and check that the sums match the central tabulation. Thus, if each precinct publishes tallies undetectable compromise at the central tabulation becomes impossible.

Brad, I think Nate's trying to tell you that your plan doesn't account for when David Copperfield is a poll worker. Egregious flaw in your thinking there....

Jeannie # 82. Well said and I agree.
Dredd I enjoy reading your posts but I become annoyed when you get your testicles in a knot and go on this tangent.
How about keeping in practice by going to Little Green Footballs or Malkins blog

Peace, and onward with the fight for PAPER BALLOTS and PENCILS ONLY, and with humans counting the ballots in the open.

Precinct Level Hand Counted, or Hand Audited Optical Scan, Hand Audited at the precinct, with publicly posted totals. Transparent Ballot Boxes, Brad is absolutely correct in the solution. The destruction of the precinct system and the centralized vote counting system is often overlooked when it comes to discussions of election integrity.

The David Copperfields of the world are prevented by the procedures around the process, and the decentralizations of the process itself. No system is going to be fool proof. However, the precinct system is not meant to make voting fraud IMPOSSIBLE, rather it is to make it unlikely and to make outright electioneering efforts extremely difficult.

You can have an absentee ballot, or a secret ballot, but you can't have both. So as long as that is clear then we can then move the discussion towards the merits, I guess, of the secret ballot.

The Glass Ballot Box is not a new idea, the precinct system also tried and true. Sure problems exist, but well democracy is a tricky business.

Agent 99 Said:

Brad, I think Nate's trying to tell you that your plan doesn't account for when David Copperfield is a poll worker. Egregious flaw in your thinking there....

Well, the system must be able to handle malicious or compromised poll workers, so, yes, that concern should be addressed.

Of course, it would have to be Penn Gilette... Copperfield isn't civic-minded enough to be a poll worker.

"That said, if a second ballot comes in from me, you say they discard the first. How do they know which ballot that is if it's already been separated from the outer envelope that had my signature on it?"

Ballots aren't removed from their outer envelope until Election Day. It's not until then that the secrecy envelope (containing the ballot) is removed from the outer envelope and then through a second step elsewhere to remove the ballot from the secrecy envelope. That keeps someone from seeing your name and your choices on the ballot.

Usually if you're one of the ones who received more than one ballot, if your earlier ballot is returned it is flagged and held to see if a newer one arrives. I say "usually" because I can't confirm for sure this happens in every county, but it did happen when I worked in Multnomah County.

So, say I switch parties at the last minute from non-affiliated to Democrat. My NA ballot comes a few days before my partisan one. I vote it and mail it. Multnomah County Elections would flag and hold that ballot to see if another arrives. I then get my partisan ballot, vote it, and mail it. It too is immediately flagged when its bar code is scanned in. Because that was the second ballot, it is the one that is counted and the old one is invalid.

And with our statewide voter database, it's even easier to catch people with duplicate ballots, such as those who move from one county to another. It used to be a long drawn out process of contacting the old county, ensuring the person hadn't voted yet and letting them know a ballot had been given in the new county. It made the whole process of dealing with address changes and certifying the election a much longer process. With all voters across the state in the same database, it's much easier to catch anyone who tries to vote twice, and only one ballot would be counted.

Ensuring that the rules Bradbury has set forth are kept would definitely be a good idea. But it's more than just that - some counties also have additional procedures they go through to ensure the validity of the process. That's why so many of us were upset with what happened in Multnomah County with them forcing out two very experienced workers and bringing in people who know nothing about the process.

I highly recommend that anyone with the ability to do so should come out to Oregon and see how the process works. They'll give you a tour, explain the process, etc. We had a lot of groups come in from around the country in 2004.

NateTG -

I believe others responded adequately to you, but yes, if I didn't include it this time when running through the way to count transparently and verifiably, it includes posting the results at the precinct before ballots ever move anywhere.

I never said, however, that my description of what we need to do would "make it impossible for undetected irregularities to occur," as you charged.

It would, however, make it damned difficult to pull off successfully, very difficult to affect an entire election, and fairly easier to detect, given both a large conspiracy it would require and a lot of evidence which would likely be left behind.

In any case, however, you haven't responded on how it makes a secret ballot "impossible" as you suggested fully transparent elections would do. So I'll take that as a concession in this case

Jenni Simonis -

For the description you describe to be true, that means that no secrecy envelopes are removed until all ballots are scanned in after 8pm on Election night.

Only after 8pm, and after all barcodes are scanned, can the process of a) removing secrecy envelopes from envelopes begin and then b) the "second step elsewhere", as you describe, of then removing and ballot from the secrecy envelope.

So either no ballots get scanned at all until hours after the election has ended, or you may not be right about the procedures, or there is a barcode on the ballots themselves, which would also violate secrecy provisions.

Something's still not adding up here. Not challenging you, but something's not adding up.

GWN #88

And we surely would not want that. Lets attack the honorable state of Oregon and its good people instead. Bowel movement uber alles.

Theme song for the transparency movement ... fleece and lub

Brad:
I said that it's impossible to have both secret ballots and verifiability. In 'secret ballot' elections, it's typically pretty easy to work out where verifiability breaks down in order to provide secrecy.

For example, in the process that Jenni describes we have double-enveloped ballots where the outer envelope is removed in order to create secrecy, but once that outer envelope is removed, until the count has taken place there's no way to detect that someone swapped out ballots.

"there's no way to detect that someone swapped out ballots."

Exactly. In a precinct system, precinct counted in transparent boxes, with observers and multi-party ballot counters, out in front of everyone, the protection is in many eyes watching. One of the reasons it is called the many eyes method.

Vote by mail eliminates this way of detecting fraud.

NateTG -

Gentry used most of the needed words in his response. If you're using Oregon to argue that "it's impossible to have both secret ballots and verifiability," you won't necessarily get an argument out of me, since the loss of transparency in Vote-by-Mail is one of the items that kicked off this thread.

While it may (or may not) be "impossible" to have that under Oregon's method, it's certainly not impossible to have it all. I have described exactly how one would have that above.

Gentry Lange #96

Some things are done by the 5th graders, and some things by the Seniors.

You extoll the virtues of eye witnesses, but there is less foundation for HAVA Nagila in that than one might surmise:

For the law, the basic problem of ascertaining truth does not arise so much from the villainy of perjurers and suborners of perjury as from the unreliability of personal observation. See, e.g., James Marshall, Evidence, Psychology, and the Trial: Some Challenges to the Law, 63 COLUM. L. REV. 197, 197 (1963)

(I Witness, emphasis added). The injection of expert testimony into a trial is no more safe than the often unreliable eye witness testimony.

B.O.W.E.L. movement uber alles or juries uber alles?

The precinct system can also be filmed... just like Vegas. Stored permenantly and live streamed on the web. Try do do that with Vote-By Mail.