On voting (not about election results as such)

[vakkotaur]

I voted last week. The results of the election have been cussed and discussed to excess already. But there are some aspects of the voting process that are troublesome.

When I registered to vote, some time ago, I had to show photo ID to prove that I was who I said I was. This makes sense.

When I went to vote I did not need to show any ID. This does not make sense. I need to show ID to cash a check, or to buy alcohol, or to travel on a commercial airline, yet to vote I merely need to sign my name on the right line on the right paper. While that signature can be checked, it would be the case after the vote was cast. It's enough to come after me later if I for some reason should not have voted, but not enough to keep me from voting if I should not.

The ballot itself was a fill-in-the-oval paper meant to be scanned for a machine count. I was given a pen to use to fill it out, so the ballot could not be too readily altered. This is good. It allows for a fast counting of votes, but also leaves a paper hardcopy of the ballot.

Other than the paper-scanning counting device, I did not encounter any voting machinery. There are legitimate concerns with touch-screen machines. Ideally the software source for such machines would be visible to the public so anyone could inspect it. One state (Nevada?) insisted that such machines also generate a paper ballot that matched the voter's screen selections. The voter's selections would not be recognized until he had accepted the paper ballot as correct. The paper ballot was behind a clear barrier and would get stored if accepted. (I do wonder what happened to ballots that were not accepted by the voter). Overall, this seems like a near ideal solution to touch-screen voting. It allows fast counting of votes but also generates a verified paper ballot that would be hard to alter and would be available for any re-counting that might be needed.

I got a little "I voted" sticker to show off that I'd voted. This is nice, and perhaps encourages others who see it to also go vote. But it's not as useful as it can be. While it may seem awkward or even third world, a stamp of indelible ink on my hand would be more useful to poll workers - they could tell in an instant if I'd already voted and keep me from voting more than once if were to try it (no, I didn't try it). While imperfect (those who cast absentee ballots would not be marked), it would neatly and simply nearly eliminate claims of multiple voting by people. Between that and a proper identification requirement, I expect many questions of voter fraud would be eliminated.

None of these ideas are new or unique, save perhaps the addition to the touch-screen machines. I just think they're good ideas that ought to be put into place in order to improve things.

Comments

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Note that the method you used (which is also used here) does allow instant counting of the vote, and also allows checking for gross errors (as in, you seem to have marked TWO candidates for the same office.) And, as you point out, it leaves a paper trail, important for recounts.

By contrast, the Diebold system (which I have heard actually runs on MS-Windows, ACK!) leaves no paper trail at all, and was proven to have bugs in Texas, where people who voted a straight party ticket got back confirmation screens showing them voting for the wrong candidate, or no candidate at all in some cases.

I have substantial experience with touch screens, and consider them far too unreliable as hardware devices to be used in such an important application.

[aedifica]

a stamp of indelible ink on my hand
Did you hear about the recent election in which they tried to do that? I can't remember what country it was, I think it was sometime before the Afghani elections but I may be wrong on that. In any case, they had two sorts of inks: one normal, and one indelible. The indelible one was supposed to be for marking the hands of those who voted - but several polling-place workers got them mixed up, allowing voters to wash their hands and go back.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I may have heard of that. Such a thing would need to be guarded against, but I still maintain that the use of an ink mark would be a good thing. What I wonder is why there would be any other kind of ink(pad) allowed anywhere near the polling place.

[aedifica]

As I understand it, there were no ink pads (second- or third-world country), but bottles. The other kind of ink was for filling out the ballots.

I didn't mean to be arguing against the idea, just providing an anecdote. :>

[aedifica]

PS - There are also (in first-world countries) places that mark one's hand or finger with an ink only visible under ultraviolet light, which wears off slowly. The place I sold plasma at was one, I've also been to a rave which used it as proof of payment.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

I've wanted to have a UV-ink pen for places that check money with UV. I haven't seen any such places in some time, but I always wanted to write "Nosy, ain'tchya?" or such on a $20 bill for such a place.

[jdm314.livejournal.com]

When I "signed in" they really did check my signature right then and there. That did cause some embarassment though, as my signature looks quite different when I sign neatly from when I sign normally... and I couldn't remember which way I had done it when I registered!

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Yeah. And I got the opposite reaction. The election judge said "It's so nice to have someone whose signature matches." Of course I wondered what they do about people whose signatures do NOT match.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

I voted. As you know. I've cussed and discussed, as you know. I probably will continue to do so. As I'm sure you can guess. But anyway...

In Illinois, you also do not have to show ID when you go to vote. However, they do check your signature right there against what is in the records. The fact that I had voted was recorded by no less than four people.

And - there's a paper trail. We still use the punch cards. After you vote, the card is fed into a machine that tells you if you undervoted (didn't punch enough holes, perhaps by choice because apparently no one wants to punch five columns of judicial retentions) or overvoted ("no, you can't vote for both Bush *and* Kerry"). Oddly enough, in a state and especially a city (Chicago) known for "vote early and vote often" politics, it's not too bad.

Nobody made sure I was me.

[ginafae.livejournal.com]

That's for sure. I was totally suprised. I walked up like I do to the airport, with voter registration card (or airline ticket, as the case may be) and photo ID in my left hand, purse in my right ready to dig for further proof of my identity. And yet.... "sign here." was all I got.

The one problem I did witness, was that there was an incredibly obese woman trying to cast her vote. She was a woman who was so overweight that she physically couldn't stand at the tables provided for voting. And so overweight that she couldn't fit in the chairs provided. (they had arms) I had to watch her struggle to balance herself between the arms of the chair, muttering under her breath "ouch......ouch........ouch......" as she quite visibly tried not to cry and tried to cast her vote.

You'd think that would have been a little more prepared for those in our population who were handicapped.

Re: Nobody made sure I was me.

[kiwihunter8.livejournal.com]

When I was about 200 lbs heavier, chairs with arms were the bane of my existence. Outside excursions like became a maze to be navigated. I sympathise with that woman.

[frostyw.livejournal.com]

We aren't even required to sign anything. We walk up to a table, give our street name, our street number and first name. The poll worker opens up his or her printouts and starts looking us up; in the meantime, we can see exactly what they're seeing. The potential for fraud and mistakes is high. We do this at both the check-in (to get the ballot) and check-out (to put the ballot in the box).

Our ballots are sheets of thin cardboard. We mark it with a black felt-tip marker.