3 ms·

Re: hanging chads This is a problem with overtechnical solutions already. Random mechanical points of failure. Pencil drawing a line is unambiguous. Re: ballo

Re: hanging chads This is a problem with overtechnical solutions already. Random mechanical points of failure. Pencil drawing a line is unambiguous. Re: ballots in a trunk This was an auditing/ procedural issue. Re: receipts Why not just turn in the receipts and count them. Why have a black box do the counting? If a machine says candidate A had a thousand forty votes and B had a thousand thirty, what are you going to do? How do you know if your receipt lied? If people keep their receipts, you no longer have anonymous voting. And what are you going to do, track down every voter? If those running the election keep the receipts, they should just count them manually.

testvox 8y ago
Its not unambiguous, look at this ballot and tell me who they voted for. It tied a race in Virginia just last year. https://mobile.twitter.com/virginianpilot/status/943589969603555328/photo/1 https://mobile.twitter.com/virginianpilot/status/94358996960...
- MiddleEndian 8y ago
  This is why I like lines instead of bubbles and pencils instead of pens. Regardless, this is actually the fault of the user rather than machines. As far as I know you can still get a replacement if you do this.
  - sturgill 8y ago
    Pencils scare me. Mutable paper trails seem less than ideal. I think I prefer a pen along with an option to request a new form in the event of a mistake. Optical scan for counting along with a paper trail for random sampling. I don’t know the perfect system, but a dual recording mechanism for back checks seems better than just relying on paper or just relying on machines.
coliveira 8y ago
The receipt is not to be taken by the voter. The voter will check that the receipt is correct and it will be deposited into the voting urn. Then, manual counting may be done for all precincts or by sampling.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Right. And in the paper-plus-optical-scan system, the receipt is the thing the voter directly marked. No machine between voter and ballot, no different thing to check.
  - MiddleEndian 8y ago
    The counting is still not trustworthy if performed by a machine.

testvox 8y ago

Its not unambiguous, look at this ballot and tell me who they voted for. It tied a race in Virginia just last year. https://mobile.twitter.com/virginianpilot/status/943589969603555328/photo/1 https://mobile.twitter.com/virginianpilot/status/94358996960...

MiddleEndian 8y ago
This is why I like lines instead of bubbles and pencils instead of pens. Regardless, this is actually the fault of the user rather than machines. As far as I know you can still get a replacement if you do this.
- sturgill 8y ago
  Pencils scare me. Mutable paper trails seem less than ideal. I think I prefer a pen along with an option to request a new form in the event of a mistake. Optical scan for counting along with a paper trail for random sampling. I don’t know the perfect system, but a dual recording mechanism for back checks seems better than just relying on paper or just relying on machines.

coliveira 8y ago

The receipt is not to be taken by the voter. The voter will check that the receipt is correct and it will be deposited into the voting urn. Then, manual counting may be done for all precincts or by sampling.

greglindahl 8y ago
Right. And in the paper-plus-optical-scan system, the receipt is the thing the voter directly marked. No machine between voter and ballot, no different thing to check.
- MiddleEndian 8y ago
  The counting is still not trustworthy if performed by a machine.