wiegie Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 1) require picture IDs to vote 2) require computerized voting systems to print out paper receipts neither of these ideas are original and many people like one of the options, but for some reason most people don't favor requiring both options. I think both options should be required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 1) require picture IDs to vote 2) require computerized voting systems to print out paper receipts neither of these ideas are original and many people like one of the options, but for some reason most people don't favor requiring both options. I think both options should be required. Regarding #2, apparently the company that makes the electronic voting machines says they are having a hard time developing a machine that can spit out a paper receipt. You may have heard of them. They're called Diebold, and every transaction i've ever encountered at one of their ATMs has produced a receipt without a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suppasonic Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Computerized can be hacked with. I'm gonna go with manual, hand counting here. But picture ID, thats fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Computerized can be hacked with. I'm gonna go with manual, hand counting here. But picture ID, thats fine. That's the point of the paper receipts... for hand counting. Right now the computer ones have no paper trail, and you have to rely on the easily hackable computer. Also, the proposal I read about in Wired would print a paper receipt for the user with a non-identifying vote# and who he voted for. Then, he could go online later, and verify that his vote ID corresponded with the correct candidates. I don't understand the opposition to picture IDs, unless there is a large segment of the voting population that doesn't drive or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 i cant wait for voting on the internet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 That's the point of the paper receipts... for hand counting. Right now the computer ones have no paper trail, and you have to rely on the easily hackable computer. Also, the proposal I read about in Wired would print a paper receipt for the user with a non-identifying vote# and who he voted for. Then, he could go online later, and verify that his vote ID corresponded with the correct candidates. I don't understand the opposition to picture IDs, unless there is a large segment of the voting population that doesn't drive or something. All the pic-ID arguments I've heard are real thin and they say it will keep some folks from voting. My thing is, since when did voting have to be so damdably easy? I say it's up to the citizen to prove they are who they are and are voting in the location holding their franchise. Oh, and the double-blind paper thing sounds good, but (and this is a serious question) how you be knowin' the paper wasn't "hacked" into saying something the computer didn't record? That's my only concern with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I believe that I have always shown a picture ID to vote in PA. Maybe it's just the crazy old ladys that run the elections in my town doing it on there own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 All the pic-ID arguments I've heard are real thin and they say it will keep some folks from voting. My thing is, since when did voting have to be so damdably easy? I say it's up to the citizen to prove they are who they are and are voting in the location holding their franchise. Oh, and the double-blind paper thing sounds good, but (and this is a serious question) how you be knowin' the paper wasn't "hacked" into saying something the computer didn't record? That's my only concern with that. Bingo on both counts. All states have picture IDs available for non-drivers so there is no excuse for not having one and it being a required part of the voting process. The paper trail is totally worthless, as you say. Just because the paper says one thing doesn't mean the computer recorded that. The same applies to an online check - the voter checks their vote online and the screen says what the voter voted for - but the computer actually recorded it differently. There is only one way to run an election and that is by doing the whole thing manually. It is easy and it is virtually incorruptible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 6, 2006 Author Share Posted July 6, 2006 The paper trail is totally worthless, as you say. Just because the paper says one thing doesn't mean the computer recorded that. The same applies to an online check - the voter checks their vote online and the screen says what the voter voted for - but the computer actually recorded it differently. People shouldn't take the receipt home with them. They should drop it into a ballot box and then at the end of the election, there should be random auditing of polling places (i.e. count the paper ballots to see if they match up with the computer results). If discrepancies are found, then there can be a systematic auditing of all polling places AND the final results would then be based on the paper receipts and not the computer records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I would need the paper to print out so I could sign it and hand it to the voting booth guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 There is only one way to run an election and that is by doing the whole thing manually. It is easy and it is virtually incorruptible. i can't believe someone would even think to utter this after the 2000 election fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 All the pic-ID arguments I've heard are real thin and they say it will keep some folks from voting. My thing is, since when did voting have to be so damdably easy? I say it's up to the citizen to prove they are who they are and are voting in the location holding their franchise. That's a pretty weak argument. It should be easy to vote... but bringing your license (drivers or other) is pretty dang easy. Voting doesn't need to be easier than cashing a check... Oh, and the double-blind paper thing sounds good, but (and this is a serious question) how you be knowin' the paper wasn't "hacked" into saying something the computer didn't record? That's my only concern with that. Because you could verify it on line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 People shouldn't take the receipt home with them. They should drop it into a ballot box and then at the end of the election, there should be random auditing of polling places (i.e. count the paper ballots to see if they match up with the computer results). If discrepancies are found, then there can be a systematic auditing of all polling places AND the final results would then be based on the paper receipts and not the computer records. Now that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 i can't believe someone would even think to utter this after the 2000 election fiasco. That wasn't manual, it was machines that were the central issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Oh, and the double-blind paper thing sounds good, but (and this is a serious question) how you be knowin' the paper wasn't "hacked" into saying something the computer didn't record? That's my only concern with that. yeah. i'm not sure why people seem to have this absolute faith in a printed piece of paper. unless it's an easily readable printout recording every vote you cast, which you can review and then drop in the box. all the "paper trail" proposals i've heard don't work that way. this whole argument seems like something you'd hear from 80 year-old technophobes, not people like atomic. in any case, there's GOT to be a reliable, certifiable way of doing this that actually makes things faster and MORE efficient. intuitively, though i'm willing to admit the possibility that i'm wrogn here, it seems like there ought to be a way to do that without killing thousands of trees and filling up millions of boxes with little paper receipts, then having 80 year-old election volunteers hand-count them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 That wasn't manual, it was machines that were the central issue. yeah right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 I would need the paper to print out so I could sign it and hand it to the voting booth guy. Wounldn't that violate the secret ballot if you signed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 That wasn't manual, it was machines that were the central issue. No, a candied yamse ballot approved by Democrats that confused a bunch of old people started the problems when they complained about their own ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 6, 2006 Author Share Posted July 6, 2006 yeah. i'm not sure why people seem to have this absolute faith in a printed piece of paper. unless it's an easily readable printout recording every vote you cast, which you can review and then drop in the box. all the "paper trail" proposals i've heard don't work that way. well, now you HAVE heard of my proposal in any case, there's GOT to be a reliable, certifiable way of doing this that actually makes things faster and MORE efficient. faster? It's not as if we were waiting weeks and weeks for voting results to get counted before computers were invented. Voting transparancy is the key and if it takes slightly longer to count the ballots and a few trees have to die along the way, well that is the price we must pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 yeah right Those people in the picture are examining ballots that came out of a machine. Hanging chad - a term you might remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 this whole argument seems like something you'd hear from 80 year-old technophobes, not people like atomic. in any case, there's GOT to be a reliable, certifiable way of doing this that actually makes things faster and MORE efficient. intuitively, though i'm willing to admit the possibility that i'm wrogn here, it seems like there ought to be a way to do that without killing thousands of trees and filling up millions of boxes with little paper receipts, then having 80 year-old election volunteers hand-count them. I'm no technophobe and I deal with IT security. There is no totally secure computer, period, unless there is no external electronic entry to it (in other words it's not networked in any way and it has no floppy disk / CD sub-system) and every line of code is certified by at least three independent parties at random intervals throughout it's life, much like athletics dope testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Why don't they just call us on election night and ask us...if you aren't home too bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Those people in the picture are examining ballots that came out of a machine. Hanging chad - a term you might remember? Dude - those were punch card ballots, of the 'butterfly design' variety. Nothing electronic in those at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Those people in the picture are examining ballots that came out of a machine. Hanging chad - a term you might remember? are you for real? an election fiasco caused by manual, subjective recounts trying to devine "voter intent" from pieces of perforated paper people poked at with a stick...the most manual, least technological method still in use today...and you think this BOLSTERS your argument that manual is good and technology is bad? i mean, i guess you can consider that chad-poker thing a "machine" in the absolute crudest anthropological sense, like if we're talking about chimpanzees or cavemen. but without question the preceints that used more "machine-like" machines had far fewer problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Wounldn't that violate the secret ballot if you signed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.