On Voting Irregularities And Election Integrity

America's newspaper of record takes an editorial stand:

There have been a flood of reports, rumors and theories over the last 12 days about problems with the presidential election. The blogosphere, in particular, has been full of questions: Why did electronic voting machines in Ohio add nearly 4,000 phantom votes for President Bush, and why did machines in Florida mysteriously start to count backward? Why did the official vote totals for Ohio's largest county seem to suggest that there were more votes cast than registered voters? Why did election officials in yet another part of Ohio lock down the building where votes were being counted, turning away the press and public?

Defenders of the system have been quick to dismiss questions like these as the work of "conspiracy theorists," but that misses the point. Until our election system is improved - with better mechanics and greater transparency - we cannot expect voters to have full confidence in the announced results.

But wait... there's more...

Electronic voting proved to be, as critics warned, a problem. There is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale. But this country should have elections in which the public has no reason to worry whether every vote was counted properly, and we're still not there. In Franklin County, Ohio, one precinct reported nearly 4,000 votes for President Bush, although the precinct had fewer than 800 voters. In Broward County, Florida election officials noticed that when the absentee ballots were being tabulated, the vote totals began to go down instead of up. Voters in several states reported that when they selected John Kerry, it turned into a vote for President Bush.

These problems were all detected and fixed, but there is no way of knowing how many other machine malfunctions did not come to light, since most machines do not have a reliable way of double-checking for errors. When a precinct mistakenly adds nearly 4,000 votes to a candidate's total, it is likely to be noticed, but smaller inaccuracies may not be. There is also no way to be sure that the nightmare scenario of electronic voting critics did not occur: votes surreptitiously shifted from one candidate to another inside the machines, by secret software.

It's important to make it clear that there is no evidence such a thing happened, but there will be concern and conspiracy theories until all software used in elections is made public. Voters who use electronic machines are entitled to a voter-verified paper trail, which Nevadans got this year, so they can be sure their votes were accurately recorded.

Voting integrity is a vital part of our democracy, and there is no question about the need to fix this going forward. The question remains about both the will and the funding. Congress didn't get it done despite 2000 being a disaster in FL. It seems that 50 local solutions would be more likely to happen than this Congress taking concrete steps. The Times gets this part right, too:

Besides election equipment that is easy to check for error, the strongest defense against conspiracy theorists is election officials who act with openness and integrity. Here, too, the current system is at fault. Ohio and Florida, two of the key states in the election, have highly partisan secretaries of state who favored the Republicans all year in their rulings. If we want the voters to trust the umpires, we need umpires who don't take sides.

This ought to be a bipartisan nonpartisan issue, although I doubt it will be. But it's nice to see the media get it right for a change. Commitment to voting reform needs to be on everyone's agenda going forward; such ideas are now very much part of the mainstream.

•  It IS a bipartisan issue

  Both parties and all Americans will suffer if the integrity of the voting process is in question, which it is now. I'm not a conspiracy theorist yapping about how the election was stolen, but the farther you go down the line, the less accurately the outcome of an election reflects the votes people tried to cast.

  It looks like a Democratic issue because many liberal activists had a very reasonable feeling that problems would happen where e-votinh machines were used.

  But in fact, this is an American problem that must be solved in every community, for the sake of Democracy, not for the sake of the Democratic Party.

  by eyeroll on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:57:26 PM PDT

  •  Message from John Kerry's Brother

    Remember...anything can happen between now and December 7.

    text of letter:

     "I am grateful to the many people who have contacted me to express their deep concern about questions of miscounting, fraud, vote suppression, and other problems on election day, especially in Florida and Ohio. Their concern reflects how much people care about the outcome of this election.

    I want to you to know we are not ignoring it. Election protection lawyers are still on the job in Ohio and Florida and in DC making sure all the votes are counted accurately. I have been conferring with lawyers involved and have made them aware of the information and concerns people have given me. Even if the facts don't provide a basis to change the outcome, the information will inform the continuing effort to protect the integrity of our elections.

    If you have specific factual information about voting problems that could be helpful to the lawyers doing their job, please send it to [e-mail] rather than to me.

    The election protection effort has been important to me personally, and I am proud of the 17,000 lawyers around the country who helped. It's obvious that we have a way to go still, but their efforts helped make a difference. Their work goes on.
    Thank you,
    Cam Kerry

    by Darksyde888 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:47:19 PM PDT

  •  No it's

    not bipartisan or nonpartisan it's all-partisan.

    by nargel on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:53:35 PM PDT

  •  Don't get hung up on whether

    it is 'bi', 'non', 'hetero', 'omni', or 'gay'. Jesus, get a grip. Voting is a citizenship issue. We are all in the same boat here and if it springs a leak, we all swim.

    Voting is a priviledge, but it is also an obligation. Just as much is the obligation to accurately, transparently count the voice of the people. It ain't about us and them. As Pogo said, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us."

    What do I want in my life? Transparent, fair, tolerant and honest dealings with society. Them's that don't do that are my enemy, Them's that do are my friends. Ever so.

    We are headed down a rabbit hole here, and I say we go, but we go holding to the 'moral' values of honesty and rule of law.

    Partisanship is not citizenship. 'Part'-isan seeks to divide. What use is it to divide? This is what Republicans do, and it isn't moral. It isn't right. It certainly isn't conservative. It isn't Christ-like at all. It IS evil.

    by oofer on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:16:29 PM PDT

    •  i wish that were true. but there seems to be a

      a great proponderance of the population that either

      a) wants to save the rest of us

      or

      b) doesn't really care about anyone but htemselselves.

      i would wager that the answer would be b for most of them.  as god fearing people who live the word of the lord, they are perfectly happy to live on the tip of a double edged sword which allows them to SAY that they are christians, but then to not ACT like they are christians!

      Am i a christian?  I don't know.  I do know that god is out there somewhere.  and i also know that if jesus were here today, he wouldn't be hanging around any of those so called christians.  he would be with the rest of us.  think of who jesus' friends were.  mary magdoline--a prostitute, his disciples-- men who were definitely NOT mainstream.  for crying out loud paul (formerly known as saul) was a bounty hunter for christians!!  he went out to find christians and bring them to justice!  

      The christians (and i am well aware that i am genaralizing and shouldn't as not ALL christians are like this)  like to pick and choose pieces from the bible to adhere to.  i remember having passages from the bible be focused on when i went to catholic school and church.  

      Yes, i am very biased against catholicism especially. and i am very skeptical of the religion itself.  but i have met people who actually believe in it and as far as i can tell live it, which i applaud.  even if i do not agree with their beliefs, i applaud them for not just saying, but acting like they are what they say they are.

      OK.  i am done rambling.  i get so friggin mad when it comes to christians trying to tell the rest of us what to do or believe!

      by ejpoeta on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:18:23 AM PDT

      •  YOu've hit a nail on the head

        Yes, I agree completely with you. so called christians like the SCLM aren't what they seems at all.

        Part of that behavior is the struggle for power rasing itsugly head. We have only to consider the Wahabi clergy and the Iranian clergy to see that their thurst for power overrides the teachings of their prophet.

        Catholic clergy has a long histroy of power grabbing, and so does our own Evangelical and Mormon brethren as well.

        Christ, I fear, would not be pleased with the behavior that goes on in his name. You listening Mr. Dobson? No I suspect he isn't.

        The clergy and the Aristocracy have forever intertwined to keep themselves on top and the rest of us oppressed. This is history. Remeber the clergy killed Christ.

        Secular government is under seige from an old enemy, not a new one.

        by oofer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:40:00 AM PDT

•  I'd suggest that 'getting to the bottom of it....

  ...is the Nation's number 1 priority, now.

  And, that before the pretense of 'certification' of the National Election occurs in any State, that a full audit of what happened on and before 2 Nov 2004 is the most critical national security issue the nation has faced since the 'Cold War.'

  "It's about America" [the one on life support and in need of immediate, heroic treatment]

  Thank you.

  by understandinglife on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:57:48 PM PDT

•  It's like how Dean used to say...

  ...about September 11 conspiracy theories:

  (paraphrase) 'Conspiracy theories thrive when there is a lack of information. If the government were more forthcoming, then we would know the truth and be able to once and for all disprove these conspiracy notions.'

  The same holds true for elections. Until we get paper trails for electronic voting, we can never know whether an election was fair or not. The only way to end conspiracy claims is to have enough information so that voters know that things have been done right.

  by eugene on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 08:58:50 PM PDT

  •  After 2000,

    How could anyone say that a person who doesn't trust the election process is a conspiracy theorist?

    by The Mockingbird on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:59:09 AM PDT

•  Good editorial

  by the Grey Lady.  It's nice to see them focus on the issues rather than dismiss the outraged citizens who comprise the blogosphere, and it's also helpful that they don't rush to judgment (either 'we wuz robbed' or 'those conspiracy theorists are at it again.')

  There needs to be an investigation of the many errors that occurred with the voting system this  November; and for the next election there needs to be a consistent, reliable, transparent, accountable method by which votes are recorded and tallied.

  by SimoneDB on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:00:06 PM PDT

•  A History Lesson

  There is zero chance that this will be bipartisan. Look at what went into HAVA. The Republicans blocked common sense ideas for things such as paper trails, and made provisional ballots the hanging chads of 2004. They have no incentive to change the present system  because it favors them. I have no illusions that if it were the Dems- they would be doing the same thing (historically they have). This system needs transparency, but we have one party who has no incentive, and another afraid to say anything meaningful on the subject. Of the true critiques seeking reform, such as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, there is an effort, including the one in FL to allow for a paper trai that has been consistently blocked. Indeed, going back to HAVA, it is used as means to suppress the vote through challenges as much as it is for the fake "reform" of the provisional ballot.

  by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:03:03 PM PDT

  •  This had been a theme

    in the debate over elections for a very long time. Liberals have argued for expanding suffrage, conservatives have argued for ballot security. Smalll d democrats want everybody to vote, small r republicans want to make dure the wrong people don't get to vote. Its still very much a partisan issue.

    by johnmorris on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:08:33 PM PDT

  •  Partisanship

    I'm not so sure that the Dems wouldn't be willing to back voting accuracy measures if they were in power. In California, the Democratic legislature passed SB1438, which provides for a voter-verified paper audit trail. The governor subsequently signed it.

    Quite frankly, there is nothing that an elected official fears more than having votes for him destroyed by unauditable equipment. There is nothing that equipment vendors like more than a chance to sell special printers for their voting machines. There are few things that matter more to voters than knowing that their votes count. If we run a decent lobbying campaign for a voter verified paper audit trail, it will happen.

    by silence on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:16:58 PM PDT

    •  you are correct

      i was referring to the Dem party of the past. frankly these issues disproportionately affect dem party base- low income minority neighborhoods or state with swing voters- one issue if we want to change thing is to get in control of state election apparatus or better yet make it a civil service function fo the state much like the GAO is

      by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:39:52 PM PDT

  •  subzero chance

    well, there's a less than zero chance this will become a bi- or non- partisan issue because (as the editorial illustrates) the issue of voting fairness and accountability will, for the near future, be mentioned in the same breath with the faith-based left's unproven voting fraud accusations. how can we get much-needed paper trails, and systemic transparency, and adequate voting machines in urban precincts if one side's argument is: "we need this passed because you fradulently stole the last elections"?

    by Addison on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:49:10 PM PDT

    •  we can control h ow this is framed

      first stop calling it voting irregularities, and use catch phrase "Defense of the vote" and begin push for it at local level so that there is a ground swell- but it would take time and effort.

      by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:53:35 PM PDT

  •  State by State

    The Republicans in Congress will do nothing, or they will do nothing but screw voters further.  If Democrats want anything done, they'll have to do it themselves, through their state legislatures or through the ballot initiative.

    As yet, I've heard nothing to suggest that they have any intention of doing so, unfortunately.  

    What we need from the Democrats in Congress isn't law, it's leadership.  They need to use the resources they do have to provide guidance - model legislation, model initiatives, etc., - to the states legislatures and to activists in the states, so the state legislatures and initiative sponsors can move forward as a united front.

    by Drew on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:18:07 PM PDT

    •  I don't agree

      I believe that there are enough Republicans in Congress who will support these reforms that it can get done, especially if there's enough of a groundswell of public interest in the issue. I mean, Darrell Issa, of all people, is a cosponsor of HR 2239, and he's as big of a wingnut as anybody. The only reason that bill hasn't passed already is that the leadership won't let it come to a vote. If there's enough noise, they'll back down.
      

      by taliesin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:27:38 PM PDT

      •  The leadership

        Is a fig leaf.  For one, Republicans choose their leadership.  If enough felt strongly enough about this issue, they would change the leadership to match their views.  They don't, they obviously don't care that much.

        Furthermore, if they wanted to circumvent the leadership, they could do so with a discharge petition; it would immediately bring the bill to a vote, if signed by a simple majority.  That hasn't happened, either, suggesting to me that there simply isn't enough Republican support.

        Either way, there's not reason to wait for the Republicans to find their conscience.  The Democrats should exploit whatever power they have at the state level to prevent Republican vote suppression and fraud in the next election.  If the Democrats in Congress can do nothing as members of Congress, then at least they can do something as leaders of their local Democratic parties.

        by Drew on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:03:34 PM PDT

        •  No, and yes

          They don't care that much about the issue now, but it the Dems really make it a big issue, if the press gets on it, and especially if they start hearing from their constituents, they'll bring it to a vote, and it will pass fairly easily. The leaders in the House are responsive to their members' concerns; if they weren't, as you correctly note, they would be voted out. OTOH if there's no clamor for a vote, the leadership doesn't want one and has no incentive to have one.

          That said, yes, absolutely the Democrats at the state level should do everything they can to push through local reforms. No reason you can't fight on more than one front at a time.

          by taliesin on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:40:57 AM PDT

  •  Receipts!

    I wrote to my Congress woman back in May noting that even the lottery retailers and grocery stores ask you to check your receipts... I received this June 21st.  I had hoped that something might come about before the election - Nada, nil, zero, zilch, nothing!  Yeah.. I'm a sore loser...

    Thank you for contacting me regarding electronic voting. I appreciate the opportunity to review and respond to your comments.  

    You will be pleased to learn that I recently introduced legislation to address the shortcomings of current Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting systems.

    The Secure and Verifiable Electronic Voting Act (SAVE Voting), S. 2045, will ensure that Americans have an electronic voting system that is modern, secure, and verifiable by the upcoming November elections.  SAVE Voting would require a voter-verified, permanent paper trail for each vote cast.  It would also impose greater security standards by making sure that access to the DRE machines and software is limited to approved personnel who have had background checks.  Finally, SAVE Voting would provide financial assistance to states to help pay for the costs of adding printers to DRE machines.          

    Again, thank you for contacting me about
    this issue.  Please do not hesitate to contact
    me in the future.

                        Sincerely,

                        Barbara Boxer
                        United States Senator

    by crkrjx on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:58:57 PM PDT

  •  The system doesn't favor either party

    It favors power. They don't even have to outright cheat, just skew the rules in their favor.

    If the party in power controls redistricting, if the party in power controls voting registration, if the party in power controls access to casting a vote, if the party in power controls the vote counts--all these will skewed in their favor.

    It's only an accident of history that in so many crucial states the party in power is the Republican party. We have an opportunity to work through the Democratic party to continue to reform the process toward the goal of accountable elections, but don't be surprised if that goal gets cast aside if the Democratic party gains power before that happens.

    by Pam in MA on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:19:15 AM PDT

•  Yet Again...

  ...the NYT editorial page proves itself far better than its political reporters.

  They pretty much nail it.  There were, once again, as in every election, massive numbers of small incidents, of people not showing up to open the doors of a polling site, or running out of ballots, or telling peole they couldn't get a new ballot after making a mistake, and the undervotes caused by obsolete or poorly maintained machines or stupidly designed ballots.  Toss in the (largely unacted on) threats from the Repubs to challenge voters at sites with lots of minoritiey voters.  Then add the even more distressing errors of the type mentioned by the NYT, and the tabulation problems suspected in NC.  All of it leads to dispair and cynicism and lack of faith in the integrity of our system of voting.  There doesn't have to be fraud for these problems to be fairly judged as severe and inexcusable.  

  I've yet to see a single shred of evidence of wide-scale fraud, and certainly nothing to the level that would have swung the election to Bush.  But it's a completely separate question as to whether the endemic problems with our voting system might have cost Kerry the election.  I think the answer is no, but I'm less confident of that than I am of saying that Kerry didn't lose because of fraud.  

  There doesn't have to be fraud for there to be justification for outrage at the lack of intergrity in our system of voting, regardless of the results of a given election.  That's enough reason to support a strong call for election reform.  Alas, however, I suspect the cries of fraud will make it harder to get people to focus on the integrity of the system because that concern will be overshadowed by the unsubstantiated cries of people claiming fraud in this year's presidential results.  

  by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:05:51 PM PDT

  •  i really think a little credit is due

    to the tinfoil hatters on this and similar boards. whether you agree with them or not, their persistence is, i suspect, what most impelled the msm to sit up and take notice of any kind. i'm of the school that doesn't believe there's been massive fraud - but i could be wrong. it's kind of comforting to know that there are folks who have taken on the burden of trying to show there has been. whether they're right or wrong, they're certainly doing folks like me a great service by pushing the issue.

    by yankeedoodler on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:12:50 PM PDT

    •  I'm Not So Sure

      whether they're right or wrong, they're certainly doing folks like me a great service by pushing the issue.

      I'm not so sure.  I think there are real problems with the integrity of the system, but focusing on the results instead of the system allows the folks like Bev Harris to be judged as just as partisan and focused on results as the Repubs like Blackwell.  If they were really focused only the integrity of the system, they wouldn't just be focused on wanting to audit states where Kerry lost, they'd be focused on a good cross section of places where Kerry won, Kerry lost, where a swing in the results would make a difference, and where it wouldn't.

      by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:19:52 PM PDT

      •  The Nader Factor

        Let's not forget Nader's recount in NH. Kerry won that state.

        by juniper on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:24:46 PM PDT

        •  Nader?

          He's hardly a credible source in the eyes of the American public.  

          Any why New Hampshire?  I guess he just has a special place in his heart for NH, since it's the other place beside FL that his 2000 vote total was greater than the margin between Bush and Gore.

          If Nader really cared and was impartial, he's be asking for audits or recounts in RI, WY, IL and UT, because there's no chance of overturning the Presidential or Senate races in any of those states.  

          by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:30:05 PM PDT

          •  As I understand it from listening to Air America

            they choose NH because it is the easiest to set up a benchmark when compared to the exit polling which showed a different outcome than what happened using e-voting. I also think it maybe easier administratively? I am not 100 percent sure other than what they said on Air America

            by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:42:43 PM PDT

            •  If The System Is Screwed Up...

              ...then the exit polls are completely beside the point.  Again, Nader is saying, if he picked NH because of difference between the results and the exit polls, that there's something wrong with the results, so lets look at the process.  Instead, the focus should be on the process, so we're not questioning the results.  

              by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:02:03 PM PDT

          •  Why NH?

            Because it's a small state that can be recounted relatively quickly (and cheaply). And because it was in NH that the exit polls were the most inconsistent with the reported totals. (Exits showed 55-45, actual was something like 50.5-49.5).

            by taliesin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:43:59 PM PDT

            •  yes

              And a few votes here and a few votes there, all over the country, might add up to what's now being called a mandate.
              

              by hawkseye on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:08:34 AM PDT

            •  Why Nader chose NH

              As posted in a diary a week or so ago, a recount in NH would be more "affordable" than in (any?) other state, and money isn't something Nader has an abundance of.

              To open discussions in NH will cost only $2000. Unfortunately, that turns out to be just the beginning. He could end up being responsible for all associated costs, which could well be in the range of $40-$50k. Further reasoning is that if a pattern of inaccuracies etc. is found in NH, it will help to establish a case for recounts in other states.

              by not lois on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:37:30 PM PDT

    •  I agree

      I even wrote a diary on it!

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/13/15480/113

      In it somebody mentioned writing a thankyou to the WaPo...is there an editorial there too?

      Seriously, however it's being framed, this story was being ignored by the ms media.  Those of us who chose to write to the media and others really raised awareness.  Nader is doing a recount in NH because of the overwhelming number of faxes and emails he received.

      As the NYT points out, we don't feel secure in the results as yet.  The only way to feel secure is a system wide audit or a more expensive and time-consuming manual recount.  Then we'll know if the machines worked- because, as I've said before, the only conclusive evidence for fraud (if it exists) would be a comparison of the ballots cast to the machine tallies.  

      Until then, I'm reserving judgement.

      by Chicago Lulu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:47:03 AM PDT

  •  Here is a little Hum

    you may use without attribution if you like your LTE's pithy:

    ABOUT THOSE ELECTIONS, SIR

    So many marchines that were duff, on the blink,
    Were they in Casinos, you'd pause for a think!
    And as in Nevada, they favour the House.
    Not one erred for Kerry? That bug is a louse!
    Tell me again how the Nation went bust
    Poking and punching and voting bloodlust
    In Falluja, mandating a chump
    Who at nighttime, in bed, poetizes a lump!
    O say, can't you see by the rockets' red glare
    The evil that lurks in the despot's blank stare?
    

    by Heteraetcaetera on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:28:15 AM PDT

  •  My question is

    why do you assume that fraud would have to be immediately apparent to exist?

    I agree that there isn't proof...yet. And maybe there was no fraud, maybe all the "glitches" were due to ineptitude. But the fact that incontovertible evidence of fraud wasn't sitting on our doorsteps the morning of Nov. 3rd does not, to me, mean that tremendous efforts should not be made to check for it.

    As for this argument that if the word "fraud" is mentioned the whole process of securing our elections gets compromised, I just don't buy it. Why should we be able to know the outcome of an investigation before an investigation is carried out? And given the proven record of organized GOP efforts to suppress the vote, computerized vote-switching hardly represents some line that they would never cross.

    Making phone calls telling people their precinct has changed location (when it hasn't), posting flyers in AA neighborhoods giving the wrong date for the election, assigning far too few voting machines to Democratic precincts -- why do you think these are acceptable strategies for the GOP but not a simple software manipulation? The latter is easier and more effective, so why wouldn'tthey try it?

    by lanellici on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:50:40 AM PDT

    •  AGREE!

      You are entirely correct.

      by hawkseye on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:04:31 AM PDT

  •  You think the editors were passive agressivly

    attcking their own political reporters who dismissed the ENTIRE story on the front page last Friday?? Nice one, that's you I ONLY read the NYT op-ed page and put the rest of the paper on the floor to protect my carpets from my puppy.

    by ereid922 on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:53:46 AM PDT

•  The big surprise...

  ... is not so much that the NYTimes came up with this but that they responded fairly quickly this time to public opinion.  Maybe they've fired Okrent and decided editors should take responsibility for their own bad decisions.  

  It's good to see that they've come around; but it's even better to see that they're not just printing, they're actually listening and responding!

  by Frijol on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:07:37 PM PDT

  •  I'm surprised it took them this long

    to address the Nov. 2 voting irregularities.

    In the past several months, The NYTimes editorial page ran a series of columns on the reliability and security of our election system.  
    They even discussed partisan election officials like Ken Blackwell (OH) and Glenda Hood (FL).  They presented a pretty convincing case that the system could not be trusted.

    So why has it taken nearly 2 weeks for them to start asking questions?

    Those of us who care need to keep the pushing for further investigation, including hand recounts if necessary.  

    by diana04 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:50:38 PM PDT

    •  Isolated

      Oddly, the NYTimes seems to be no closer to reality than is the average homeowner in the savage, little known areas of the US such as Nebraska and Kentucky and Southern California.

      Apparently there are more "states" and there is other "news" out there, but it will take us a while to find it and decide what to do with it.  All the news that's fit to print, of course -- but eventually, when we get around to it.

      by Frijol on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:58:42 AM PDT

•  Even when there is a paper trail

  it would still be possible for the vote to be hacked. As long as the margin was greater than what would trigger an automatic recount-how would we ever know. I for one am in favor of ticking off my candidates name on a piece of paper and having the count done by people. I would prefer to wait several days and know for sure my vote counted!

  by treehugger on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:09:46 PM PDT

  •  Sampling

    The right answer to this is to always conduct a random sampling of the paper trail to ensure that the results match the electronic ones. This will mean that any bias introduced by the machine is small, and can only alter the outcome in close elections where a full recount is assured.

    Some jurisdictions routinely do this with optical scan machines to ensure that they're not malfunctioning.

    by silence on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:19:50 PM PDT

    •  Optical scanned cards

      are the way to go to have both fast reporting AND a hard copy ballot that can be recounted. The optical scan card is relatively easy to use (most people are familiar with the system), fits in with traditional ballot boxes scemes, and is a fully recountable, and hence not hackable, record.

      March Fong Eu (R.I.P.), Secretary of State of California, instituted this system 25 years ago and perfected it. It is now used by many jurisdictions and it works.

      But NOOOOOO----our buddy Mr. Diebold needs a joooob! Grrrr.

      by Rolfyboy6 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:45:03 PM PDT

      •  But when I sampled the 2002 Diebold memos

        archived on the web, I learned that optical scanners "have trouble with some paper colours", and of course mischief can be introduced right there (80gm paper, anyone?) a detail which might at first flush seem trivial to a broader readership than this.

        Paper colour is not trivial, at least the way Diebold machines are set up....in fact, given the education we're getting about their malfunction strategies, these days, it could be used to cue miscounts.

        Easily.

        by Heteraetcaetera on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 02:23:43 AM PDT

        •  optic scanners not perfect

          I worked Election Protection on Nov 2. We had several calls from irate voters who said they were told by poll workers they had marked their optic scan ballots "too dark" and were given new ballots to mark less, shall I say, enthusiastically. These voters were concerned the second ballot didn't register.

          by rugged individual on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:21:11 AM PDT

          •  I hope this has been logged

            on www.votersunite.com

            by Heteraetcaetera on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:35:21 AM PDT

            •  Diebold huh?

              In my time as a Judge and Inspector of the polls of California (Sonoma County) we NEVER had any of these problems. That whirring noise is March Fong rotating in her grave.

              by Rolfyboy6 on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:41:41 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      A paper trail isn't good for anything without an audit. Russ Holt's bill in the House, HR2239, which mandates a paper trail, also requires manual recounts of random precincts equal to 0.5% of the vote.

      I strongly encourage everyone who reads this to contact their congresscritters and urge that they sign on as cosponsors to HR 2239, if they haven't already. You can find a list of the 157 cosponsors here.
      

      by taliesin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:48:50 PM PDT

    •  Exactly!

      n/t

      by rdt on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:49:24 PM PDT

•  Disagree

  It is NOT a bipartisan issue. it is a NON Partisan issue.

  NEITHER party should be running our elections, and neither should corporations. Civil servants should be running elections, with a uniform standard across all the states, with open and transparent systems.

  It really isnt rocket science to figure it out.

  WTF is wrong with a paper and pen and putting a cross next to the guy or issue you want ?! It works in every other functioning democracy.

  by Pounder on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:11:53 PM PDT

  •  Agree...

    We've got the fox guarding the henhouse...it's ludicrous.

    by poe on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:31:34 PM PDT

    •  This administration has ...

      so many foxes guarding so many different henhouses (i.e. energy, labor, etc.) that they really should change the Republican elephant to  the Republican fox.

      by Chips on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:55:26 AM PDT

  •  you're right

    nonpartisan is right. So corrected.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:36:56 PM PDT

  •  Bipartisan

    In the respect that both major parties are going to have to back fixing the system in order to get that fixing done.

    So it's a nonpartisan issue that's going to need a bipartisan solution.

    It is a sad fact how few elected officials at any level, on any side, are more focused on public service than partisan gain.

    by eyeroll on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:37:05 PM PDT

    •  nail on the head right there

      to get a non partisan solution we need ethical, public service driven bipartisan support, and in this current nuclear partisan environment with so much power and the countries direction on the line, it simply isnt going to happen.

      And as much as i blame politicians, I also have to blame the people too. for it is not just the politicians that are highly partisan nowadays, it's us too.

      I have seen a lot of posts blaming the administration for things it really doesnt have control over, but considering their momumental failures, one after another, Its hard trying to stay honest with yourself.

      Sometimes folk lose sight of the fact that we are all Americans first, only some lose sight of that fact more often than others....

      by Pounder on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:48:05 PM PDT

  •  i agree with you

    but the reality is that there is not such thing as non partisan- not with this at least- the best i can see is the creation of a GAO type org that is non biased in its analysis- do you think that would work?

    by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:44:02 PM PDT

    •  good idea !

      I think having the GAO run our elections would be excellent !

      by Pounder on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:49:57 PM PDT

    •  2 words: Elections Canada

      IF you want the model of how a non-partisan body handling elections should operate.. just look north.

      by tribe34 on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:42:56 AM PDT

      •  Agree

        I agree with pretty much all of the above.  We've been overly obsessed, too, with getting the vote counted at 21st century superspeed.  Me?  I'd rather have paper ballots, counting which takes some time, and accurate results -- rather than spend 6 hours on election night watching preening reporters churning out unreliable results and theorizing about the outcome.  And possibly affecting the outcome.  ("John -- Make sure we give Florida to Bush, and the earlier the better...")

        by Frijol on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 05:06:46 AM PDT

        •  You bring up another reform

          requiring that no results be given out until all ballots have been counted  which would force them to wait a couple of weeks rather thant announcing on election night- this process needs to be depolitized- a) it works perfectly right now with the Republican use of the lower common denominator approach (ie, they are whiners- which hard to argue against regardless of what you are talking about b/c everhting after seems defense) b) it gets the press out of calling our elections for us c) it forces the america people to realize this is not some easy process that can be decided right away without counting all votes

          by bruh1 on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:32:06 AM PDT

          •  In the UK

            Paper Ballots, hand counted by Non partisand.

            Takes them typically until mid morning the bext day to announce the results.

            If we did the handcount in each princint, where there are only a few thousand votes it could be done pretty fast. Even in large wards where they combine a number of precincts it cold still be done very fast, especially if all your looking for it a large X marks the spot next to a name or issue.

            the Only problem we hav for this method to work in this country is that we would have to haave a LOT of ballots becasue of all the offices and issues we put on the ballots. But it the City councul candidates cant wait a week, then they are just impatient.

            by Pounder on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 08:30:01 AM PDT

•  E-mail

  Any idea what the email address is for comments to the Times is? I think the writer deserves some appreciation.

  by Alizaryn on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:12:40 PM PDT

  •  [e-mail] n/t

    by Pam in MA on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:04:26 AM PDT

•  NYTimes

  After yesterday's front page article I was pissed and let them know, I called and cancelled my subscription, tomorrow I will call back and let them know why I am renewing my subscription. I guess they weren't they only ones who jumped the gun. At least they play fair.

  by Chamonix on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:15:16 PM PDT

•  Making voting faster

  One issue I'd like to see addressed is that lines are much longer in urban Democratic polling places than in rural and suburban Republican ones.  Is there any way we can do something about this?  I imagine we lose the votes of lots of people who don't want to stand in long lines.  If there's some way we can get more money for urban voting stations and poll workers, that'd be something for us to work on.  

  by Neil Sinhababu on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:15:44 PM PDT

  •  this is deliberate

    its a separate issue from the fraud issue which we may all disagree on- but i think most people here (i am not sure) would agree that the long lines are an attempt in some states at suppressing the votes- ie in FL and OH with Republican SoS it is definitely an attempt at suprpression. they intentionally dont allot enough machines, they use the more dated equipment (which explains the higher level of spoilage (almost all of 3 percent of spoilage) occurs in Dem enclaves). This is actually more than anything if you do the math what can hurt us in our turn out. ie, if we are losing 3 percent or close to it of our votes due to spoilage- that is a pretty big deal in close elections like this one where it can be decided by 3 percent easily in a lot of states.

    by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:48:02 PM PDT

•  My Letter to the New York Times

  This is a letter I wrote in response to a related article:

  Dear Editorial Staff of the New York Times:
  Like many other readers, I had hoped that the Jason Blair scandal and the mea culpa from the Times on its coverage of the runup to the War in Iraq would induce your newspaper to provide higher journalistic standards.
  However, I must report that your recent story on the potential vote fraud in the 2004 elections failed any standard for journalistic fairness.  In the article, the Times did not investigate any viewpoint other than that antagonistic to the weblogs.
  If I were a college professor and was handed the article as a report from a student, I would postpone the inevitable "F" only to allow time for the the student to fully research the topic by actually investigating the premise of the online activists; namely, that massive voter fraud occurred in the 2004 election.
  Once that student actually researched the possibility that our electoral process was severely compromised could I give a passing grade...
  Sincerely,
  Micheal Allison

  by michealallison on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:16:31 PM PDT

  •  your grade

    A+

    by Chamonix on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:53:02 PM PDT

    •  The Only Remedy I See Is

      to call this election null and void. Give them one year to correct the problems and hold another - same candidates - on Nov 2 2005.

      If the Dems sit still for this election FRAUD not sure what you'll have to worry about given the economic, environmental and foreign policy disasters that will push the US over the cliff.  Not gonna be much left to worry about then.

      Election rigging just may be the least of of the problems facing the US by 2006-8.

      This will put Smirky McAsshat on probation and may - just MAY -  stop the worst of it. No guarantees, of course.

      Of course if the investigations prove that there was fraud and Kerry won, then just send an armored moving van to the White House and get the asshole out and back to Crawford or jail if he refuses.

      by mattman on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 01:22:26 AM PDT

    •  Thanks Chamonix!

      I appreciate that!
      I also copied addresses of about 40 media outlets and emailed them to report on the election fraud.
      If You or anybody has a large list of media outlets email me and/or post it promintently!
      Peace,
      Micheal

      by michealallison on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:02:38 AM PDT

  •  slight problem

    The article cited is an OpEd (editorial) piece, not a hard news story.  As such, there is no requirement for "journalistic fairness."

    Not that I disagree with your sentiment, but just to point out that editorials are not held to the same standards of fairness that news stories are.

    by 40 and Fabulous on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:19:33 AM PDT

    •  which article

      I think his letter was in response to the front page article on Friday, "Voter fraud theories quickly buried" or something like that.   So, it was an investigative report- so to speak.

      by Chicago Lulu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:15:18 AM PDT

  •  Jayson Blair!

    First, that's how the idiot reporter spelled his first name. Second, I don't see how a mentally disturbed plagiarist who was caught almost immediately has anything to do with the much more serious failings of the Times' coverage of the Iraq war buildup, which the paper has acknowledge. A friend of a friend works there and they are so sick of hearing Jayson Blair used in every letter of complaint that it's all they can do not to tune it out, because the writer obviously knows nothing about what happened in the Blair case. So, a word of advice, just focus on your complaint and skip references to Jayson Blair. You're simply buying into a coordinated effort to discredit one of the last liberal/centrist media voices in the country. You're helping the right wing.

    by SpiderHole on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:21:33 PM PDT

•  Integrity of the voting process

  is an absolute requirement for democracy.   Ensuring a basic level of confidence in the voting process is a governmental obligation on the same level as defending the borders from land invasion.  This has gone WAY beyond trying to expand the suffrage to worthy ex-felons who've served their time or trying to keep shifty machine flunkies from voting twice for dog catcher.  Everyone's vote is now compromised.

  Yet again, my favorite political philosopher (Jesus) puts it succinctly: "You are the salt of the earth -- but if the salt has lost its savor, how will the salt be salted?"

  by Pondite on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:17:40 PM PDT

•  In favor of Vote by Mail - Oregon rocks

  Maybe Kossians should champion changing the voting to vote by mail like Oregon. Here is the good stuff:

  1. No waiting in lines in the rain, glaring sun, wind, or any other weather related problem
     
  2. Signatures are compared to those on file, and can begin weeks in advance.
     
  3. Those who are working will still be able to cast their vote.
     
  4. No intimidation at the voting booth
     
  5. No wondering where the polling location is
     
  6. No worry about voting in the wrong precinct
     
  7. Definite paper trail
     
  8. Once you vote, you no longer are called by the dems or repubs
     
  9. Higher voter turnout
     
  10. More worker productivity on election day, because people don't have to take off work
      
  11. No Diebold, etc.
      
  12. Blackwell won't like it
      
  13. LESS FRAUD

  Convinced anyone yet?

  by Toonsis on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:18:46 PM PDT

  •  James K. Galbraith argues for voting-by-mail

    There's a good article in The Nation on the matter.

    by gjking on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:41:06 PM PDT

    •  As an Oregonian I have to recommend this

      method of voting

      No terrorist threats on polling places
      No searching for your polling place
      No delays in finding out if your were registered (you have plenty of time to get a ballot)
      No unverifiable evoting
      No standing for 10 hours in the rain to vote
      No multiple voting
      No vote fraud

      It just makes sense and it IS auditable.

      It is no small coincidence that Oregon went Blue this year despite RNC funded Sproul and Associated voter registration fraud-related activities.

      Vote by mail is the only way.

      And a much better use of taxpayer money that unverifiable evoting machines.
      

      by wild salmon on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:03:54 PM PDT

  •  1 day, 1 vote, 4 President.

    What if something happens a day or two or week before elections? Can't change your vote. I think a separte Presidental election is the answer. Vote only for the President of the United States. One day, One vote and we get to feed our own ballot into the machine that counts the votes and it spits out our receipt. Screw the "I voted" paper stick on labels, I want a receipt damnit!

    by Chamonix on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:03:49 PM PDT

    •  Absentee voters vote weeks in advance

      Oregon mails your ballot two weeks before election day and collects up through election day.

      Sure you could vote in advance and live to regret it, but it is a closer window than absentee voting.

      Which would you prefer: unverifiable evoting on election day, standing in line for 10 hours? Or mailing in a scantron paper ballot (recountable) two weeks early?

      I love my vote by mail system and would not have it any other way.

      by wild salmon on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:10:47 PM PDT

    •  Chere Chamonix,

      In Oregon, you can vote on voting day if you so choose. You just don't have to wait in line. You go down to the ballot box, which looks like a post office box but is serviced by the board of elections, and drop that ballot on in.

      No worries, here. The paper trail still exists to be recounted if necessary. Can there be fraud? Yes, but not on the scale we have now. There has always been vote fraud. We can seek to diminish it, but to prevent it would require a town meeting.

      by oofer on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:27:03 PM PDT

      •  Great feature...

        I would wonder how free someone might feel to vote his/her own preferences if others (domineering spouse or parent, perhaps) stood over his/her shoulder as he/she filled out the ballot.  And I can imagine a church full of people filling out their ballots en masse, and someone collecting them all and loooking for "incorrect" marks.  For all its faults, maybe we need the privacy of the individual voting booth.

        by KTinOhio on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:34:05 PM PDT

        •  What is worse

          A few people who are pressured into voting for someone they wouldn't normally vote for, or alot of people not voting because they are working and can't get to the polling station, have young kids (or any other reason)and can't stand in line for hours, are sent to the wrong voting station and can't vote, are told to vote on the wrong day by misleading flyers.

          Vote by mail does not discriminate against the poor, and young like voting booths do.

          You can vote anytime up until 8:00 on election day, but the line is often cars, not individuals outside.

          by Toonsis on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 07:41:32 PM PDT

          •  Why not both?

            Or better yet, have polling places available for a week or two before Election Day.  People can drop off completed ballots or fill out ballots on the spot.  We haven't eliminated the possibility of coercion, but we've also eliminated some of the possibility of ballots becoming lost in the mail.

            Now, there's another issue - ballots "lost" in the mail.  I suppose we can control this to some extent by leaving return addresses off the envelopes, but it's still possible that ballots picked up in certain neighborhoods might be more likely to end up under a bridge in Chicago.
            

            by KTinOhio on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:28:29 PM PDT

      •  Hey Oofer

        Watta ya think about Voting for President only on one day. Nothing else. Make it easy on the people. It was like pulling teeth to get my mom to the polls. She was intimidated to go and vote for all of the other things we had on the ballot here in LA. She was afraid she would mess it up. We had like 20 other things to vote for mixed in with voting for President. That is why there are so many foiled ballots. Under votes, over votes, hanging chad, dimple chads. Voting to cage up all gay people. Voting to make Native Americas that are rich from casinos, share their money with other tribes and give give more to Arnie and Caleefournuh. ONE DAY, ONE VOTE FOR PRESDIENT!!!

        by Chamonix on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:49:48 PM PDT

        •  Well, the Constitution gets in the way here

          I would have no real problem with any honest voting system. Hell Banks count huge amounts of money with a fair bit of accuracy. Casinos account to the penny. There ARE systems that balance. Accounting as a profession understands the use of duplicate systems to make sure the count is the count.

          What we have here isn't hard to do. What we have here is one party seeking advantage over the rest of us by rigging the system. Does Enron ring a bell?

          We need a ground swell not for a particular system but for ethics and honesty. Then we will get somewhere.

          by oofer on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:48:08 AM PDT

  •  Another Oregonian agrees.

    I am so much more confident in the integrity of my state process than I am in the national process as a whole.

    by Rojo on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 11:29:36 AM PDT

•  Counting Backwards

  I think there's a simple explanation of the "counting backwards" issue. If the electronic systems were programmed incompetently (as they appear to have been), then a "short" integer might have been used to hold vote counts. It would have been able to count only up to 32,767. At that point, it would have "overflowed", turning on the "sign bit" and becoming a large negative number. It should actually be possible to recover what the correct values should have been if the negative value is reported and the true counts didn't exceed 65,535.

  by DataMan on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:23:39 PM PDT

  •  memory is cheap

    That's exactly what I thought when I heard about the counting backwards thing.  WTF is wrong with people?  Why not spare another couple of bytes for 32 bit ints?

    by gjking on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:43:42 PM PDT

  •  that sounds like one of my programs

    actually, most of my programs :(

    by fozzy on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:38:49 PM PDT

  •  If your analysis is correct

    and it sounds plausible to me, then Diebold assigned its coding to a newbie right out of school with no hands-on experience in real life programming.

    Using a "short" integer is a mistake we all have made--during our first six months as programmers. After that, any software developer with any kind of competence knows better than to use "short" integers if his totals can possibly go over 32,767.

    Also, did anyone in Diebold perform any kind of Quality Assurance testing before the code went into beta?

    Creating a test script to process 32,768 transactions is not exactly rocket science.

    Is Diebold accountable to any government agency (state or federal) for errors in its source code? And if not, why not?  

    by stevew on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:08:52 PM PDT

    •  Open source software

      Does the Swedish Parliament trust IBM's Lotus Notes software? Would any European government run secure applications on Microsoft Windows. The answer to both of thye above is NO!.
      Both of the above pieces of software have 'back doors' available to the NSA. Why should any other American proprietry software be any different. That is why any voting hardware should use only open source software.

      by casualworker on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:38:57 AM PDT

•  In All Fairness

  I have been reading about voting issues all summer long on the NYT editorial pages.  Sometimes Bob Hebert, soemtimes Krugman, but plenty of times with the editorial board itself.  They talked about the problems in New Mexico, they talked about the decision by Roy Blunt in Missouri to allow overseas soldiers to vote by email through the Pentagon.  They talked about Blackwell in Ohio and the felon list in Florida/Ohio-Florida partisanship during the summer as well.  Just last week they posted a list of about 17 election reforms we need.

  If anything, I would argue that no other major media source besides the New York Times editorial page has been on this.  So the implication that this is the first time they've taken a stand is ridiculous.  Just because nobody's been acting on their frequent columns doesn't mean they haven't been writing them.

  by PocketNines on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:26:26 PM PDT

  •  fair point

    this is, however, the first time I can recall taking blogosphere concerns about voting and writing them up in a reasonable and timely fashion.

    Give the Times credit for what they've done before and what they've done today.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:31:37 PM PDT

  •  However it is impressive

    for them to take a position after the election other than the standard conspiricy theory tin foil stuff. Warnings before are one thing. But afterwards they're breaking with conventional wisdom. Kieth Olberman was pretty lonely.

    by moon in the house of moe on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:33:34 PM PDT

•  Bloggers woke them up,

  and gratitude is owed to the thick skin, patience and persistence of:
  

  
  
  • Kos diarists and bloggers who have rallied to David Cobb and Michael Badnarik's efforts to have a recount of the presidential ballots cast in Ohio,
    
  • Bloggers whose 'eyewitness testimonies' from a number of states were documented and reported to local, state and federal authorities,
    
  • Effective sites that gathered and kept updating the massive amount info on this issue, and
    
  • those who consistently and realistically maintained that when voting irregularities become more and more a regular, even anticipated part of every election cycle, it is no longer possible to use the old dismissive stand-by criticism of "it's just another conspiracy theory", and demanded that we as Americans face and resolve the problem now, not next time, now.
    

  I didn't see anyone in tinfoil hats, just people asking that the votes cast by all Americans, for whichever candidate, be duly counted.

  by Nina on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:28:40 PM PDT

  •  well, not exactly

    re bloggers woke them up...

    NYT has been writing about this topic since at least January:

    http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/making-votes-count.html?pagewanted=all

    by SpiderHole on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:24:16 PM PDT

•  What Is Transparent Enough?

  Some people seem to think that a "paper trail" solves the possible problems with electronic voting machines.

  But a program that can automatically or randomly or accidentally switch a vote (of course there was no error in the Bush-to-Kerry direction, which is its own red light) is not too far removed from a program that can display one vote but record another.  Just saying is all.

  by Long Haul on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:29:54 PM PDT

  •  solution this (if you can eliminate any privacy

    concerns which i think you can) is to 1) provide a receipt to the voter so that he or she can match it to the paper printout 2) do counting at precint level rather than tabulation (as someone here mentioned it will reduce any ability at massive mistakes or fraud)3) allow for audits and quality contorl of systems on a regular basis 4) keep records of any glitches

    by bruh1 on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:51:04 PM PDT

    •  See: Venezuela recall

      Although disputed to high heaven by the US funded right wing, it was the paper receipts that were generated by the evote machines that were used to confirm that Chavez had indeed legitimately won the election.

      So there you go.

      by wild salmon on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:12:36 PM PDT

      •  yeah, and

        the exit polls.  Hmm.

        by Chicago Lulu on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:23:47 AM PDT

  •  That's why...

    a) the voter needs to be able to see the paper copy of the vote

    and

    b) you need to do random spot-check recounts
    

    by rdt on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:57:40 PM PDT

    •  Correct

      HR 2239, stalled in the House, addresses both of these issues.

      by taliesin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:13:58 PM PDT

  •  bar-codes

    If the paper ballot printed displays the name of the candidate and a bar-code, or the optical-scan ballot has bar-codes next to the names of candidates, then ALL the ballots could be counted by someone who is making sure the totals are incrementing properly, and it would be fast enough for us to get the results on Election Night.

    Voting rights activists Bev Harris and Rebecca Mercurri both support bar-codes on ballots for this reason.

    by Eric J in MN on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:07:37 PM PDT

  •  well...

    I had to cast a provisional ballot this year - change of address was received by the ROV but not processed.  When I cast my vote, I was handed a receipt with a unique ID number.  Now, I can call an 800 phone number to check on the status of my vote.

    Why not assign every paper ballot a unique ID number, with a detachable receipt.  Once votes are tallied, the data can be made available online or by phone - go to the ROV website (or call them) and check that a) your vote was included in the count and b) the choices you made were the ones that were received. This doesn't go against any "secret ballot" concept - there would be no way to match a "ballot serial number" with a particular person... but that person could very easily find their ballot and check the results.

    by 40 and Fabulous on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 03:29:14 AM PDT

•  Those who cast the votes decide nothing

  
  those who count the votes decide everything. Just like good ole Stalin said. Did it ever occur to anyone that the only reason we are able to function as a democratic republic is because the citizens trust the legitimacy of the election process?  So, I can't really think of anything right off the top of my head that would be more important than, say...assuring the public that every vote is counted.  I'm disgusted by anyone that has a problem with this.  

  by ktxlib on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:30:10 PM PDT

•  Curiouser and Curiouser

  Friday's New York Times carried a front page article headlined Vote Fraud Theories, Spread By Blogs, Are Quickly Burried  

  According to Times reporter Tom Zeller Jr., "In the space of seven days, an online market of dark ideas surrounding last week's presidential election took root and multiplied."

  "The blogosphere, as it has come to be known, spread the rumors so fast that experts were soon able to debunk them, rather than allowing them to linger and feed conspiracy theories. Within days of the first rumors of a stolen election, in fact, the most popular theories were being proved wrong - though many were still reluctant to let them go."

  Hmmmmm, I guess 48 additional hours have allowed the Grey Lady to reconsider who is more unreliable, the blogsphere or our current electorial system.

  by stevew on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:30:42 PM PDT

  •  it's not either/or

    see DHinMI's comments above regarding what might be summarized as "fraud vs irregularity" charges. I do, however, prefer this Times approach to the previously cited one.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:34:35 PM PDT

  •  There's No Contradiction

    As has been said ad nauseum on here for over a week, there is a big difference between irregularities and fraud.  

    The electoral system is unreliable.  And frankly, most of the blogs I've seen have been fairly reliable, because they haven't cried fraud, the main ones doing that are some of those writing on the comment threads.  

    by DHinMI on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:36:05 PM PDT

    •  You are right, there is a difference

      between fraud and irregularities...but what if both happens?

      by Terri Shirley on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:11:12 PM PDT

    •  For a Left Coast comment on Zeller

      scroll way, way down this thread and read an excellent posting by alynn.

      by stevew on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 12:15:48 AM PDT

  •  I don't see the contradiction

    There are a lot of conspiracy minded folks out there -- and maybe that approach was needed to get the questions posed on the front page of the paper of record. But even if the election was not stolen, clearly our election system is a mess.

    Anyway, I'm a little tired of the left bashing The Times. Maybe we ought to encourage centrist media that attempt to tell the truth. We might wake up one day and have nothing left but Fox.
    I'm sure the right laughs up its sleeves every time one of us bashes the Times and CBS and others attempting to offer facts
    without partisan spin (as nearly impossible as such an effort is in this current climate).

    It doesn't help when we muddy the waters. The first story was a news story on the front page. I found it rather balanced, actually.
    The second item is an editorial -- on the opinion pages. The news and opinion pages of newspapers are institutionally separate. They are not coordinated efforts. The Times opinion pages endorsed Kerry and bashed Bush at every turn, and have been highlighting problems with voting in a series of commentaries over the past year. This editorial was consistent with what the Times editorial board has been saying all along.

    I'll be really annoyed if some of the some of the out-there conspiracy talk is used to discredit a true election reform effort -- I don't see much sign right now that Congress is inclined to reform anything. The problem isn't that the Times pointed out that some of the fraud talk is b.s.; the problem is that some in our ranks are promoting b;s. that has been discredited. It distracts from the real examples of serious voter problems.

    by SpiderHole on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:48:27 PM PDT

•  Dems need to be proactive...

  The Democratic Party needs to lead the way on comprehensive election reforms...get to the plate first.  This is OUR issue...

  Our belief in the enfranchisement of all Americans dates back to the struggles of the Suffragists, the Civil Rights movement, direct election of Senators, Jim Crow...today, it's defective e-voting machines & software, "spoilage"in minority districts, long lines because there are not enough voting booths...

  If Democrats wanna turn things around, then they need to stop playing defense, go on offense and define themselves.

  by jaywillie on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:38:18 PM PDT

•  NYT editorial page

  Has been drumming away at election integrity in a series of editorials for much of this year, and they are all excellent reading.
  

  by SpiderHole on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:38:31 PM PDT

•  This is not hard, folks.

  Just look at what a mess this is. Different voting machines and methods throughout the country, partisan Secs of State, untracable voting machines. What the hell is wrong with this country?

  All we need to do is use common sense. Here's what you do:

  1)Same-day voter registration throughout the country. If you want to vote, and your letter got lost in the mail or some other bullshit, you should be able to vote. Make simple voter registration forms that are uniform throughout the country. It's not hard to do

  2) Make paper ballots that are uniform throughout the country (obviously with different candidates for each district). Either put boxes next to each candidate's name that should be checked off, or just have them circle the name. Whatever.

  3)Count the ballots. By hand. It may take a few days. Hire more people. The American need for instant gratification is the culprit behind these stupid machines. WE CAN WAIT A FEW MORE DAYS IF IT ASSURES A VERIFIABLE VOTE COUNT. I think everyone at this site can agree on that, elsewhere in America... I'm not so sure. Concerned that partisan vote counters will cause problems? Make two teams count the ballots, and compare counts. Just remember, there's a reason behind the fact that voting is on November 2nd and inauguration is January 20th. In 1800, we didn't have voting machines, and people didn't wake up in the morning and know who was president.

  This is how you do this. This is how it's done in pretty much all other free nations. Every hear about Canada having huge problems with vote counting? How bout England? You don't, because they're comfortable with paper, pen, and hand counts.

  by DudeUrSistersHOT on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:41:19 PM PDT

  •  Paper ballots

    Couldn't agree more. The more this crap goes on, the more I conclude these voting machines are waaaay more trouble than they're worth. In Ireland, they count all the ballots in about 24 hours by hand, and they use a really complicated counting scheme in accordance with their single-transferable vote system in parliamentary elections.

    Everybody can mark an X in a box with 100% accuracy. The same does not seem to be true for pressing a touchscreen or poking a hole in a punchcard. I would like us to quit testing Murphy's Law on our democracy.

    by taliesin on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:10:40 PM PDT

  •  Clarification...

    The presidential inaugutarion used to take place on March 4, if memory serves.  The dat