Ohio's Alternative to Diebold Machines May Be Equally Bad 174
phorest writes "One would have thought the choice of Ohio lawmakers to move away from Diebold touch-screen voting terminals would be welcomed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Instead, the group is warning the elections board that their alternative might be illegal under state laws. 'The main dispute is whether a central optical scan of ballots at the board's headquarters downtown would result in votes not being counted on ballots that are incorrectly filled out. The ACLU believes the intent of election law is to ensure voters can be notified immediately of a voting error and be able to make a second-chance vote.'"
Re:Could someone tell me why we need it at all? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Corrupting election based upon manual systems requires a huge amount of effort and in countries where there is even a minimum of honest election auditing, more often than not, gets found out and the anti-democracy offenders get prosecuted.
Electronic voting allows for the mass corruption of elections and is most often supported by corporate executives for exactly that reason.
My letter to the ACLU (Score:3, Interesting)
===
The Associated Press reports today that the ACLU is pressing Cuyahoga County, Ohio, not to go through with a planned switch from electronic voting machines to optical-scan paper ballots. This is a terrible position to take, and it is honestly enough to make me question whether or not I should renew my membership for the year.
While I appreciate the ACLU's hard work for voting rights in many areas, the simple fact is that electronic voting machines may be the single most pressing problem our electoral system faces. They are by their very nature unaccountable and amenable to large-scale election fraud. Any move to abandon these machines (which are manufactured and operated almost exclusively by private companies with right-wing ties) should be applauded, not suppressed. This is an issue of particular note in Ohio, given that electronic voting machine fraud in that state in 2004 may well have been responsible for the outcome of that year's Presidential race, with its terrible consequences for our nation.
I sincerely hope that the ACLU will reverse its position on this case and take a strong stand in favor of paper ballots. Silence on this issue is a barely acceptable position for America's leading civil rights organization; supporting the wrong side in this battle is not acceptable at all, to me and I suspect to many other people who have supported the ACLU for years. If the ACLU persists in opposing the planned Cuyahoga County move, I will regretfully conclude that I can no longer support this great organization.
Re:Simple = Better (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No. Electronic. Voting. Ever. (Score:2, Interesting)
After 2004, we formed a voter advocacy group in NM to study the problem.
Now, if you don't think this is a crucial issue for the future of our government (and consequentially, your entire future in this country), you haven't been paying attention.
We studied the various systems, looked for vulnerabilities, and came up with a legislative proposal that resulted in this system. We educated Governor Richards about it, and got it implemented in time to use it for the 2006 elections.
It works.
You cannot game this system without an unprecedented conspiracy, and even then, it would certainly be discovered. We also have random accuracy checks to track if anything weird is happening, and this is a critical part of the system. A certain political party that I won't name (but it's initials are GOP) doesn't like real voting to happen, and they tried to block it, but to no avail. It passed our Democratic-led legislature with flying colors.
You might think I'm just writing this to toot my horn. That would be wrong. I'm trying to show that citizens can do something if they work at it. None of us were getting paid or getting any benefits other than good elections in our state.
Get involved, if you care about the future of democratic government, which is essentially America's future.
Re:Oh Please.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Retirees who move to another state routinely vote in their new home in person, and by absentee in their former home state. The dead routinely vote all over the country. Illegals vote in every election. Some people vote twice. Etc. Etc. Etc.
You're not serious enough about the issue to even debate with. Go drink your Kool-Aid.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? (Score:3, Interesting)
Count the fucking ballots by fucking hand in the fucking polling station in the fucking presence of the fucking candidates.
There is no machinery, therefore no systemic failure modes that are not universally comprehensible. By definition, none of the candidates trust each other; so they'll all be watching extra-hard in case anyone else makes a mistake. There are more than one person there, so disputes can be resolved easily: if a majority cannot agree that a ballot is correctly filled, it is rejected. No ballots can get lost because they stayed in the polling station the whole time. The process can be parallelised in each polling station, so the final result is available as soon as the slowest count is completed.
Has anyone here actually ever voted? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are very simple manual fixes to the system, but that largely ignores the other problems with the American voting system, namely the lack of run-off features which encourage voting for a likable candidate rather than a perceived front-runner.
What I rather like as a fix however is a system like the British have used for a long time where the party in the majority elects a representative to lead them. Much more democratic and less subject to manipulation in general.
Unfortunately this kind of change will require a rather substantial constitutional amendment, not likely to happen unless you do start voting and actually demand a change.