We can make voting with paper ballots & counting by hand work only when enough people get off their ass & get engaged civically. Why is this so hard to understand? We have traded security for convenience because Americans have become LAZY & ENTITLED.
Tim you make a great point, there are not enough people currently running the polls to even justify voting at the poll on machines! We should be pushing for internet voting through an app to resolve the current staffing issues. Let's trade transparency, locality, and security in favor of convenience. The application is internet connected, but will securely store your secret vote and not tabulate it until the close of the e-polls.
This system also would allow an easy recount, like you suggested is a way to identify potential issues with the system. Since the votes are stored in that application database, it would be very easy to just count those votes in the database and see that the numbers still match!
Handcount and machines will never be able to resolve the staffing issues or counting speed issues you pointed out, so it's time we do away with these silly notions of security and transparency and localized elections in favor of a system that expedites the counting.
I think we need to encourage and promote 'observed voting' unless it is just not possible (overseas military, people with legitimate disabilities). Block chain and/or internet voting, because it is not observed, will be susceptible to fraud from coercion, bribery or swindling. We see that now with absentee and mail-in voting - four court cases that Heritage documented where elections were overturned and pending cases in NJ, MA, CA and CT (to name a few) where absentee (unobserved) voting fraud appears to have occurred.
Tim - You may want to know more about Missouri Method, as it would accomplish counting of all ballots on election day/night - even using the examples you give in your post (2K-3K ballots at a polling place averaging 20-30 races per ballot). I would be happy to review the process with you. In the meantime, feel free to look at a reply I just prepared this week for St. Charles County in MO which has 292,000 registered voters (http://tinyurl.com/SCChandcountestimate). In the 2020 presidential election, SCC had 223,533 ballots cast and, with about 2,400 counting judges spread across 122 polling places, all ballots could be counted in 8 hours on election day/night. They had an extraordinary number of absentee ballots (due to COVID) - almost 70,000 ballots. This can also be accomplished in 8 hours with 544 counting judges. Carpal tunnel and grueling? The MO Method does not require shifting your eyes back and forth between ballot and tally sheet. Also, the judges at the polling place are able to rotate positions - check-in voters at the door for a few hours, count for a few hours, keep an eye on the ballot box for a few, etc. Those who hand counted an official election here in MO this past April answered a post-election survey: most said it was fun and exhilarating to hand count; they rated the experience 4.8 out of 5! We are exposing the narrative (objections) about hand counting and training people around the country that We the People are capable of hand counting. Always happy to share the reality of hand counting. - Linda Rantz, Author of "Missouri Elections: Return to Hand Counting" https://tinyurl.com/HandCounteManual
Hi Linda and thank you for the response. I want to say that I greatly admire the work you did putting together the eManual. It is a tremendous document. I would like to pin down specifics to make sure I have the information correct. I want to focus on the Presidential election as that is the most demanding scenario and hand-counting has to work in the most demanding situation else the machines will be needed. I think we need the following info to properly compare apples to apples: how many ballots, how many races, how many people/teams, how long did it take to hand count, and what error checking is inherent in the method. Can I get this information from the hand counting done in Osage (or anywhere else)? Then I can do a better analysis of the Presidential election which I am seeing from the website link had 18 races? (Our 2020 presidential in Ada had 26 races). I tend to think we are probably pretty close on the number of people needed and we may disagree on finding those people. As well, I still think it a waste of human time to count non-competitive races - let the machines do that. As I wrote in the article, I think people should be able to hand count any races they are concerned about but they need to be prepared to provide the labor and perhaps a small fee for oversight to accomplish that.
Back in the old days, when I was a young dino-whippersnapper, we had more precincts, and everyone knew everyone in their precinct. Therefore, hand counting was do-able. We had plenty of races as I recall, and not just a straight ticket. But maybe I'm so old that dirt is younger and memory has faded along with the notion of hand counting.
One more thing never discussed but becoming increasingly probable: Failure of or attacks on the electric grid. What then, oh hallowed machines?
Always looking for any data on how hand counting could be done faster. As for the electric grid, hand counting can be a fall back which is why paper ballots are necessary. Just be prepared to wait longer.
We sometimes wait weeks, months, or years while machine counted "elections" are adjudicated. Having more precincts would help. We used to get results overnight with hand counting. Glad we're continuing to -- at least -- use paper ballots. For me, accuracy and security are much more important than knowing who "won" within hours. I can wait while they get it right.
Great points. How about making the source code of the machines open source so anyone can check it. Also make voting fraud a felony with some heavy penalties (automatic mandatory jail and fines) and print it on every ballot.
I don't expect hand counters will be able to detect fraudulent absentee ballots either. In Idaho, the post-election hand counts have included absentee ballots and there has been no public complaints about those ballots being suspicious. Perhaps we can get to using more sophisticated methods of such detection, for example, doing some checking under magnification that might allow the human eye to see that ballots were not hand marked but machine marked.
We can make voting with paper ballots & counting by hand work only when enough people get off their ass & get engaged civically. Why is this so hard to understand? We have traded security for convenience because Americans have become LAZY & ENTITLED.
Tim you make a great point, there are not enough people currently running the polls to even justify voting at the poll on machines! We should be pushing for internet voting through an app to resolve the current staffing issues. Let's trade transparency, locality, and security in favor of convenience. The application is internet connected, but will securely store your secret vote and not tabulate it until the close of the e-polls.
This system also would allow an easy recount, like you suggested is a way to identify potential issues with the system. Since the votes are stored in that application database, it would be very easy to just count those votes in the database and see that the numbers still match!
Handcount and machines will never be able to resolve the staffing issues or counting speed issues you pointed out, so it's time we do away with these silly notions of security and transparency and localized elections in favor of a system that expedites the counting.
I think we need to encourage and promote 'observed voting' unless it is just not possible (overseas military, people with legitimate disabilities). Block chain and/or internet voting, because it is not observed, will be susceptible to fraud from coercion, bribery or swindling. We see that now with absentee and mail-in voting - four court cases that Heritage documented where elections were overturned and pending cases in NJ, MA, CA and CT (to name a few) where absentee (unobserved) voting fraud appears to have occurred.
Tim - You may want to know more about Missouri Method, as it would accomplish counting of all ballots on election day/night - even using the examples you give in your post (2K-3K ballots at a polling place averaging 20-30 races per ballot). I would be happy to review the process with you. In the meantime, feel free to look at a reply I just prepared this week for St. Charles County in MO which has 292,000 registered voters (http://tinyurl.com/SCChandcountestimate). In the 2020 presidential election, SCC had 223,533 ballots cast and, with about 2,400 counting judges spread across 122 polling places, all ballots could be counted in 8 hours on election day/night. They had an extraordinary number of absentee ballots (due to COVID) - almost 70,000 ballots. This can also be accomplished in 8 hours with 544 counting judges. Carpal tunnel and grueling? The MO Method does not require shifting your eyes back and forth between ballot and tally sheet. Also, the judges at the polling place are able to rotate positions - check-in voters at the door for a few hours, count for a few hours, keep an eye on the ballot box for a few, etc. Those who hand counted an official election here in MO this past April answered a post-election survey: most said it was fun and exhilarating to hand count; they rated the experience 4.8 out of 5! We are exposing the narrative (objections) about hand counting and training people around the country that We the People are capable of hand counting. Always happy to share the reality of hand counting. - Linda Rantz, Author of "Missouri Elections: Return to Hand Counting" https://tinyurl.com/HandCounteManual
Hi Linda and thank you for the response. I want to say that I greatly admire the work you did putting together the eManual. It is a tremendous document. I would like to pin down specifics to make sure I have the information correct. I want to focus on the Presidential election as that is the most demanding scenario and hand-counting has to work in the most demanding situation else the machines will be needed. I think we need the following info to properly compare apples to apples: how many ballots, how many races, how many people/teams, how long did it take to hand count, and what error checking is inherent in the method. Can I get this information from the hand counting done in Osage (or anywhere else)? Then I can do a better analysis of the Presidential election which I am seeing from the website link had 18 races? (Our 2020 presidential in Ada had 26 races). I tend to think we are probably pretty close on the number of people needed and we may disagree on finding those people. As well, I still think it a waste of human time to count non-competitive races - let the machines do that. As I wrote in the article, I think people should be able to hand count any races they are concerned about but they need to be prepared to provide the labor and perhaps a small fee for oversight to accomplish that.
Good points, but still not convinced.
Back in the old days, when I was a young dino-whippersnapper, we had more precincts, and everyone knew everyone in their precinct. Therefore, hand counting was do-able. We had plenty of races as I recall, and not just a straight ticket. But maybe I'm so old that dirt is younger and memory has faded along with the notion of hand counting.
One more thing never discussed but becoming increasingly probable: Failure of or attacks on the electric grid. What then, oh hallowed machines?
Always looking for any data on how hand counting could be done faster. As for the electric grid, hand counting can be a fall back which is why paper ballots are necessary. Just be prepared to wait longer.
We sometimes wait weeks, months, or years while machine counted "elections" are adjudicated. Having more precincts would help. We used to get results overnight with hand counting. Glad we're continuing to -- at least -- use paper ballots. For me, accuracy and security are much more important than knowing who "won" within hours. I can wait while they get it right.
Great points. How about making the source code of the machines open source so anyone can check it. Also make voting fraud a felony with some heavy penalties (automatic mandatory jail and fines) and print it on every ballot.
Voting Works (linked in the article) posts their source on Github, but the proprietary vendors certainly don't.
I don't expect hand counters will be able to detect fraudulent absentee ballots either. In Idaho, the post-election hand counts have included absentee ballots and there has been no public complaints about those ballots being suspicious. Perhaps we can get to using more sophisticated methods of such detection, for example, doing some checking under magnification that might allow the human eye to see that ballots were not hand marked but machine marked.