[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

PRESS 01092005 - Caldara: Swiss system suffers from one gaping hole



Title: The Daily Camera: Columnists
Jon Caldara attended the public presentation of the Swiss Voting System.  Within minutes, Jon correctly assessed the pros and cons of the system.  Please read his evaluation (below) published in today's Boulder Camera.
 
Al Kolwicz
CAMBER
 
 
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_3454303,00.html
 
 

Caldara: Swiss system suffers from one gaping hole

January 9, 2005

pictureThe city of Boulder will have a special election on March 8 to decide who will replace Will Toor on the City Council as he moves on to the Boulder County Board of Commissioners.

Given the speed of counting the ballots in Boulder on the last election, we should know the winner sometime before their term ends.

For a variety of reasons, Boulder's new voting system is the slowest in Colorado, and maybe the nation, to tally. But on the other hand, it is really expensive.

A couple of Boulder citizens have been making noise about changing the way we vote. And they are on to something worth considering. In the last week Joe Pezzillo and Peter Richards have been parading around a very pleasant Swiss guy who runs elections in, of all places, Switzerland.

He keeps showing up places with Swiss chocolate, also known as the legal cocaine, so everyone is willing to listen. (First one is always free.)

The Swiss have a rather simple way of voting. It consists of mail-in ballots, which is a horrendously bad idea, and an easy-to-count, easy-to-recount ballot, which seems to be a good idea.

Most American ballots, including Boulder's, have one large ballot with a lot of candidate races and questions like referendums, initiatives and tax increases listed on it. The Swiss system has a small ballot for each question or race. If there are 10 ballot questions in an election, a voter gets 10 separate dollar-bill sized ballots with one question each.

Let's take a very simple example, a yes-or-no tax question, "Shall the city of Boulder raise sales tax 67-percent to fund the building of a five-star resort for displaced prairie dogs?" The ballot only has this question on it and a "yes" box and a "no" box. The voter marks the ballot with a pen, crayon or lamb's blood.

When all the ballots are cast they are separated by hand into two piles, one for all the "yes" votes and one for the "nos." Boulder's current fancy ballots are read by scanning machines that kick out so many, they have to be read by hand anyway.

Here's the money-saving part: The dollar-bill-sized ballots in the "yes" and "no" stacks are then run through a currency counter (just like you'd find at a bank) to tally them up. Unlike waiting weeks for our over-priced high-tech scanning machines to kick out ballots that need to be hand counted, the Swiss have their election results in about three hours. Our prairie dogs could be relaxing in little prairie-dog hot tubs and getting little prairie-dog massages that much sooner.

It is a simple, verifiable and inexpensive system with a paper trail and could work well for Boulder.

The part that shouldn't be used is the mail-in delivery of ballots.

The Swiss don't have voter registration. They just send their little ballots to every eligible voter.

Sending ballots out in the mail like grocery-store coupons is not the most secure way to run a democracy. Proponents of mail ballots argue that the increased voter turnout from the convenience of voting at home overcomes comes any little problems like fraud.

Looking at the situation in Washington state, where the governor's race keeps flip-flopping on every recount, proves the need for integrity in polling.

Here we have an illusion of voter integrity. State law now requires some form of identification to vote. Mail-in ballots require a signature. But a signature is not a form of identification. I learned in grade school how to forge my old man's signature like a world-class con artist. That didn't make me him.

For many, mail-in ballots take away the cherished tradition of secret voting. There is no real way to measure voter intimidation, which is why America moved to private voting

booths where a wife's abusive Republican husband can't see her vote Democrat.

Voting should be an individual event, not a group sport. Mail-ins lend themselves to "voting parties" in union halls and church hall where voters can "get help" understanding the issues in a group setting.

Anyone ever wonder why some nursing homes have such high voter turnout?

Personally, I think running a secure, intimidation-free election is a pretty small price to pay for democracy. I am not arguing for bringing back the draft or anything. I'm just saying that civic duty should include getting off your butt, going to a secure location, showing an ID and voting in private.

Jon Caldara is president of the Independence Institute in Golden. He lives in Boulder and can be reached at JonCaldara@xxxxxxxxxx

MORE CALDARA COLUMNS »

Copyright 2005, The Daily Camera. All Rights Reserved.