RE: An Exit Strategy for Electronic Voting? VOTE PROVISIONAL TO PROTEST PAPERLESS TOUCHSCREENS

["Pete Klammer" <pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with your statement, "Using a provisional ballot does NOT [...] stop
fraud."  Of and by itself, you are correct.

But your words which I left out, "in anyway" are missing the point: when
large numbers of voters refuse to go along with election officials'
paperless plans, when huge numbers of voters clog their bureaucracy with
unexpected volumes of paperwork, when massive provisional turnout makes the
press with delays in results, THEN something can happen that will reduce
fraud: they will have to realize that objection to paperless DREs is real
and widespread, not just hypothetical, academic, and rare.  Instead of "a
few aggravated activists demand paper ballots," how about headlines: THE
PEOPLE DEMAND PAPER BALLOTS!

A provisional ballot IS a paper ballot at the polling place!

The proposal here is NOT to perpetuate provisional balloting forever.  We
agree, provisional balloting can be vulnerable.  That's not the point.

If they dispense filthy milk, I say, don't drink their milk, piss in it and
send it back.

Anti-DRE provisional voting is a form of PROTEST, an act to express OUTRAGE,
an organized REBELLION against election administrators who would rather herd
us through their efficient machinery.

Best hopes,
--
Pete Klammer, P.E. / ACM(1970), IEEE, ICCP(CCP), NSPE(PE), NACSE(NSNE)
3200 Routt Street / Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033-5452
(303)233-9485 / Fax:(303)274-6182 / Mailto:PKlammer@xxxxxxx
 "Idealism doesn't win every contest; but that's not what I choose it for."


-----Original Message-----
From: ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:08 AM
To: ralphs@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; attendees@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: An Exit Strategy for Electronic Voting? VOTE PROVISIONAL TO
PROTEST PAPERLESS TOUCHSCREENS

There is a long way to go to eliminate election fraud.  First things first.

Using a provisional ballot does NOT in anyway stop fraud.  It is a bad idea.

Too many don't get counted.  There are other forms of paper ballots.

A mail in ballot is the next worst idea; you don't even know if your ballot
makes it into the system -- or if intimidation occured.

A paper ballot at the polling place is a better idea.  The best form of a
paper
ballot is voting AND counting in the polling place.

Finally, a better means of preventing tampering with the ballot, i.e., a
true
punch card (not the Florida style) or the colored ballot of the Swiss
System.

Best is a punch card ballot with additional provisions to address the needs
of
the handicapped, provide for instant runoff voting, etc., yet still have the
voter directly mark his or her ballot without electronic intervention, such
as
the VotePuncher system.

-ivan





Quoting Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>:

> s much as I respect Bob and Bob's opinion, I respectfully disagree.
>
> Whether _your_ vote counts or not is almost totally irrelevant.  If there
> are a large number of fake votes, it pretty much doesn't matter how you
> vote.
>
> It is far more important to make sure that there isn't spurious noise (or
> deliberate manipulation) in the system.
>
> Absentee ballots should be outlawed or severely limited.  Absentee ballots
> are an open invitation for abuse.
>
> DREs and other computer counting systems are suspect for all the reasons
> that we have been discussing.
>
> Thus the most effective (to me) method of striking a blow for hand counted
> paper ballots (or, at least, paper ballots that are the gold standard for
> what counts as a vote) is to start a movement that fores officials to sit
up
> and take notice: provisional ballots as political protest.
>
> Thus I side with Pete.
>
> Ralph Shnelvar
>
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:05:13 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >I had thought to vote in this manner in 2004 but thought better of it
when I
> >realized that my vote might get "set aside" if it became associated with
> >other ballots that had a higher hurdle to overcome in proving legitimacy.
> >
> >Are we forgetting the snafus in 2004 in Ohio and other states where
> >provisional ballots were tossed aside and were considered the last ballot
> >type to use in vote totals announced in vote tallies, sometimes not even
> >being counted till after results had been announced?  If this past
election
> >teaches us anything it is that the votes need to be in hand at the time
of
> >the close of the polls and not be part of a "dubious class" of ballots
that
> >may be harder to claim as legitimate.  If enough people do utilize this
form
> >of voting, it could create a new phenomenon of intentionally voting by
> >provisional ballot, but I think it may antagonze election officials and
> >tempt them into lumping them with suspect ballots that may only get
counted
> >in close races, after the fact, and possibly with less oversight.
> >
> >I have adopted the absentee ballot voting method BUT IN PERSON in a
clerk's
> >office.  I can ask for my absentee ballot in person, wait for a few
minutes
> >while they prepare it, vote in the clerk's office and turn it in in
person
> >into their ballot box (in the secrecy sleeve) after signing the outside
of
> >the envelope.  There it joins other absentee ballots that have been
dropped
> >off, and I have never had to wait in line to vote.  No one checks whether
I
> >have any literature with me that helps me understand the issues on the
> >ballot or whether I have campaign literature with me to refresh my
memory.
> >The staff is very helpful and I leave after feeling that the manner in
which
> >I cast my vote was at least as clear as I could make it on paper.
Whether I
> >have the same confidence in how my ballot is optically scanned along with
> >others is a separate matter that still needs legislative refining, but
I've
> >avoided using DRE's and avoided risking loss of the absentee ballot in
the
> >mail.   And since I vote during early voting periods, my vote is reported
as
> >part of the election night tally, so I feel some satisfaction in thinking
my
> >vote was counted as part of the vote night total instead of wondering if
it
> >languishes in provisional "maybe it will be counted" land.
> >
> >Bob McGrath
> >
> >
> >>From: Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>Reply-To: ralphs@xxxxxxxxx
> >>To: <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>Subject: Re: An Exit Strategy for Electronic Voting?  VOTE PROVISIONAL
TO
> >>PROTEST PAPERLESS TOUCHSCREENS
> >>Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:19:07 -0600
> >>
> >>Pete:
> >>
> >>I love this idea and I'll try to think of ways to publicize the idea and
> >>have people do it.
> >>
> >>Ralph Shnelvar
> >>
> >>On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:57:54 -0600, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >now that I have finished serving as an election judge at the recent
> >>primary
> >> >election, I feel free to air a dangerous idea.
> >> >
> >> >Massive provisional voting.  No, make that MASSIVE PROVISIONAL
VOTING!!!
> >> >
> >> >I realized how dangerous this idea was, when I tried to discuss it
during
> >> >poll judge training.  When the officials saw where my questions were
> >> >heading, they cut me off, changed the subject, and refused to
recognize
> >>me,
> >> >preventing the gathering from hearing it: May any voter, by voluntary
> >> >preference, choose a provisional ballot, if they would rather vote on
> >>paper
> >> >than touch-screen DRE?
> >> >
> >> >If you truly object to paperless electronic voting, then don't do it!
> >>You
> >> >have a choice.  And, by HAVA, this choice is universally available
> >> >nation-wide!  No, we're not talking about mail-in or absentee ballots.
> >> >
> >> >VOTE PROVISIONAL to TELL OFFICIALS you DEMAND A PAPER BALLOT.
> >> >
> >> >Believe me, they will notice!  Provisional ballots are a manpower
> >>nightmare;
> >> >they are far more costly to cope with than even absentee ballots to
> >>process,
> >> >since they can't be matched up with mail-out documentation.  Election
> >> >departments dread provisional ballots, and they will go to great
lengths
> >> >(within HAVA rules) to avoid them.
> >> >
> >> >Admittedly, provisional ballots face more bureaucratic hurdles than
any
> >> >other method, and there is risk of disqualification, error, or even
> >> >mishandling.  I suppose election administrators could even
deliberately
> >>lose
> >> >provisional ballots.  Onsey-twosey, that would be hard to counteract;
but
> >>to
> >> >disenfranchise hundreds or thousands of organized and attentive
electors
> >>in
> >> >the glare of publicity -- I think they would recognize the peril.
> >> >
> >> >If restoring the paper ballot is not your priority, then this isn't
for
> >>you.
> >> >If you think a DRE is the lesser of some evils, then this isn't for
you.
> >>If
> >> >you hope somebody will come up with something better than paperless
> >> >electronic voting sometime, but in the meantime you'll put up with it,
> >>then
> >> >this isn't for you.
> >> >
> >> >Or if your partisan paranoia prevents you from any violation of
> >>convention
> >> >that might imperil your precious preference, then you're whipped, they
> >>got
> >> >you, you're going to give it up to some bits and circuits -- the
vendors
> >>and
> >> >the county clerks know a wimp when they see his/her electronic vote.
> >> >
> >> >But if you care enough to stand up to them, to risk it, to put this
above
> >> >partisan issues, this is for you.
> >> >
> >> >I DEMAND A PAPER BALLOT, AND I'LL VOTE PROVISIONAL TO GET IT!
> >> >
> >> >I personally have voted only provisional ballots since (including) the
> >>2006
> >> >general election.  My money is where my mouth is.  How about you?
> >> >
> >> >Best hopes,
> >>
>
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.