Re: Absentee voters

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Dr. Mercuri:

Let me respond point by point.  Please let me do so by making comments
interspersed with yours.

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:03:49 -0500, you wrote:

>Ralph --
>
>Sorry, you are wrong on all of your points. 

OK, you're as arrogant as I am!  I like that! It makes discussion open and
friendly.

>I will take the time to 
>explain. Hopefully after you read the explanation, I will continue to 
>have your respect (which I do appreciate).

Yes, Dr. Mercuri, you have my deep respect.  Honestly. Truly.

>
>If you'll notice, in my earlier response, I always referred to ABSENTEE 
>ballots, not mail-in ballots. Yes, an absentee ballot can be mailed in, 
>but it can also be dropped of. I always drop mine off. (Many people in 
>Oregon drop their ballots off, even though they are an entirely absentee 
>voting state, they still have numerous drop off locations.) When I drop 
>my ballot off, there's a procedure whereby I sign in (3 times) and then 
>the ballot envelope is stamped. The person I typically hand the ballot 
>envelope to is usually a member of my own party (who always recognized 
>me and says "hi Rebecca" -- which is a check & balance of precinct 
>voting -- precinct workers typically know who most of their voters are 
>by sight -- same is true about permanent absentees who drop off ballots 
>in person). As far as I am concerned, I have MORE feedback that my 
>ballot GOT to the county department of elections (since that's where I 
>drop it off) than I do with any sort of DRE.

Dr. Mercuri, I care little if someone drops off their ballot.  These are the
same good people who actually go to a precinct to vote in an election.

My concern is to those (possibly dead) people who do not drop off their
ballots.  They don't have to sign three times.  It is easy to fake
signatures for dead people; they don't resist much after rigor mortis.

And, clearly and logically, a person who drops off her ballot is not -- by
definition -- absentee.

>
>Actually, the paper ballots are the ONLY ones that are NOT counted by a 
>computer in a recount in New Jersey.

Not here in Colorado.  Recounts are done using the same damn machines.

Actually, to be accurate, the votes must be counted the second time using
the same stupid procedure as the first. One could not design a worse law.

>All of the DRE's here are 
>"paperless" hence there is no independent recount. The paper ballots are 
>HAND recounted if a recount is ordered.

Again, not here.  Plus this issue is orthogonal to the issue of mail-in
ballots.

>This actually happened in our 
>county when the county clerk's race was very close the other year 
>(ironically it is the county clerk's office that is in charge of the 
>elections, but that had nothing to do with this recount, other than also 
>ironically it was the incumbent clerk who was unseated in the election). 
>This has been true in other elections in NJ. Again, since we have only 
>electronic voting machines in the polling places, there is no way to 
>independently recount them.

Here the activists (I was one of them) made damn sure that paper was
available at the polling places.  As far as I am able to remember, almost no
one who showed up at the precincts used the DREs here.

Again, paper/DRE is orthogonal to the issue of absentee/mail-in ballots.

> So, as it turns out, MY paper ballot is FAR 
>MORE important in a recount, since these are the only ballots that can 
>be examined properly (and disputed if there are problems with them). You 
>will notice that in my email I said nothing about how the ballots would 
>be counted. Paper ballots always allow for a 100% hand count, which can 
>be done if the laws are written to allow it.

It is the laws here that are deeply flawed.

>
>All of the states that have instituted permanent absentees have a 
>continued rise in voter turnout using that method. In some places in CA, 
>the absentees are as much as 60% now.

I don't have the numbers.  And, worse, how does one know if those are
legitimate ballots?  Where are the controls?

>
>Incidentally, New Jersey allows for an absentee voter to designate 
>someone that they trust to HAND deliver the absentee ballot (inside of 
>its double envelopes), rather than mail it. All states should allow 
>this, so that absentees do not ever have to mail in their ballots, and 
>can ensure that they are delivered properly.

What this allows for is groups (unions on the Left, religious groups on the
Right) to coerce their members to vote in blocks.

"Let's get together and have a voting party!" says the union/church
organizer.  Not good.

>Delivery of the ballot 
>directly to the county, constitutes "casting" -- if there is any monkey 
>business that is going on inside of the county (or municipality), then 
>it is probably going on with all of the voting types, not just the 
>absentees. So if there is a problem with that, it is not with the fact 
>that there are absentee ballots, but there is a problem with the checks 
>and balances within the county (or municipality).

I agree ... except for the ability to deliver a large number of nonexistent
dead voters by mail.  Yes, Chicago had dead voters show up at the polls but
that required someONE to show up.  Mail-in ballots don't require a body,
just paperwork and can be done en mass.

>
>As for stuffing the ballot box, you can do that no matter what voting 
>method is used. Paper, electronic, absentee, precinct. Procedures and 
>monitoring is the only way to ensure that ballot box stuffing does not 
>occur.

But mail-in ballots (the kind intended for permanently absentee voters)
makes manipulation a whole lot easier just as the paperless DREs make
manipulation a whole lot easier.

>In Franklin County Ohio in the November 2006 election, it was 
>revealed that 86% of the precincts did not have the same number of 
>ballots cast as were recorded as having voted. They use VVPAT DREs 
>there. Most of the discrepancies were off by 1-2, some were as many as 
>dozens. Again, it does not matter what method you use, ballot box 
>stuffing can always be possible if procedural controls are lax and the 
>process is controlled by insiders. Harri Hursti demonstrated that (at 
>least on the Diebold system) it is possible to hack the precinct-based 
>scanners, as well as the central counters, and also the touchscreen DREs.

Which, Dr. Mercuri, is why I have been such a fan of your work.

>
>I have always encouraged members of the disability community to consider 
>the accuracy and AUDITABILITY factors involved with voting, as well as 
>the accessibility thereof. Currently, paper ballots are the only way 
>that this can be provided.

Again, I completely agree.  Thank you for having the political skill to get
the media to pay attention and -- I presume -- having the logic and
arguments on your side so that the differently abled community realizes how
important their accurate and auditable votes are.

>
>I must ask you, then, what are you promoting? Precinct based paper 
>ballots?

I am promoting precinct based paper hand-counted ballots.

>This is exactly what I am promoting and have been promoting 
>since 2003. You must also allow for absentees. 

Why must one also allow for absentees.? The only people who _must_ not be
able to vote in their precinct are those who are in the military.  Everyone
else (including the bedridden) has -- to me -- a weak excuse.

>I contend that permanent 
>absentees are no different than regular absentees.

The difference is in the control.  A "permanent" absentee will be on the
rolls forever ... even if they move out of state.  Sure, one could send out
an "Are you there?" every year.

> With proper controls 
>(that include impounding, auditing and recounting), an entirely paper 
>ballot solution (end-to-end, including precinct and absentees) is the 
>most appropriate voting method.

The most appropriate voting method is the one where we can match a living
breathing eligible citizen with an anonymous ballot.

The previous sentence must come first then comes the audits and voting
methods.

>
>I hope you will consider what I have written here, and I appreciate your 
>feedback.

I, too, hope you will consider what I have written.

Both of us want the same thing: honest elections.

It took the intelligence of my friend and hero, Evan Daniel Ravitz, to take
the activists kicking and screaming (Of the 150 activists present when he
first suggested it there was UNANIMOUS antagonism to the idea.  He was
shouted down.) into understanding that hand-counted paper ballots is the
best solution for dealing honestly with elections.

I hope that you will reconsider ... just as I will consider your intelligent
and well-reasoned thoughts.

>
>Rebecca Mercuri.

Respectfully,

Ralph Shnelvar