Thank you, Jeanne Massey, for an interesting overview of the voting technology issue.
I have been an election judge in two states, in at least 20 different elections, and I've worked with everything--plain papter ballots, mechanical recording machines, punch cards, and optical scan machines. I have thought a lot about touch-screen systems, and concluded I didn't like them, mainly because there was no paper trail--no way to verify the system totals, no way for voting to continue if power fails or the machines crash. Plus, while they might be "easy" to use for folks who are computer friendly, they won't be for many others, and I could see precinct judges having to hover over too many folks helping them navigate the system. What works best? For voter ease of use, plain paper ballots. Everyone knows how to check a box. However, they are slow, slow to count, and at the end of a very long day, judges are tired and can make mistakes. Next best: optical scan ballots. Nearly as easy to use as plain paper (they are vunerable to stray pen marks) and the count is done! when the polls close. If some problem takes down the scanner, voters still vote, but the ballots are collected in a separate bin and later fed through the machine when things are working again (this happened more than once). An additional feature: (assuming the scanner is working) instant feedback on voter mistakes such as voting for too many candidates. The scanner rejects the ballot, the judge offers the voter a new one, but if the voter insists, the scanner can be told to accept the ballot (all other votes count normally, the overvoted race gets no vote for that ballot). Mechanical machines are dead; punch cards are on the way out. I, myself, don't worry about the machine manufacturers trying to write diabolical software to change votes. I've watched the testing, and it's thorough--one city clerk I worked for delighted in coming up with new ways to try to bollix the machines in testing. Plus, all it would take is one minor scandal, and that manufacturer would be dead, dead, dead. They like selling their machines. They want to sell more. There's no way they would take such a chance for such a small gain (what good would it do Diebold to change election results in the Topeka, KS school board race?) when getting caught would kill the company (and the profits). What matters more than anything else, IMHO, is honest, dedicated judges. Minnesota has a wonderful system which requires at least two judges, from different parties, to work side-by-side on every vote-affecting decision. It works. Other states are not so careful or thoughtful. A system like our on-the-spot registration would be a disaster in some cities (Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans) and some rural districts (LBJ was first elected to the Senate by false votes in one small, south Texas precinct). As for instant runoff voting . . . it might work best with a touch-screen system. Optical scanning ballots would be tricky, but it could be done with them. But oh, how I would feel for the poor judges in precincts with lots of elderly voters. --M. G. Stinnett Jordan Neighborhood REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
