Ping, CatHerd. Thanks for taking the time to explain this ballot process in-depth. Actually the process you explained kind of mimics the Herding of Cats — people, especially the con artist types — like to stray and must be controlled with a thorough process like this.
Having voted a few days ago on the Dominion system here in Georgia, the large ballot screens and operation of the systems LOOKS impressive. That’s the catch. Living in a digital age, we can easily be fooled by slick screens and interfaces.
But I like the process you describe better. And voting on a serialized PAPER certificate ballot is an impressive piece of fraud-fighting technology in itself.
It also reinforces the law that says We-the-People OWN our own government, and not some bureaucrat in Fulton County stuffing ballots in machines at 2 o’clock in the morning.
Aw, thanks! That’s why I chose this username (jobs like herding cats). Unfortunately, I keep getting accused of being a “cat lady” or called something that rhymes with “herd” which can be found in a cat box.
Yes, I’m a big fan of paper ballots. Georgia used to have them. At least I know they did some 20 years ago.
Certificate-type ballots with security features like banknotes (special paper with threads embedded, watermarks, etc) prevent stuffing with fake ballots. (I think they also emphasize how precious and important each vote is and how it deserves to be handled and counted with great respect and care.) Ditto the serial numbers. In one country, the serial numbers probably prevented a fraud.
Hmm. How to explain? Imagine Ukraine had implemented the Minsk Agreement, and before the breakaway areas of Donetsk and Luhansk were finally reintegrated into Ukraine, there was an election. In the breakaway area of each oblast the election was run by OSCE, and in the areas of those oblasts still under Ukrainian government control, the Ukrainian government ran it — with the combined ballots counted on the Ukrainian side after counted ballots from the OSCE side were added, with international observers watching and examining all documents. This was a similar situation.
My main job there was not electoral, but I was assigned to head up a precinct (got to wear different hats in my job, which I loved). The local electoral staff had been trained by some international outfit (not IFES, which is excellent), but not very well. They were rolling their eyes and sighing when I had them start on counting and recounting the fresh ballots (received from the government side) in the early morning hours and making sure the serial numbers were all in order. Oh, how tedious and boring! — until I found a fat gap in my stack.
When I alerted the team about it, they still had those bored expressions. I explained why it was so important, that if we had not caught it, the stinkers on the other side of the border could “find” and mix in those missing ballots, filled out with their favored candidates, and cheat. That got them all excited and revved up. We found two more gaps. The stinkers were foiled. Ha. The team was *on* and avidly performed all those boring and tedious tasks we had to do.
Another good thing about paper ballots is they can be sealed up in ballot boxes and stored in a secure location for a recount if needed.
You do get questionable ballots. In the elections I was involved in, technically, any ballot not filled in as directed in the instructions was a “questioned ballot” requiring the attention of a higher ranking election official present at the count. Often, it was simple: the voter circled the name of the candidate instead of marking an X on the box. Intent was clear. Some ballots, you can’t tell who in the world that person meant to vote for — just stray marks near the top edge of the paper way away from where candidates’ names are listed.
Observers were invited to examine any questioned ballots as they were ruled on and had the right to object if they disagreed with the ruling. If intent was clear, the ballot was counted for that candidate. If ruled unclear, blank, or whacky, it was added to the “questioned ballot” pile and not counted. At the close of counting, the questioned ballots were sealed in a separate packet and then sealed in a ballot box. If an observer had objected to the ruling, the questioned ballot was sealed in yet another envelope and sent up the line to the top level for a final ruling.
We all did our level best to figure out the intent of the voter and count the vote if we could. We never threw them into the “questionable” pile on a technicality.
But hey, it beats dangling chads!
CatHerd is right on this... other countries do better with protecting the sanctity of the vote. Shame on us.
Our system of voting makes the case political parties are honorable and no one would ever cheat. That's nuts.
Keeping our country free matters.
A computerized system of checking our votes in a possibility - but people who are 'voted' by scammers would be unlikely to check their votes since in their minds - they didn't vote. That said, it would intimidate people who do fraud. You're on the right track...