Posted on 10/25/2004 3:10:40 PM PDT by focusandclarity
Swiss wants to improve American voting system
Swiss computer specialist Beat Fehr wants to export Switzerland’s voting system to the United States to make US elections much more reliable.
He argues that he could save the Americans millions of dollars, as well as promote confidence among voters that the elections are secret and secure.
"Swiss Voting System gives practical tips on how it works in Switzerland" caption to photo (SwissVS)
There is so much in the Swiss model that we could use. If we could only somehow turn the USA into one big mountain range we could be just like them.
Now let's see the Swiss advise us....
It uses very advanced technology called "paper" and "pens". The voter enters the booth, uses the "pen" to circle the candidate of his choice, which has been printed on a piece of "paper". That "paper" itself then becomes the record of his vote, his "ballot" so to speak.
After the polls have closed, "people" count the "ballots" and report the numbers accordingly. The "ballots" are saved somewhere secure so they can be re-checked if necessary.
There are no significant down-sides to such a system as compared with the way we do things currently.
Is there any indication that Kerry did make any promises? If not, I can't what the problem would be in looking a new voting system if it works. We've tried to computerize voting here in different states, but keep running into the same roadblocks. If this Swiss guy has been able to overcome those obstacles, what would be the problem with testing out his system here the way we test our systems?
We use foriegn technology all the time, this couldn't be any different.
I am all for trying out any new system that has been tested..what the Swiss don't have is a group of people trying to steal their elections anyway possible and that is part of our problem.
Second is the voter registration list which doesn't require proof of eligibility other than a statement by the person registering..8 hijacker terrorists just laughed at that and registered anyway..that needs to be fixed first.and next is how do you know when someone presents themselves that they are really who they say they are? Our system relies too much on honesty and as we can see that is not being followed. How many illegal aliens register and vote in the US? How many people vote more than once? How many dead people vote? How many incapacitated people have someone vote in their place unknowingly?
I'd like to see how the swiss do their voting right down to registering and identification...
LOL. If only we could do things this way. However, I live in Cook County, and have lived in Chicago half my life, and this system would just make life easier for Daley and his machine. However, it would probably work better in Florida than what we saw in 2000. Except for those circles that touched two candidates names. Now who did they mean to vote for? What do the Swiss do? If they just throw the ballot out then they DO have a better system.
All:
Ok, as far as advance technology I'll succomb to a "look see". As for Kerry making any promises...he did today to the Poles (after he slammed them a few weeks ago) I made mention about promises to the Swiss as pure sarcastic speculation.
I know how to do it:
Require positive ID of voters;
Outlaw machines;
Make an indelible "X" on a paper ballot;
Count the ballots where cast;
Let any & all watch the counting at the polling place;
Once counted, ballots placed back into the boxes & sealed;
Publish the results for each polling station, as well as overall totals, so those who watched the counts can check the 'official' result.
Cumbersome and slow, but sure.
Naturally, we would sacrifice "instant results", but that time lag is built into the Electoral College system anyway.
Manually-tabulated ballots do have some significant problems, most notably succeptibility to tampering. For a good voting system, the act of casting a ballot should alter some medium in such a way that any further alteration will constitute proof of malfeasance on the part of somebody running the election. Paper ballots do not satisfy this requirement, since even if a ballot is found to have been scribbled upon there's no way to tell that it wasn't done by the voter himself.
My personal preference is for a mechanical voting system based on either punched tapes (separate tape for each candidate, with punching done in such a way as to be seen through a viewing window) or sealed non-resettable counters (at the start of each election, the count values are logged; the difference between the logged value and the post-election value is the count). Using either system, I would design the machines to punch/increment "checksum" tapes or counters in such a way as to prevent "undervotes" from being turned into votes.
Such mechanical systems could offer considerable fraud resistance while providing reasonable ease of use. Ballot-box-validated marked-paper ballots would also be a reasonable system, but implementing a "checksum" there might confuse voters. Further, unlike computer-based systems which provide no good way for anyone to ensure that the system is really operating as it's supposed to, mechanical systems lend themselves much more readily to inspection.
No voting system can ever be immune to manipulation if the people running the system are corrupt. Seems to me that the easiest types of systems for Daley etc to manipulate would be paperless, receiptless computerized systems - a few keystrokes and thousands of votes are "switched". Second easiest are the types of systems most places have now - ballots are standardized machine readable cards. A dishonest (D) poll worker sticks an unfolded paper clip through a stack of 100 and voila, 100 instant "votes" for the (D).
Most difficult of all to manipulate would be my earth-shattering idea, paper ballots where people manually circle (or put an "X" next to, whatever) candidates' names. Mass ballot-punching would be impossible. Of if it were tried it would be instantly obvious and identifiable (imagine a stack of 100 ballots all with identical circles around the name "Kerry"). Ballots can be saved for re-counting to check against "official" tallies.
Yes, if a corrupt gangster is in charge of the ballots, he can have a batch "go missing", he can manipulate numbers, etc etc, but all that is true now anyway.
Like I said, there's no down-side as compared with the current system.
However, it would probably work better in Florida than what we saw in 2000.
Exactly. Florida 2000 is exhibit A. Seeing the bizarre spectacle of machine-readable ballots being hand-counted, one was left to wonder Why didn't we just use paper ballots & hand-count them in the first place? We should. In any election that's close enough, some judge is gonna force a hand-count anyway! Why not make the ballots more easily hand-countable? "Circle around name" or "X next to name" seems pretty difficult to mistake.
Except for those circles that touched two candidates names. Now who did they mean to vote for?
If it's obviously around one name and just 'touched' the other then you count it for name #1, of course. Initial tallies if questioned could be re-counted, and a bipartisan committee would examine all questioned ballots. (Kinda like Florida 2000.)
What do the Swiss do? If they just throw the ballot out then they DO have a better system.
Well yes, I take your point well, in that we need to move past this idea that every single ballot needs to be assigned a vote regardless of how horribly the voter marked it. People are going to have to grow up and accept that there is such a thing as a "spoiled ballot", that this ballot will not (and SHOULD NOT) be counted as a vote for anyone, and that this doesn't mean that the voter "lost their vote" or was "disenfranchised", just that they screwed up.
Yes, I wish people understood all that. But I'm not holding my breath (nor am I holding my breath for a paper-ballot system) :-) Best,
How about this. If you can write the name of who you want to vote for it counts (and spelling counts). And if not, it doesn't count. So we just need blank pieces of paper and pens. People can practice voting at home over and over again to get it right before doing the deed.
My rules:
-vote must be in pen
-for each voting attempt, circle around (or "X" next to) one name only with no extra marks
-Ballots found to be not satisfying these rules in the counting process are simply tossed out. Voters are cautioned not to submit ballots with extra ballot-spoiling marks when they drop them in the box.
-Voters in the process of voting who believe they've made a mistake may get a fresh ballot after submitting their mistaken one to be shredded publicly.
I believe this all would satisfy your concern, no?
The only remaining objection I can think of is that some poll worker decides to exploit my rule #3: spoil a bunch of opposing-party ballots by making ballot-spoiling marks on them.
-this would be extremely difficult & time consuming to do on a scale large enough to be even worth it
-and face it, some county's batch of ballots having 1000+ spoiled (R) ballots *would* be circumstantial evidence of fraud on the part of the election-runners, would it not? It beggars belief that 1000 folks are *all* going to coincidentally make the same "second mark" on their ballot, in the same place, with the same pen, with the same handwriting....
And how else would one engage in tampering?
the swiss cheese need to check the holes in their banks first. when they stop being bankers for terrorists, drug lords and other assorted criminals then they can speak.
Heh. You and I both know this would never pass muster, too "unfair". Heck there would probably be people who would declare, with no sense of irony or self-awareness, that this idea is "racist". ;-)
I would say that well-publicized "embarrassing" "or unfortunate" events of illegal aliens registered to vote (La Stupido), crooked groups registering illegally (George Soros, ACORN, ACT), 2000 attorneys (David Girly), and several politicians, UN, and media hacks (Lawrence "West Wing" O'Donnell, Dan Rather) would cure the problems instantly.
Many of our troops abroad will be highly POed if the are disenfrachised like in 2000 but this time while under fire.
I for one am working on "ROGUE'S GALLERY" voter fraud websites that will have photos, names, addresses, offices, locations, and much more -
The government, ACLU, and the media protect these scumbags -
I will turn the bright lights on them
There are many who will joyfully contribute names, info, photos, details, ideas, etc.
Call me "Mr. Sunshine"
How about this. If you can write the name of who you want to vote for it counts (and spelling counts). And if not, it doesn't count.
Heh. You and I both know this would never pass muster, too "unfair". Heck there would probably be people who would declare, with no sense of irony or self-awareness, that this idea is "racist". ;-)
I think we both know that the Democrat's charges of fraud, intimidation, ballots not counted properly, people disenfranchised, etc. are all just a bunch of wind (ie. BS). Their objective is to inflame and anger people to get them to vote their way and to taint any election that is close and doesn't go their way. I don't think there was anything wrong with the voting in Florida in 2000 that isn't wrong else where. This was one of those cosmic events that everyone thinks will never occur that does (kind of like 4 out of 5 down years in the market happening again after the 30's). No system is perfect. There will always be problems. Nixon had a lot of legitimate beefs in 1960. This is all about power and how to get it and how desperate you are for it. What can the Swiss teach us about this? Nothing, I think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.