I'm not all that familiar with it either. It was off the top of my head and its been a long day.
Essentially, I think the computer method is fraught with risk. Driving home from a recent election I worked out a scheme which I thought at the time was bullet-proof. You know how those "great ideas" sound initially.
As I recall, when the voter was determined to be entitled to vote, the voter would be given a serialized paper ballot and the serial # would be checked off on a separate list - the # would not be recorded with the voter's name.
The ballot would consist of a top original with a second copy that was a faithful reproduction of the voter's markings on the top form; i.e., a state of the art carbon copy, etc. Both forms would bear the same serial #. The voter would place the voter's choice of either in one of two unmarked boxes that were on two unmarked tables that were monitored by two unmarked individuals - who were appointed by the two major parties (there would be no need for other tables for other parties).
Such a procedure would seem to ensure a reliable counting, auditing and reconciliation process.
terycarl's variation of that scheme sounds good but it could raise issues when the monitors had to take a potty break.
Your thoughts?
I’m kind of jumping in here, but I have one major concern with giving voters copies of their completed ballots: it undermines the principle of secret ballot voting. Anyone wanting to buy votes could make payment conditional on receiving the voter’s copy of the ballot with the correct names marked.
That said, it could be accomplished in much the same way by having the voter shoot a photo of their completed ballot in the booth.
Just a thought.
In my district, each voter has to sign in on the line with their name and address on it to prevent double-voting. The number of ballots turned in needs to EXACTLY match the number of signatures and the boxes holding the completed ballots need to be sealed and tamper-proof. Every election place needs to have video surveillance (which can be purchased somewhat cheaply) and a single individual needs to be responsible for the integrity of that particular polling location. Any irregularities would be grounds for the arrest and prosecution of that one person and then the entire vote for that precinct/district would be nullified and a re-vote would be scheduled within 30 days. The re-vote wouldn’t allow for absentee voting and would require identification since that area would have been red-flagged as a “potential fraud zone” requiring additional scrutiny and security.
Of course, this would only apply to areas using paper ballots. Electronic balloting (with an internal paper receipt in each voting machine) would be preferable and there should also be a back-up system where individual registered voters could get online and see if there’s a record of their vote or not. If they didn’t vote and there is a record (or if they did vote and there’s no record), they could call ‘fraud’ and start an investigation.
BUt I firmly believe that the first step in any process of cleaning things up is to wipe out all voter rolls completely and require everyone to re-register and include a thumb print and a photo and signature. Felons could be weeded out by the thumb print, dead people would be un-registered, things would get better, though no election will be absolutely perfect.
That’s my 2 cents off the top of my head.