Posted on 11/05/2002 6:14:00 AM PST by I still care
Poll Problems Reported In Central Florida Ballots Being Put In Box To Be Hand-Counted In Gotha Posted: 7:59 a.m. EST November 5, 2002 Updated: 8:34 a.m. EST November 5, 2002
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Poll problems have been reported at two polling locations in Central Florida Tuesday, according to Local 6 News.
Local 6 News reported that the scanners were not working at the Gotha Precinct 101 in Orange County, Fla.
Voters were putting their ballots in a box to be hand-counted, according to the report.
The scanners also are not working at the Port St. John precinct #159 in Brevard County or at precinct #116 in Seminole County at the St. Albins Church on State Road 426, according to reports.
Watch Local 6 News for more on this breaking news story.
Observers To Watch Elections In Florida
The Justice Department has dispatched more than 400 people to monitor polling places in 14 states, including Florida, on Election Day to ensure compliance with federal voting laws.
The observers are watching for any signs of discrimination based on race or problems encountered by the disabled, as well as whether all eligible voters are able to cast a ballot. Widespread voting problems were reported in 2000, particularly in Florida where the results delayed by a month the declaration of a presidential winner.
In all, 432 observers, including 108 Justice Department lawyers and other personnel, will monitor elections in 26 counties.
Courts have ordered federal observers in seven counties, with another eight assigned observers because they are in areas covered specifically by the Voting Rights Act.
These counties are: Apache and Navajo in Arizona; Randolph, Georgia; Wayne, Michigan; Adams and Amite, Mississippi; Passaic, New Jersey; Bernalillo, Cibola, Sandoval and Socorro, New Mexico; Kings and New York, New York; Titus, Texas; and San Juan, Utah.
These observers, sent by the federal Office of Personnel Management, will be overseen by 38 Justice Department officials who will maintain contacts with local election officials should problems surface.
Seventy other Justice Department officials, most of them civil rights attorneys, will monitor elections in: San Francisco; Waterbury, Conn.; Broward, Duval, Miami-Dade, Orange and Osceola counties, Fla.; St. Louis; San Juan County, N. M.; Queens County, N.Y.; and Reading, Penn.
Complaints about possible discrimination in voting can be made to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division at (800) 253-3931.
"This is one Libertarian who is voting Republican until the day when the two major parties are Republican and Libertarian. Down with the party of Slavery!"--AndyTheBear
Take meaningful action, everyone. Don't opt for a strut in the yard.
Defeat The Party of Slavery! Throw the Democrats out of office!
DO NOT FALL FOR THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA'S "DON'T BOTHER TO VOTE" PROPAGANDA BLITZ!!!
GET OUT THE REPUBLICAN VOTE!!!
FELLOW LIBERTARIANS, VOTE REPUBLICAN!!! THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH!!!
"Everyone..VOTE...POST UP SIGNS...DRAG YOUR NEIGHBORS TO THE POLLS!"--rwfromkansas
It may be a foolproof way to vote, but the handcounting of those votes makes it extremely easy to cheat.
Such a system would also help in weeding out illegal voters. In close elections, contested precincts would have to account for each and every voter, and cross-reference them to lists of eligible voters.
The problem I've always had with the current system is that, once you vote, you have NO WAY of proving that you voted, or for whom, or that your vote registered correctly. The machine could be misaligned, or tampered with, or they could 'lose' your ballot. And I'm sure this has happened too many times to count, all across America.
If we can match airline passengers to their luggage, surely we can match voters to their votes, right? It has to be better than the current system.
Voting must be anonymous. If it isn't, guys like Sadam will get the 100% of the vote.
Peach, this really depends on the way the counting is managed at the polling station. I've worked elections here in Toronto in the past and the system used is so simple it's practically foolproof. Allow me to elaborate...
We use good old paper ballots with the candidates names in huge type and a big circle beside each one for an "X" or checkmark, either is allowed but the X is the preferred standard. The ballot is placed in the box under the observation of two election officials. In each polling station are representatives of each official political party, but their role is strictly to observe. They are not permitted to speak to voters in any way shape or form that might be construed as councilling their vote. Violation of this rule is grounds for immediate removal from the facility under orders of the Returning Officer who is selected and trained by Elections Canada, an arms length agency with representation from all parties. Police are available should a party worker ignore the directions of the Returning Officer.
When the polls close the ballot box is emptied in front of all people in the polling station; election workers and party observers. The ballots are unfolded by one worker who calls out the voter's selection and displays the ballot so it can be seen by all present. Another worker records the vote on a master sheet, again in the presence of all in attendance. The ballots are very tightly controlled and at all times visible during the count. Party workers stand in a position where they can see everything but not close enough to be able to touch or handle a ballot in any way. It is virtually impossible to screw around with this process. It may sound primitive but it works.
One difference in our election procedures that I've noticed from that of The U.S. is that your system seems to rely more heavily on actual participation of the parties in the whole affair, whether that be running the electoral commissions or actually registering voters. Again, we use Elections Canada for this (the process of renumeration) and keep the parties completely out of it. I recall during the Floriduh fiasco in 2000 watching the recount and being stunned that you actually allowed party workers to handle the ballots. Attempting to touch a ballot at a Canuck polling station would result in immediate expulsion from the building, by a police officer if necessary.
I realize that there are quite often many more ballot initatives and propositions voted on during an American election than is usual in Canada, and that has often been suggested to me as the reason for a greater reliance on electronic or mechanical voting machines down there. I grant that this fact could make the use of paper ballots somewhat more cumbersome, but the fact remains that machines can be tricked or outright fail. IMO, the process of an election is so critical to the health of a nation that the convenience of a voter or electoral worker should be secondary to the need for a reliable and fraud-proof process of voting and tabulation. Politicos just cannot be trusted to leave their bias at the door if they are working a poll. I've threatened a number of party workers from various parties with sanction at polls and always been backed up by those in charge.
Paper ballots and hand counting may seem old fashioned and time consuming, but when done right can go a long way towards cementing the legitimacy of a vote. I can't believe that Americans put up with some of the nonsense I've read about here on many occaisions.
Have a great election day and here's hoping for a GOP led House and Senate!
And there's no reason it can't STILL be anonymous. If public-key encryption were used, then vote talliers could use their public key to decrypt the vote without knowing who cast it. Even when doing recounts, it doesn't have to be disclosed who voted for whom, only that they did or did not vote, and how many people voted for each candidate.
If people can't prove they voted, and verify that the person they voted for was accounted properly in the tally, then fraud will always be with us.
That's how I voted this morning. Blacken the oval beside the candidate you wish to select. So simple.
I don't recall ever hearing about that. It might be possible given that an averge polling station should be able to complete a count within that amount of time and reporting and tabulation is done locally and then reported up the chain but that's all theory in my head.
We often have recounts in individual ridings when they're close, and they follow the same rules as an original count but may have more observers for certainty, but I can't recall ever having a situation that would require a nationwide recount. Sounds like a rumor to me but anyone's free to clarify.
Have a good election!
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.