[EM] HR811 and Federal paper trail legislation

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:38 PM 5/24/2007, Chris Backert wrote:
>First, it was not my intent to exclude anyone from the discussion, but nor
>was it my intent to launch an intense debate on the merits of paper ballots
>and hand tabulation.

Where you sent your message (just to me) was your choice and I did 
not criticize it, I merely opted to include the others.... as to 
debate, again, my own purpose is not to debate but to explore. Again, 
your participation is optional.

>I was only trying to give my opinion that your comments were a bit brash and
>made without a thorough command of the issues at hand. For one, saying
>"can't we just use paper ballots" ignores the millions of American's who are
>unable to use paper ballots.

This is a total misunderstanding of the proposal. The use of paper 
ballots as a general proposal does not exclude the use of other 
options for special needs. The exact technology to be used for 
special needs voters will vary with the needs, and the option of a 
proxy or assistant remains beyond whatever direct voting equipment is 
used. My suggestion would be, however, that it all reduces to a paper 
ballot, whether directly marked by the voter or printed by a 
computer. The latter is not difficult, and user input is possible for 
anyone who can use a pointer of some kind. Maintaining full privacy 
for people with extreme loss of abilities is difficult, though, and 
sometimes won't be possible. Where it is impractical, including too 
costly, to provide special equipment matching the needs of the voter, 
voting should properly be provided through assistance by one chosen 
by the voter, and my impression is that this is currently the 
practice, it can be done with absentee ballots. In some jurisdictions 
(not in the U.S., I think), a disabled voter can actually name a 
proxy to go to the polls and vote on his or her behalf.

So what, exactly, does this have to do with my suggestions? Nothing, 
that I can see.

>If I could make a suggestion that rather than learning "by pointing out what
>makes no sense to [you]" and waiting for "some idiot" to tell you you're
>ignorant, you could research a topic or request information. I'd imagine you
>would be much more successful respectfully requesting information that
>demanding it from those who point out your lack of it.

You would be absolutely on point if I demanded anything of you. I 
didn't. What I wait for, when I write, is comment, whether from 
idiots or geniuses. I've been told I was ignorant by both. The 
latter, however, tend to be far more polite and informative, though 
there are exceptions, social misfits who nevertheless *are* very 
bright in some ways. It's still possible to learn from them.

I could, of course, do what Mr. Backert suggests: research the topic. 
It's highly inefficient, I've found. I do it when it's needed. It is 
far more efficient to see something, assert it in an environment 
where knowledgeable people are present, and then either find 
confirmation or correction. And, of course, a certain level of 
irrelevant and useless reaction from the others who are also present. 
Further, when I see something, frequently others see it too. We all 
benefit from what ensues from asserting it. Whether we are correct or 
not in what we think we see.

As to "respectfully requesting information," from whom? About what? 
When someone tells me I'm ignorant, but offers no guidance in the 
communication as what, specifically, I'm ignorant about, what error, 
specifically, I made, I have no basis for even asking, beyond ... "What?"

If I write something that "points out my lack of information," I'm 
doing what I see people do all the time on mailing lists.

>Your comment "I don't think you have the foggiest idea what you are talking
>about" much like the previous I responded to has no basis in fact.

It happens to be a true assertion. Parse it, if you can. I don't 
think you understood the proposals. Note, please, that I did not 
write, "You do not understand the proposals." You might. But you have 
not convinced me that you do, because you did not, and you have not, 
shown evidence of it, and even though you write as if your knowledge 
is comprehensive, you have not betrayed to me the topic on which you 
would be expert. You do, however, quoted below, show one piece of 
evidence that you actually know we are concerned with precinct size.

>Regardless, your own limited experience with paper ballots indicates some of
>the potential problems associated with paper ballots.

Sure. And I'm aware of far more. But the problems that I mentioned 
are also addressable and rather easily solved. As far as I've seen, 
voting machines introduce far more new and more difficult problems. 
And the cost is insanely high. Did you read the breakeven analysis 
that I wrote? I look now and see that it was sent only to Ms. Dopp, 
so I'm forwarding it to the Election Methods list, under the subject, 
Cost of Manual Counting vs. Machine Counting.

>I was not advocating any particular voting method (or technology). I was
>only pointing out that statements like "can't we just use paper ballots"
>don't solve anything and that the solution to these problems is not as
>"simple" as you may think.

Solutions are rarely as simple as we think. However, that is true of 
*any* solution. Mr. Backert has not graced us with any explanation of 
why we can't "just use paper ballots." Many jurisdictions do. Many 
countries do. Sure, there are problems with paper ballots. Why not 
address the problems directly? Counting, for example, can be done 
redundantly. Security can be enhanced, quite beyond what is possible 
with voting machines, using ballot imaging as I've suggested (public 
imaging is a separate proposal, actually), making redundant counting 
for more practical.

There is a complex of problems, and every solution will raise another 
potential problem. If one is considering a new solution, there *are* 
going to be problems with it. What happens is that as each new 
solution raises its head, someone is ready to chop it off because "it 
will have problems." It's like the old "Yes, But" game. And it goes 
nowhere. There is a reason why criticism is disallowed in 
brainstorming sessions, because criticism can be used to destroy any 
proposal before it receives adequate consideration.

It *looks* simple. Now, please, tell me why it is not. I do 
understand some complications, but not ones that are sufficient to 
make it impractical. Plus I already know that it's practical, because 
it has been done for hundreds of years....

>P.S. The most common jurisdiction for tabulation is at the county level,
>though this can be done at a precinct or polling place level. There are on
>average approximately 1,100 registered voters per precinct, though also on
>average 2 precincts per polling place. States average 62 counties and 3,500
>precincts each.

So each polling place would be roughly two thousand voters. How many 
voting positions are there? More to the point, how many voters in one 
election can one voting machine accommodate? Are there any figures on 
actual usage? That is, how many ballots, on average, are produced by 
one voting machine?

One problem with voting machines is that there are typically a 
limited number of them and they are expensive. With paper ballots, 
it's cheap and easy to set up more voting booths, though booths are, 
to me, not an absolute necessity, one could manage with a space with 
lots of tables widely separated, as in a school cafeteria, especially 
if there were a shield which could be made from a cardboard box. In a 
pinch. I'd rather have that than wait in line for an hour to get to a 
machine! Maybe if there were too many voters for the booths set up, 
volunteers could be taken to vote at the tables. You can do this with 
paper ballots, assuming you have enough pencils!

(I am not concerned about the privacy of voters who do not wish to 
maintain their privacy. In many other posts, I've addressed the issue 
of vote-buying and why it is not a serious problem, which is entirely 
aside from the question as to whether or not it should even be 
illegal. The crucial voter privacy is the privacy of the voter who 
does not wish to reveal to anyone the content of his vote as being 
his or hers personally. But if the voter wants to write his name as a 
write-in for some campaign, I'd not seek to prevent him. It's legal 
now! It would be nearly always harmless, and in the rare situations 
that it was not, there are better solutions than standing everyone on 
their head to try to make impossible what will never be impossible.)

In the ballot imaging proposal, ballot imaging could take place at 
the polling place level, that makes the most sense to me. Because the 
imaging does not require any equipment that is not widely available, 
it can be done on the spot and the physical ballots then sealed; they 
not be looked at again unless the images are lost or compromised or 
questioned. Reducing the handling of the ballots reduces many of the 
traditional risks of paper ballots. Images can be altered, though, 
without leaving a trace; yet images can also be rapidly copied, 
particularly if they are on a computer. So with the original ballots 
available in case of suspicion that images have been altered, plus 
with redundant imaging done by media and other observers, it should 
be come practically impossible to succeed at altering votes without 
detection and correction.

One fax machine should be able to handle all the imaging for a 
polling station. You'd have more for redundancy. Observers could use 
digital cameras. One high-capacity memory card could hold images of 
an entire polling station's worth of ballots. The camera option has 
the advantage of being no-touch, simplifying security, reducing 
handling of the original ballots.