From the Oregon Statesman Journal, comes the oddest letter to the editor ever. In the letter the author calls for the return to poll based voting, which is less vulnerable to fraud than vote by mail… which I agree with. But then calls for a return to voting machines made by ATM manufacturers, because, well ATM manufacturers must be able to secure money so they should be able to secure the vote.
Heck it makes sense to me! Except that Diebold, the biggest name in the voting machine business, and the one that launched the movement to oppose electronic voting machines, actually does manufacture ATMs.
But I don’t blame the author really, the person is simply concerned with voting integrity. It’s more a statement of the times really, voting activism is a fragmented group of individuals, experts more in the problems than the solutions. And this blog is an example of that same problem. It is far easier to be an expert in a “problem” than in the solution.
I, for one, support Precinct Based Optical Scan Ballots that retain a traditional poll site and a traditional polling day. I also support publicly owned open sourced software, and proper hand auditing of paper ballots against machine totals at the precinct level, and I support the move to make voting day a national holiday. And that’s just a few of the reforms that are needed.
It is my aim to spend more time working towards solutions than I have in the past as a voting activist, because until we as activists can all rally around some reasonable and rational solutions, the general public will continue to be confused. The first step to solving our national voting nightmare is to come together as activists, left and right, and come up with a plan we can agree on.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
The No Vote By Mail Project 
“I, for one, support Precinct Based Optical Scan Ballots that retain a traditional poll site and a traditional polling day. I also support publicly owned open sourced software, and proper hand auditing of paper ballots against machine totals at the precinct level”
In case you haven’t checked, your wish has already been commanded; especially the part about ‘at the precinct level’.
Well, it’s not really hand audited at the precinct level here in King County. Unless you explain your point further, I don’t really understand. Unless you mean to suggest that by counting ballots by precinct at the central count is somehow the same as hand auditing at the precinct before transimitting vote totals the county.
King County uses a centralized vote count and a GEMS tabulator. And no-excuse absentee ballots, soon to be forced vote by mail. All of this undermines any hand audit at the precinct level.
Or, maybe you should just explain yourself further. Because I don’t know what it is you want me to check without a link or something more.