• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Poll Workers Struggle With Vote Machines (1 Viewer)

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This entire mess was predictable.
It really is both easy and at the same time difficult to use these machines.
Easy if the individual voter recognises the difficulties involved in selection of candidates name, difficult if the voter does not realise the possible problems.
Most folk who vote have fingernails on the end of their fingers, if one is not extremely careful the finger nail can trip the name of the candidate above that which the voter actually wishes to select.
This is but one of the many problems that can be experienced.
It boils down to a lousy designed machine.
Link

http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsst...0061107/455012d0_3421_13345200611071350577399

At the very least it should be possible to design these machines in such a way that a paper receipt is given after the voter has voted.
But no, our dear Politicians want the act of voting to be as hard as possible for the greatest number of people and as little paper trail as is also possible.
Such is the 'urge' to promote democracy in the electronic age!
 
As Vote Nears, Parties Prepare for Legal Fights

If it was a plot in a comedy film it would be laughable, unfortunately it is the death knell of American experimentation with DEMOCRACY.
Jujuman13.

By IAN URBINA
WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 — A team of lawyers for the Democratic Party has been arguing with postal officials in Columbus, Ohio, trying to persuade them to process thousands of absentee ballots that have arrived with insufficient postage.

In Pennsylvania, the Republican Party has opened a “recount account” and set aside $500,000 to pay lawyers who will answer telephones on Election Day and monitor polls to see whether officials demand proper voters’ identification. In Maryland, lawyers representing candidates for senator and governor from both parties met recently and swapped cellphone numbers and e-mail addresses to smooth out the logistics of potential litigation.

Several days from what Republican and Democratic campaign strategists expect to be a close election, the legal machinery of a messy fight is shifting into high gear.

Democrats say they are most concerned that voters will be prevented from voting by long lines or poll workers’ demanding unnecessary forms of identification.

Republicans say they are guarding against ineligible people trying to vote.

The parties are sending their largest concentrations of lawyers to states with the tightest races like Maryland, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. Most of them are unpaid volunteers, though many from large firms are working pro bono to meet their firms’ expectation for hours of public service.

On Saturday and Sunday, hundreds of the 7,000 lawyers who are working on the election for the Democratic National Committee will board planes for Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio and 13 other states.

Their task is to reinforce local teams where party officials say they there is the greatest potential for long lines, voter intimidation or confusion at the polls and where they may need to file court petitions to keep polls open late.

“We’re not going to make the mistake we did last time, which was to wait until after the election for litigation,” said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party.

That party has spent $250,000 in legal fees on suits over new electronic voting machines and a voter identification law. The Republican National Committee is shipping out 150 lawyers on Monday to help hundreds of local lawyers in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee and other states answering phones and working at polling stations policing against voter fraud.

“What is unfortunate is that it appears Democrats are following their playbook from 2004 and alleging voter suppression where it does not exist, in an effort to launch a pre-emptive strike,” said Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.

It is not just parties gearing up.

In its largest mobilization ever for a non-presidential election, the Justice Department will dispatch about 800 lawyers to potentially troubled polling locations in 65 cities in 20 states to ensure voting rights laws are obeyed.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the N.A.A.C.P. and the People for the American Way Foundation will jointly have 2,000 lawyers fanning out across 20 states.

Though unwilling to provide numbers, the executive director of the Republican National Lawyers Association, Michael B. Thielen, said his organization had received many requests for extra lawyers to be sent to Missouri and Pennsylvania.

Aside from new voter identification laws, new voter registration databases and so many close races, the rollout of electronic voting equipment provides an unusually high potential for suits during and after the election.

Lawyers have complained about electronic machines in Texas and Virginia that are cutting off some candidates’ last names on a summary page.

Florida, South Carolina and Texas, have had reports of electronic machines showing the wrong name when a voter presses a button for a candidate.

In Colorado, a federal judge deemed the new touch-screen machines insecure and unreliable and ruled that they not be used again, raising the likelihood that lawyers will contest the legitimacy of the results on Tuesday.

“Both sides are lawyering up,” said Doug Chapin, director of the nonpartisan Election Reform Information Project. “Election night is not necessarily the finish line anymore.”

Election litigation has grown since 2000, reaching 361 suits in 2004, up from 108 in 1996, according to Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The Hotline, a political newsletter, noted the trend, commenting, “We’re waiting for the day that pols can cut out the middleman and settle all elections in court.”

Nathaniel Persily, a professor of election law at the University of Pennsylvania, said Democrats were responding to the election problems of 2000, when they felt outmatched by Republican lawyers in Florida.

Lawyers and voting experts say they are especially watching the states with new voter identification laws, where they expect the laws to cause confusion and possible contention. Some of the new laws, in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Missouri, are being litigated. Voting rights groups in those states say they intend to interview people turned away because of a lack of proper identification.

In St. Louis, a lawyer directing the Democrats’ legal efforts, Shonagh Clements, said she was prodding officials to obtain credentials for 300 lawyers, many of whom she plans to train on Sunday to work as poll challengers.

“We’re doing a lot of sprinting just to get through the weekend,” Ms. Clements said.

In Maryland, the pace is similarly frenetic. This week, Democratic lawyers have been combing through a Republican manual for poll workers acquired by a Democratic operative that gives instructions on aggressively challenging voters’ credentials. Aside from looking for illegalities in the document, Democrats have been writing a manual to counter the Republican booklet, instructing their poll workers how to watch for overzealous Republican poll watchers.

Officials from both parties say Maryland is ripe for litigation and voting problems because the governor has voiced skepticism about the dependability of electronic voting machines.

As a result, a record number of voters have filed absentee ballots.

Experts say those are more susceptible to fraud and demands for recounts.

“Unfortunately, the Maryland Democratic Party wants to have this election decided in the courts, with their 400 roving attorneys,” said Audra Miller, spokeswoman for the Republican Party.

Ms. Miller, without providing numbers, said her party planned to mobilize its largest fleet of election lawyers.

Many states with the new voter identification laws encourage poll workers to have voters without proper identification use provisional ballots.

More than 30 states do not count provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct.

Demos, a nonpartisan organization that studies election issues, calls ballots that election officials allow to be cast but have no intention of counting placebo ballots. The group predicts that in close elections the rules for counting provisional ballots could lead to legal cases.

A elections expert with the Century Foundation, Tova Wang, said lawyers of all stripes were trying to figure out how to handle the high- and low-tech problems that are difficult to document like lost computer data or backups at polling stations.

“How do you litigate a long line?” Ms. Wang asked. “For people who can’t afford to wait for hours, long lines essentially take away their right to vote. But litigating it is nearly impossible.”

Mary Ellen Gurewitz, a lawyer in Detroit for the Michigan Democratic Party, which is dispatching 800 lawyers statewide, said she hoped to catch the problem in advance.

“Many more votes are lost from incompetent election administration than voter suppression,” Ms. Gurewitz said. “So we’re going to minority neighborhoods in Detroit, Lansing and Flint, because that’s where we know the Republican challengers will try to contest voters’ qualifications.”

Her lawyers, Ms. Gurewitz added, will be trained to encourage poll workers to set up the polling places to reduce problems like lines for voters that are divided by precinct rather than all voters gathering in a single long line.

Lawyers for the Michigan Republican Party have been photocopying fill-in-the-blank boilerplate forms if they have to go to court on Tuesday to challenge interpretations of election laws.

Fifty of the party’s 200 volunteer lawyers will staff a phone bank at party headquarters in Lansing to take complaints before calling the teams of 10 to 15 lawyers to respond from one of 10 regional centers.

Sean D. Hamill contributed reporting from Pittsburgh.
 
Is your position still the same since the democrats won?
 
jamesrage said:
Is your position still the same since the democrats won?
An excellent question. Four days ago, the democrats were making all kinds of noise about machine irregularities and such. Funny how none of them are following up on that now. :lol:
 
CurrentAffairs said:
An excellent question. Four days ago, the democrats were making all kinds of noise about machine irregularities and such. Funny how none of them are following up on that now. :lol:

They seem to get egg on thier faces quite regularly like that.
 
jamesrage said:
Is your position still the same since the democrats won?

You know, you're just going to have to live with the eternal uncertainty that democrats may or may not have taken control of Congress by hacking into the voting machines. Of course, we could always recount the votes, but then, the companies who made the machines made that impossible. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

Am I to take it that you disapprove of electronic voting machines now?
 
Adrian said:
You know, you're just going to have to live with the eternal uncertainty that democrats may or may not have taken control of Congress by hacking into the voting machines. Of course, we could always recount the votes, but then, the companies who made the machines made that impossible. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

Am I to take it that you disapprove of electronic voting machines now?
Count me as one who completely approves of electronic voting. I approved when the republicans won and I approve now the democrats won. But their hypocracy on this issue is undeniable.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Count me as one who completely approves of electronic voting. I approved when the republicans won and I approve now the democrats won. But their hypocracy on this issue is undeniable.

Well, okay, that's cool. At least you admit that Democrats are morally incapable of election fraud.
 
Adrian said:
Well, okay, that's cool. At least you admit that Democrats are morally incapable of election fraud.
I'lll thank you to not put words in my mouth, sonny. I siad I didn't believe it happened...this time or last. You can make up your own mind about morals.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
I'lll thank you to not put words in my mouth, sonny. I siad I didn't believe it happened...this time or last. You can make up your own mind about morals.

I assure you that I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. It only seemed logical that if a)electronic voting machines were infallible, and b) voting machines have proven themselves to be prone to tampering again and again, then c)Democrats are above election fraud. Which of my premises are incorrect?
 
Adrian said:
I assure you that I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. It only seemed logical that if a)electronic voting machines were infallible, and b) voting machines have proven themselves to be prone to tampering again and again, then c)Democrats are above election fraud. Which of my premises are incorrect?
Saying I admitted something which I never did....that premise was totally incorrect.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Saying I admitted something which I never did....that premise was totally incorrect.

Alright, so which premise was correct?
 
Adrian said:
You know, you're just going to have to live with the eternal uncertainty that democrats may or may not have taken control of Congress by hacking into the voting machines. Of course, we could always recount the votes, but then, the companies who made the machines made that impossible. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

Am I to take it that you disapprove of electronic voting machines now?
These morons making these claims of election fraud or possibility of election do not really believe there is actually any fraud,it is nothing more than a miserable sore looser attempt at trying to discredit Bush,because the Michael Morons and the Cindy Peebrains in the world will believe such nonsense.
 
It isn't just a tampering concern.

The other problems with some electronic voting machines is that there is no paper trail. With these machines, the voters cannot verify that their votes have been recorded accurately and there is no way to do a recount. That problem not only still exists, it is a more widespread issue now that more and more states/localities have gone to using these machines.

Then there is the issue of the machines that malfunction during the course of the voting, and the votes cannot be tabulated, as happened in FL this election.

Since there are circumstances that require a recount, it is unacceptable to use machines that don't allow a recount to be done.

This is not a Dem vs Rep issue, it's an issue of compromising the integrity of the electoral system. My position hasn't changed one bit.

Until the technical problems with electronic voting machines are ironed out, and all of them provide a paper trail that enables voters to verify that their vote has been recorded accurately as well as providing a way to do a recount, these machines will continue to be unacceptable to me.......no matter who wins. Fortunately for me, NY doesn't use electronic voting machines. NY refused to accept them because the companies couldn't address the problems.

Not everything is a partisan issue.
 
NYStateofMind said:
It isn't just a tampering concern.

The other problems with some electronic voting machines is that there is no paper trail. With these machines, the voters cannot verify that their votes have been recorded accurately and there is no way to do a recount. That problem not only still exists, it is a more widespread issue now that more and more states/localities have gone to using these machines.

In the old days we voted with lever machines that had no paper trail and no one complained. We now use the optical scanners which work just fine and do have the paper ballots which can always be re-run through the machines. I can' tverify at the time I vote that my vote for candidate A went to candidate A other than the two "beeps" which mean the machine didn't have a problem reading my ballot and there are no over-votes.

Then there is the issue of the machines that malfunction during the course of the voting, and the votes cannot be tabulated, as happened in FL this election.

Is it a matter of we've just made them too complicated for a problem that didn't exist?

Since there are circumstances that require a recount, it is unacceptable to use machines that don't allow a recount to be done.

We couldn't do it with the old lever machines except take all the totals and add them up. What is done is a quantity of test votes are entered and then checked to see if they are recorded correctly. But that's why I like the optical scanners it is no problem to run the ballots all back through the machine.
 
Stinger said:
In the old days we voted with lever machines that had no paper trail and no one complained. We now use the optical scanners which work just fine and do have the paper ballots which can always be re-run through the machines. I can' tverify at the time I vote that my vote for candidate A went to candidate A other than the two "beeps" which mean the machine didn't have a problem reading my ballot and there are no over-votes.
We still use lever machines. While it's true that there is no paper trail, it is a mechanical system that you can see. I'm not thrilled with the lever machines either, they have a high number of errors, around 7% I believe. We need new machines, but we need to make sure that they are not worse than what we have.


Stinger said:
Is it a matter of we've just made them too complicated for a problem that didn't exist?
Oh no, the problems exist. See above.....is 7% error acceptable? No, I don't think so. It's just that I'm not convinced that some of the machines that have been developed so far are better, particularly the touchscreen systems. It's not acceptable to create 10 more problems while solving 2.



Stinger said:
We couldn't do it with the old lever machines except take all the totals and add them up. What is done is a quantity of test votes are entered and then checked to see if they are recorded correctly. But that's why I like the optical scanners it is no problem to run the ballots all back through the machine.
The optical scanners seem to be a better system than the touchscreen system. There are still technical problems that crop up though.

I think we were in too big of a rush, and the companies haven't done enough quality control. When electronic companies develop new systems, they normally go through a process of testing the systems, not just once, but multiple times with a gradually increasing test set. It seems that this process has not been followed with these systems. Can you imagine a bank accepting an ATM system with this many problems?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom