News & Politics - A Better Way to Vote?

Lexis · 12-04-2006, 06:12 PM

In light of all the election dramas, I thought this op-ed was interesting. What do you guys think?

Quote:

This month, as controversies emerged in other parts of the country over polling place problems and malfunctioning touch-screen machines, we here in Oregon prepared to swear in a new crop of elected officials with nary a question about the legitimacy of the count or the functioning of our electoral process. We accomplished this with a turnout on Nov. 7 that was, once again, among the highest in the nation. How? With Vote by Mail.

One episode that highlights its success occurred in Tillamook County, where 13 inches of rain on Election Day sent many citizens scrambling to the safety of shelters under a declared state of emergency. Despite the fact that many roads were impassable and parts of the county were inaccessible -- conditions that would have crippled turnout in a state that relied on conventional polling places -- 70 percent of the voters cast ballots. Only voting by mail could have led to this outcome.

Voting by mail was launched statewide through a people's initiative in 1998, which passed by a 70 to 30 percent margin. Every registered voter receives a paper ballot in the weeks before Election Day. The ballot can be either mailed back or dropped off at one of a number of secure sites statewide.

The system has proven to be fraud-free. Oregon is one of only two states in the nation to verify every single voter signature against the signature on that voter's registration card. Our process is transparent and open to observation. Finally, the returned paper ballots, which are the official record of the election, can be recounted by hand.

With voting by mail, Oregon's turnout is consistently among the highest of any state without same-day voter registration. We don't suffer with long lines at polling places, with voter harassment or intimidation, with fears about malfunctioning or easily hacked voting machines, or from lack of a paper trail. Even floodwaters don't keep voters from participating. Under Oregon law, mailed ballots are not forwarded if a voter has moved, and those returned ballots have allowed us to maintain one of the cleanest and most up-to-date registration lists in the country.

Voting by mail is also a cost-effective way to run elections, costing taxpayers about 30 percent less than polling-place elections.

A University of Oregon study conducted five years after the adoption of voting by mail statewide showed that 80 percent of voters across the political spectrum prefer it to voting at polling places. It's a system that answers the needs of Americans who lead increasingly busy, complex lives, balancing many work and family responsibilities.

Election days were originally scheduled on Tuesdays because that was when farmers brought their crops into town to sell. Today on an average Tuesday people balance multiple jobs, soccer practice and child care. Voting by mail gives them ample opportunity to stay engaged in our most crucial democratic process.

The foundation of our democracy rests upon the administration of free, fair and highly participatory elections. It's critical that Americans have faith in the security of their vote. Here in Oregon, with voting by mail, we have achieved those things and been able to assure voters that their votes count.

And if our elections aren't quite as exciting, or if the results aren't as likely to be disputed as some others around the country, well, we'll just have to live with that.

The writer is Oregon's secretary of state.

Bill Bradbury - A Better Way to Vote - washingtonpost.com

elisheva · 12-04-2006, 06:40 PM

That seems like a good idea. I'd be more likely to hold off on mailing the ballot in until the deadline, since you obviously want to have as much information as possible when you're voting. And if it increases voter participation, I think that's also a good thing.

Checking signatures rigorously is also great (even if it takes longer - i.e. they have to hire more temporary scrutineers) - the cost in time and salaries is worth it. Plus, there's a paper trail, which is good too.

**sunnykerr** · 12-04-2006, 07:08 PM

This sounds like a great solution, for all the reasons that have been pointed out already (higher percentage of participation, signature verifications, paper trail) and for the one that hasn't: lesser chance of hackers hacking into the system and changing the results. That's the thing that freaks me out about the new "voting machines." I don't even care what companies are donating to what parties, the fact that you can't actually verify that your vote has not only gone through, but gone through the way you intended it to, freaks me out.

Lexis · 12-07-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

A federal advisory panel approved a revised proposal that encourages states to use electronic voting machines that can be independently verified, a day after rejecting a similar recommendation.
ADVERTISEMENT

The resolution, adopted unanimously Tuesday by the panel drafting voting guidelines for the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, recommends that states use voting machines that produce a paper record or other means for voters and election officials to make sure ballots were properly cast and counted.

It suggests that when states buy new machines, they consider buying ones that include verification tools.

The vote came during a two-day meeting in Gaithersburg, Md., at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which issued a report last week that found paperless voting systems used by millions of voters nationwide could be vulnerable to tampering or glitches that could skew elections without detection.

The report said auditors should have a way to verify that the voting machines produced accurate results.

"If you have an error in an airplane and it goes down, you know it," said Ronald Rivest, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer scientist and panel member who proposed both versions. "If you have an error in an election and the wrong person is announced the winner, you may not know it."

The panel deadlocked 6-6 on Monday over the first Rivest proposal, failing to get the eight votes needed to pass.

The revised proposal Tuesday addressed concerns that state elections boards would be burdened by making broad changes in voting technology and that paper records might not be accessible to blind or other disabled voters.

It also concluded that threats to voting are not significant enough to force states without paper records to make immediate changes.

More than half of all voters used machines with paper records during the 2006 elections — either touch screen devices with printers or machines that read ballots voters fill out by hand. Twenty-seven states mandate verifiable paper records, while 18 use them in some or all jurisdictions but don't require them. Five states use equipment that does not have a paper record.

The Election Commission will likely vote in 2008 on the proposed changes, which are not binding, but are followed by many states.

Panel OKs revised electroic voting plan - Yahoo! News

Jacob1983 · 12-07-2006, 01:39 PM

I trust non-electric voting ways more than I trust electric voting ways. I think we should just stick with paper ballots and tell people to darken the box or cirlce of the candidate they want to vote for. Punching holes through a card is too complicated and it will always cause problems because of "hanging chads".

goodnightboy · 12-09-2006, 02:06 AM

Now it's a bit hard for me to say because I've never voted before (I'm too young to) but sometimes non-electronic, like what Jacob says, is better than electronic. To have voted for the wrong person because someone cracked the system and changed the votes, or having the vote lost somewhere...and all without a paper trail. It's scary.

The mail in thing sounds good, but I'm only afraid that people will lose the vote paper and thus won't be able to vote...or procastinating until it's past the deadline day. Plus, mail does get lost sometimes - I'm not saying it's very often, but that's a possibility. And everything else considered, it seems like the best way that I can think of right now to vote in leaders of a country.

flagpolesitta43 · 12-09-2006, 02:17 AM

Quote:

it seems like the best way that I can think of right now to vote in leaders of a country.

I agree...no voting system is going to be perfect, but so far I think this is the best idea. When it comes to voting we should keep it as simple as possible, and get rid of those electronic voting machines.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > A Better Way to Vote?