not to argue the point but there are a number of steps in the process that make it MORE difficult to tamper with a mail-in election than we think: if you notice on the ballot envelope (the outside one not the secrecy) there is a barcode that is specific to your ballot - all ballots are scanned as they come into the elections office. signatures on the outside envelope are matched on all ballots and if there is a non-matching sig the elections office will notify that person of the error . the secrecy envelopes are opened under observation and there is no way to identify a ballot (dem/repub/other) at this point - after they are opened they are fed through the counting machines and tabulated. you can call the elections office and they can tell you if you were sent a ballot and if they received a ballot back from you - they cannot tell you how you voted only if they got a ballot from you (there is an assumption that it was counted correctly if you did NOT hear from teh elections office that your ballot was NOT counted). just some general broad strokes but it seems there are multiple checkpoints where fraud MIGHT be discovered. you (anyone) can observe this process during a ballot count. call the elections offices and ask to go on a tour that night. Crispin Cowan wrote: > Andrew Plato wrote: > >> Oregon, however, is in good hands. As you may known, Anitian was >> > I don't buy that. No criticism of Anitian; rather Oregon's vote by > mail system is woefully vulnerable: > > * Simple mail fraud. > * Coercion: there is no evidence that individuals are no coereced to > vote particular ways by family members, enforcement goons, or > bribery. > * There is no VVAR (Voter Verifiable Audit Record) of any kind. In > fact, the voter has no evidence at all that their vote was counted. > > So how is it that Oregon is "in good hands"? > > Crispin >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Sep 11 2003 - 13:16:50 PDT