overvotes and undervotes are tracked and published: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/2003-05/index.shtml#results i was assured by an elections worker that when a signature on their rols does NOT match that on a ballot that the voter is notified and asked to fill out a new voter registration card. i don't know what would happen if you sent in both of your ballots BUT i don't think you want to get caught doing it: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dbcs/elections/election_information/voter_registration_info.shtml Gunderson_Dane wrote: >Hey k, long time no rant... > >There are 150 years of dynamic safeguards built into the local trip to your >voting booth and just one of them is that the volunteers that did safeguard >the process are not beneficiaries of any voting issue. In our 'absentee' >elections we have only election officials assurances that foreseeable and >unforeseen issues do not arise. > >People do vote in predictable patterns regionally even in small elections as >in the Multnomah County tax increase where East County zip codes voted >against the measure in excess of 70%. I was not aware I could get >confirmation my ballot was counted. Is anyone else? If not how would any >pattern of regionally discarded votes be discovered? > >Is there site posting the relevant statistics? Percentages of signatures >rejected, voters registered that voted, percentages of invalid registrations >rejected, duplicates? felons? etc? I'm not aware of one but surely these >figures are kept? I am unsure that our absentee elections do in fact have >higher participation then our conventional elections did previously though >that seems likely. > >Pro-tax rallies were held in violation of existing, un-enforced, election >laws where 'thousands' of ballots were gathered from 'hundreds' of pro-tax >initiative attendees. Is it extreme to suggest enforcement of the law >against electioneers supporting your vested interest isn't likely? > >I've been married 2 years yet we still receive 3 ballots every election, yes >we return only two... But then, who's counting? > >Dane > >-----Original Message----- >From: T. Kenji Sugahara [mailto:sugahara@private] >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:39 PM >To: Crispin Cowan >Cc: warren@private; Marc Schuette; crime@private >Subject: Re: CRIME Electronic Voting Security > > >Crispin, > >There is an assumption that is being made here.... the assumption is >that the mail carrier knows which choices are made on specific ballots. > Otherwise, if the carrier misdirects mail from certain districts the >mail carrier could be misdirecting ballots that could be in favor of >the mail carrier's perspective. If there is a larger disappearance >from specific counties, then you could make the argument that there is >a higher statistical likelihood that ballots favoring one party would >more likely have disappeared. However, to have that much of an impact, >that sort of voter fraud would become apparent quite quickly (by >comparing historical voting records). In addition, tampering with >ballots themselves would be pretty apparent, and quite time consuming >for the individual hypothetical partisan carriers. > >In terms of voter intimidation, that still happens at both at and >outside the polls. For example, certain groups can be dissuaded from >voting by threats of force. Certain groups/individuals can be deemed >ineligible to vote though they are. > >In essence, both vote by mail and traditional voting methods have >positives and negatives. For me, I enjoy being able to vote from home >and not having to go somewhere to vote. > >k- > >On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 02:40 PM, Crispin Cowan wrote: > > > >>Warren Harrison wrote: >> >> >> >>>U.S. Mail is typically considered pretty tamper-resistent. In fact, >>>documents that are >>>classified as less than TOP SECRET (SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL) can be >>>sent via >>>U.S. Mail using some specific safeguards like not using mailboxes >>>(have to send >>> >>> >>Bizzare. The US Post is famous for losing mail. You'd have to be >>deranged to send something irreplaceable in the mail. Also, the threat >>of "will someone open & read this secret document in this plain >>envelope?" is a completely different threat from "will an irate >>democrat/republican/whatever letter carrier deliberately lose a bunch >>of clearly marked ballots from a specific county/neighborhood?" >> >> >> >>>it form a post office), using either Registered or Express mail, etc. >>>with a return >>>receipt. As long as the package doesn't go out of a USPS facility, the >>>assumption is pretty much that items are secure. Can mail carriers be >>>bribed? Sure, but at least they undergo background checks - the same >>>can't really be said for the "election observers" who volunteer to >>>watch >>>you and I vote when we do it in person. >>> >>> >>That makes no sense: election observers are provided from each party >>to provide checks & balances: they watch the ballots, and each other. >>The same is not true of letter carriers working alone. I would far >>rather have observation by 2 conflicting self-interested rascals than >>a single party of unknown loyalty. >> >> >> >>>Voters that want confirmation that their vote arrived can probably >>>send the >>> >>> >>The voter's interest is not to ensure that their own ballot got >>counted, but rather to ensure that all the ballots were counted >>fairly. A freakishly rare voter verification scheme that is only used >>by 1% of the voters (a wildly optimistic estimate) has no impact on >>election fairness. >> >> >> >>>You of course still can't do much about the controlling patriarch >>>that insists on >>>filling out his wife and adult children's ballot in vote by mail, but >>>because of the >>>signature, he couldn't send in the ballots without their >>>participation. Anyway >>>I have to figure that in 90% of such cases they have their family >>>members so >>>intimidated that if they load 'em up in their GMC and drag the family >>>down to >>>the polls they'll vote the way they are "supposed to" anyway. >>> >>> >>There are actual laws prohibiting spouses going into voting booths >>together. These laws are unevenly enforced, but they exist for that >>reason. >> >>Crispin >> >>-- >>Crispin Cowan, Ph.D. http://immunix.com/~crispin/ >>Chief Scientist, Immunix http://immunix.com >> http://www.immunix.com/shop/ >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 08:26:57 PDT