Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Election Reform

Stevepol

(4,234 posts)

16. It's not enough to just have a paper trail.

Reply to tecelote (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 1, 2015, 07:58 AM

Sep 2015

There needs to be an audit of the vote based on a certain percentage of the vote using randomly selected precincts. This is the only way disparities can be found. If the variance between the supposed "actual" vote and the "audited" vote in the randomly chosen precincts is beyond a certain limit (based on the margin of victory), then a much larger portion of the vote should be hand-counted. If that too shows great variance from the supposed actual vote, then the whole election should be recounted.

We must VERIFY THE VOTE!!!

It's not possible to have a democracy without verifying the vote. Only then can the voter be assured that the vote result is more or less correct.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What if we had an election without electronic voting machines? [View all] Stevepol Sep 2015 OP

I believe optical scan machines with paper were recommended after the Gore/Bush fiasco. Skwmom Sep 2015 #1

optical scan: best of both worlds eniwetok Mar 2016 #28

Yes, Massachusetts distrusts voting machines, which is why we went to paper ballots after 2000. Why merrily Sep 2015 #2

Keep in mind that polls are also suspect now Stevepol Sep 2015 #6

I understand that. However, I repeat: anyone who thought Coakley won is dreaming, at best. merrily Sep 2015 #7

Dream or not, you might want to check out Simon's work. Stevepol Sep 2015 #11

Why would I? It's moot. Besides, merrily Sep 2015 #12

In fairness, I have to add that Coakley was a good Attorney General and ran a merrily Sep 2015 #17

it is not moot. it happens everywhr questionseverything Sep 2015 #20

Polls were always suspect. They are designed more to shape opinion than to determine what it is. merrily Mar 2016 #30

Coakley ran a terrible campaign.. eniwetok Mar 2016 #29

There were many reasons, but, IMO, this is not the time or the thread for that postmortem. merrily Mar 2016 #31

Were exit polls consistent with the reported results? n/t PoliticAverse Sep 2015 #3

There were none. Stevepol Sep 2015 #8

No news organization did exit polls, but an exit poll apparently was done. merrily Sep 2015 #18

are we reading the same article? questionseverything Sep 2015 #21

Are you sure this article refers to a rigorous exit poll? Stevepol Sep 2015 #22

I knew what you were quoting from. Is Simon supposed to be infallible? Even IF the exit poll that merrily Sep 2015 #24

I appreciate your points. It does seem that Simon ignored a well-done exit poll. Stevepol Sep 2015 #25

As I stated upthread, if you want to discuss the importance of a clean vote, availability of merrily Sep 2015 #26

Voting machines should be absolutely, and publically, verifiable. tecelote Sep 2015 #4

It's not enough to just have a paper trail. Stevepol Sep 2015 #16

there are so many ways to rig an election questionseverything Sep 2015 #19

How many others have wondered why dhol82 Sep 2015 #5

There is a paper trail in many cases, just no "audit" Stevepol Sep 2015 #9

Wall St Candidates Wouldn't Win billhicks76 Sep 2015 #10

I strongly agree with you. Stevepol Sep 2015 #14

HANDS ON VOTING!!! ellennelle Sep 2015 #13

The only conclusion one can reach is both parties want it that way zeemike Sep 2015 #15

I am convinced that both parties want it that way also. Once you accept that it is not GoneFishin Sep 2015 #23

This is why I'm against ranked choice voting. SaveTheMackerel Feb 2016 #27

but... eniwetok Mar 2016 #32