Every precinct in every state should only use PAPER AND PEN and hand count in the mid-terms.

[shraby]

It's the only way Russia can be kept out.
A campaign on the t.v. machine to have people check their registrations before the opportunity to register is closed before the election.

[blm]

1. And the counting needs to be done ON CAMERA with all tape preserved

.

[brooklynite]

2. Point to actual evidence that voting machines were rigged...

..and explain why, if voting machines could be rigged, they bothered with the Facebook spamming effort.

And if you imagine that paper ballot voting can’t be “hacked” do a search from “Russia ballot stuffing”

[shraby]

3. I don't need proof of hacking. Just knowing they were peeking and peering is enough to try toq

keep them out.

It would be very difficult to "stuff ballots" like was done in Russia.
Ballots are passed out here one at a time to a voter, they are numbered and need 2 initials from the poll workers on each ballot. Each one is signed for when receiving the ballot.

When hand counted, there are observers to watch from both parties. Nothing is fool proof, but only fools would want to use those machines that CAN be easily hacked.

[TheFrenchRazor]

8. this. nt

[TheFrenchRazor]

5. um, point to evidence that they weren't... oh yeah, there isn't any, because the ballots are

essentially invisible, and no comprehensive statewide hand-count/forensic exam of machines was ever done. i'm sorry, you're just a whole lot more trusting than i am, and yes physical ballot boxes can be "stuffed" but it's a lot harder to get away with a massive fraudulent reversal of the will of the people than it would be with computer hacking. and if you can't figure out the facebook angle, you're not trying very hard; obviously in any campaign, you want to be working multiple different angles to ensure a victory.

[mythology]

9. Actually I can point to evidence

Wisconsin counties that hand recounted showed no significant difference from counties that machine recounted.

The national polls in 2016 were closer than in 2012. But perhaps in 2012, the magical hackers were rooting for Obama or something.

But it's the people screaming claiming it is, whether it's Republicans about in person voter fraud, or Democrats talking about hacking vote totals that are making the claim. It's incumbent on the people making the original claim to support it with even the slightest bit of evidence. So far, as always, there is none because it's a baseless conspiracy theory.

[brooklynite]

10. The evidence I rely on...

...is the fact that NO losing candidate (up to and including Hillary Clinton), Party Official or Campaign Manager claims their loss was due to voter machine rigging.

[Persondem]

4. I prefer pens and optical scanners. All offline.

Makes the counting quick and if there's a problem you have the paper to do an "eyes on" recount. Counting a bunch of paper and pen ballots would be very time consuming for poll workers who have already been onsite for 12 hours.

[TheFrenchRazor]

6. no. paper ballots, hand-counted the first time. "offline" doesn't mean sh*t. nt

[Persondem]

12. Have you ever worked a busy polling place?

Offline means exactly what it means. I doubt the Russians can get to all the election boards in the country, break into 1000's of locked buildings with locked rooms just to reprogram a machine that has little to no programming at all and will be tested before being used.

Not sure why you want to be a jerk.

[yellowdogintexas]

14. "off line" in our county means a stand alone scanning vote counter.

If a person accidentally leaves an ink mark that makes a vote look double voted it kicks out. All the drive in the machine does is record the data, as the ballots are scanned. We check the machine count and compare it to the sign in count every 2 hours until the polls close to be sure the signature count and the ballot count match.

To really influence an election they would have to get in the building break in to hundreds of locked cabinets, unload them, break the codes on the briefcases which hold the escan and evote calculators and figure out how to mess with the drives, each of which is configured to the precinct it goes out to.

The keys to the cabinets are stored with the election judge's equipment box which we pick up separately and in fact the cabinets are delivered to the voting locations over the weekend between our pick up of the supplies and election day.

If I opened a brief case and saw the seals were broken on the briefcases I would call the Elections office and they would come out and replace it with different equipment. Any voters who came in would pick up a ballot, cast their vote and drop the ballot into a locked emergency bin. After the scanner is replaced, one of us would open the bin, run the ballots through the scanner and continue.

After we close the polls we disassemble the machines, lock the counters in the brief cases, put on new seals, record all the numbers, verify that the number of signed in voters equals the total of the scanned ballots, the spoiled ballots, the provisional ballots and the electronic ballots, lock the voted ballots into special boxes which are sealed and record all that. Everything then goes to the ELection pickup spot and is loaded on a truck. The judge has an envelope with duplicate tapes from the machines; it is sent home with him/her in case a recount is called.

Each of the little hard drives in the vote counters is dumped into a total vote drive.

I wish we could come up with a way to print out ballots during early voting that was cost effective. During early voting I can go to any location, give my precinct number and be handed an access code which will let me in and pull up the correct ballot. I just can't print it and then scan it into a bin. I would like that for recount purposes if needed.
I feel very confident in our system because the various components are not linked to one another or any other system and the information only goes from the individual hard drives directly into the total count. Anyone who wanted to mess with those scanners and counters would have to know the pass codes, break the seals, mess with the drives (and each one is specific to a precinct) get it all back in the cases and re sealed, lock the cabinets and somehow get the keys back into the supply kit for that precinct. There are 600 of those cabinets and kits. Oh yeah the summary sheets assigned to each precinct are pre printed with the original seal numbers on the briefcases so they would also have to have that for all 600 of the equipment sets. It would be very difficult to pull off.

[TheFrenchRazor]

7. yep. nt

[mythology]

11. Nope a waste of time and energy

There is zero evidence of any vote hacking. This is a baseless conspiracy and should be treated as such.

[Mopar151]

13. Compiling should be open-source

Vote totals posted at the polling place, every polling place - so the compiling of the vote can be easily audited.

I'd go further, and make election-night totals "provisional", and a hand count, from locked and guarded ballot boxes the next day, (or the necessary interval) the "offical" one.

[Retrograde]

15. my ca ballot will have at least 12 races

and that’s not counting state and local propositions. We could count race 1 manually, then go back and count race 2 etc, but that runs a risk of damaging or losing ballots. And it will take a lot of time - people complained during the 2016 primary that Los Angeles county was taking weeks to go through its millions of ballots.

Hand counting ballots is as susceptible to cheating as any other method.