Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
By law and common sense the name has to be legible and correctly spelled. This is not rocket science, any lessening of those two requirements would lead to even MORE voter fraud problems.
Bubble machines are different then hole punch machines (which are the ones that can produce a "hanging chad".
There are no chads to hang on bubble ballots. If you don't understand the basic functioning of different systems, then you can't intelligently argue against them.
Bubble machines are not fool-proof either. a Manuscript of an individual is. Why do you think the Police want you to sign the tickets? Banks want you to sign your checks?...etc..the methods of using the written Signature and Manuscript are tried and true.
Electoincs can be damaged if you accidently spill water on them or drop them, potentiallly losing all the data on the hard drive of said computer touch screen gadget. VERY stupid idea in your state indeed.
1. Voters are not allowed to carry food or drinks to the voting machine in any state I've ever witnessed (5 at this point in my life).
2. Voters are not allowed to carry voting machines around in any state I've witnessed.
Who set up the machines? or did they walk out there on their own and set themselves up? Human error is everywhere when it comes to computers. get a clue. so many voters walking in the door, anybody can knock over a machine by accident. or the people who set them up can drop them by accident. Shit happens ya know. remember the hanging chad?
So far your "options" are garbage to compared to mine. no 2 hand-writings are the same. just like a fingerprint.
Which is exactly what generated the arguments from trying to "interpret" handwriting in the Alaska 2010 write in campaign. Republicans were trying to disqualify another Republican, just imagine what happens when the Dem's get involved.
Write-in the candidates name on all ballots, dumbest idea ever.
>>>>
Not dumb at all. way more fool-proof than any mentioned.
Bubble machines are different then hole punch machines (which are the ones that can produce a "hanging chad".
There are no chads to hang on bubble ballots. If you don't understand the basic functioning of different systems, then you can't intelligently argue against them.
Bubble machines are not fool-proof either. a Manuscript of an individual is. Why do you think the Police want you to sign the tickets? Banks want you to sign your checks?...etc..the methods of using the written Signature and Manuscript are tried and true.
Who set up the machines? or did they walk out there on their own and set themselves up? Human error is everywhere when it comes to computers. get a clue. so many voters walking in the door, anybody can knock over a machine by accident. or the people who set them up can drop them by accident. Shit happens ya know. remember the hanging chad?
So far your "options" are garbage to compared to mine. no 2 hand-writings are the same. just like a fingerprint.
Which is exactly what generated the arguments from trying to "interpret" handwriting in the Alaska 2010 write in campaign. Republicans were trying to disqualify another Republican, just imagine what happens when the Dem's get involved.
Write-in the candidates name on all ballots, dumbest idea ever.
>>>>
Not dumb at all. way more fool-proof than any mentioned.
1. I never said machines are foolproof. They are however more accurate then having an army of vote counters in a backroom trying to figure out the scribblings of millions of different people.
2. Optical scanning (Bubble Ballots) don't have hanging chads.
3. The idea that you think that thousands, probably 10's of thousands of people spread all over the country trying to interpret the chicken scratching of 100,000,000 people voting is going to be more accurate then a properly designed physical or electronic machine system is - well scary. The Bubble System is way better then either the Punch Ballot (the one with the hanging chads) or manual write-ins (as shown from the Alaska lesson).
I'm not sure how useful this discussion is though, you have indicated that the Bubble Ballot resulted in hanging chads - which is impossible for that style of ballot.
>>>>
Definitely keep the voter ID. that's how they get in line.
But how costly is it to have some ball pens on the table that they already have when you walk in? You already have to sign your name on the voting roll anyway.
People sit for 10-15 minutes trying to decide their choices anyway. so where's the cost?
I think given the absolute seriousness of THIS election, it's crucial all the votes are counted, counted properly and counted accurately. and distinct signatures do just that. hanging chads don't. and whose to say this election won't be cluttered with hanging chads again?
Have you ever spent much time trying to read other people's handwriting?
Why does that even matter moron? It's not a fucking speling test we're after. It's the validity of the voter in the gotdamn booth.
You have to sign when you walk in the gotdamn door and show your license anyway. Do you think they give a shit how your handwriting looks at that point in the process? no. so why the fuck should it matter when you cast your vote?
the fraud comes in at the time of the fucking vote counting, not at the time of the actual vote. and just by default of a person signing in when they walk in with their DL or voter ID is the proof that you are a legit voter, not when you sit there and cast your vote.
Printed Handwriting is a way better idea than just hanging your hopes on a hanging chad fiasco again. Remember Bush2? He stole a second term like that. and I'm almost positive Obama supporters will try the same shit since he's on his way out.
have you ever spent much time trying to read other people's handwriting?
why does that even matter moron? It's not a fucking speling test we're after. It's the validity of the voter in the gotdamn booth.
You have to sign when you walk in the gotdamn door and show your license anyway. Do you think they give a shit how your handwriting looks at that point in the process? No. So why the fuck should it matter when you cast your vote?
The fraud comes in at the time of the fucking vote counting, not at the time of the actual vote. And just by default of a person signing in when they walk in with their dl or voter id is the proof that you are a legit voter, not when you sit there and cast your vote.
Printed handwriting is a way better idea than just hanging your hopes on a hanging chad fiasco again. Remember bush2? He stole a second term like that. And i'm almost positive obama supporters will try the same shit since he's on his way out.
by law and common sense the name has to be legible and correctly spelled. This is not rocket science, any lessening of those two requirements would lead to even more voter fraud problems.
Have you ever spent much time trying to read other people's handwriting?
Why does that even matter moron? It's not a fucking speling test we're after. It's the validity of the voter in the gotdamn booth.
You have to sign when you walk in the gotdamn door and show your license anyway. Do you think they give a shit how your handwriting looks at that point in the process? no. so why the fuck should it matter when you cast your vote?
the fraud comes in at the time of the fucking vote counting, not at the time of the actual vote. and just by default of a person signing in when they walk in with their DL or voter ID is the proof that you are a legit voter, not when you sit there and cast your vote.
Printed Handwriting is a way better idea than just hanging your hopes on a hanging chad fiasco again. Remember Bush2? He stole a second term like that. and I'm almost positive Obama supporters will try the same shit since he's on his way out.
you really aren't very bright, are you.
I bet this poll didn't turn out nearly how you wanted it to, did it?
Bubble machines are not fool-proof either. a Manuscript of an individual is. Why do you think the Police want you to sign the tickets? Banks want you to sign your checks?...etc..the methods of using the written Signature and Manuscript are tried and true.
Who set up the machines? or did they walk out there on their own and set themselves up? Human error is everywhere when it comes to computers. get a clue. so many voters walking in the door, anybody can knock over a machine by accident. or the people who set them up can drop them by accident. Shit happens ya know. remember the hanging chad?
Not dumb at all. way more fool-proof than any mentioned.
1. I never said machines are foolproof. They are however more accurate then having an army of vote counters in a backroom trying to figure out the scribblings of millions of different people.
2. Optical scanning (Bubble Ballots) don't have hanging chads.
3. The idea that you think that thousands, probably 10's of thousands of people spread all over the country trying to interpret the chicken scratching of 100,000,000 people voting is going to be more accurate then a properly designed physical or electronic machine system is - well scary. The Bubble System is way better then either the Punch Ballot (the one with the hanging chads) or manual write-ins (as shown from the Alaska lesson).
I'm not sure how useful this discussion is though, you have indicated that the Bubble Ballot resulted in hanging chads - which is impossible for that style of ballot.
>>>>
Questions for you:
1. Do you want to do away with hand-counting ballots? why? when it works and cuts down on fraud?
And so what if the backroom got 15-30 vote counters, THAT'S 15-30 JOBS!!...ain't that the goal of getting people back to business in America?
2. I agree, but it's still not foolproof. do you have any ideas that are as foolproof as a Manuscript?
Remember the hanging chad?
the scaner can miss a bubble ya know? not dark enough, etc...
3. So you are against job creation?
So I take it that YOU believe, Bubble Ballots are the way to go and continue going?
I respectfully disagree.
Ballots are not hand counted now.
Even in a recount, ballots are just rerun through the machine to compare and re-tabulate the totals. The only ones hand counted are those that are rejected by the machine and those with write-in candidates.
Those are liberal types of low-paying temporary jobs. I'd prefer to create higher paying high tech jobs. Such as manufacturing for the ballot machines and repair and calibration technicians.
Relying on 10's of thousands of vote counter to interpret human chicken scratching is the least foolproof. Above that is the Punch Ballot. The most reliable is the Bubble Ballot - without going to full electronic ballot machines.
So your position that the "Manuscript" (BTW did you just learn that word today for this thread) would be the least foolproof is off.
Yes it's the reason Punch Ballots have been pretty much rejected as a voting method (although there are probably still some that use them.)
typically not a problem with the scanner, that's an issue of the idiot not completing the circle.
Where I vote, after scanning, you walk up the scanning machine and insert your ballot. It accepts or rejects it on the spot. If all circles are completed correctly, it accepts it. If a circle is left blank it accepts it (there is no requirement to vote for each line). If however a circle is not darken enough or only partially filled in, the ballot is returned to the voter for correction.
Don't try to put words in my mouth, it only makes you look stupid.
Relying on 10's of thousands of vote counter to interpret human chicken scratching is the least foolproof. Above that is the Punch Ballot. The most reliable is the Bubble Ballot - without going to full electronic ballot machines.
So I take it that YOU believe, Bubble Ballots are the way to go and continue going?
Bubble over Punch and handwritten? Absolutely.
Continue going? That's more difficult. I think they are the best alternative in the near future, but I think in the next 50-100 years we will see voting conducted in a much different manner. I think the move will be first toward electronic voting machines. We've already seen that trend, and I think in the next 5-10 years you will see them perfected. Those will reign supreme for a number of decades eventually being replaced by what you and I would call internet voting based on public/private cryptographic keys backed up by biometric verification.
I respectfully disagree.
It's a free country, you are free to have a bad idea.
>>>>
Yeah I am trying to understand how the handwritten ballot would trump the bubble ballot as far as avoiding fraud. I had no idea that is what they were called. Thanks WW. lol
when you say "bubble ballot" you are talking about the darken the circle kind right?
that's the one where the hanging chad came into play. they apparently ran their bubble ballots through a machine that punched holes in their circles and missed one, causing the hanging chad. maybe I'm wrong but that's what I thought it was. it wasn't the lever style voting booth that caused it was it? not sure.
Ballots are not hand counted now.
Even in a recount, ballots are just rerun through the machine to compare and re-tabulate the totals. The only ones hand counted are those that are rejected by the machine and those with write-in candidates.
That doesn't answer the question. nice dodge though.
Those are liberal types of low-paying temporary jobs. I'd prefer to create higher paying high tech jobs. Such as manufacturing for the ballot machines and repair and calibration technicians.
Can't do that when since Reagan and NAFTA, CAFTA, etc...those high tech jobs are now in India and Turkey. gotta work with what you got left.
Relying on 10's of thousands of vote counter to interpret human chicken scratching is the least foolproof. Above that is the Punch Ballot. The most reliable is the Bubble Ballot - without going to full electronic ballot machines.
So you are against job creation. nuff said.
So your position that the "Manuscript" (BTW did you just learn that word today for this thread) would be the least foolproof is off.
Yes it's the reason Punch Ballots have been pretty much rejected as a voting method (although there are probably still some that use them.)
It's not working.
typically not a problem with the scanner, that's an issue of the idiot not completing the circle.
Human error. thanks for proving my point further.
Where I vote, after scanning, you walk up the scanning machine and insert your ballot. It accepts or rejects it on the spot. If all circles are completed correctly, it accepts it. If a circle is left blank it accepts it (there is no requirement to vote for each line). If however a circle is not darken enough or only partially filled in, the ballot is returned to the voter for correction.
So convinced it's foolproof. I get it. but it's not.
Continue going? That's more difficult. I think they are the best alternative in the near future, but I think in the next 50-100 years we will see voting conducted in a much different manner. I think the move will be first toward electronic voting machines. We've already seen that trend, and I think in the next 5-10 years you will see them perfected. Those will reign supreme for a number of decades eventually being replaced by what you and I would call internet voting based on public/private cryptographic keys backed up by biometric verification.
What about a chip in your hand with your voter ID info on it? would you like that? would that be cool?
I respectfully disagree.
It's a free country, you are free to have a bad idea.
>>>>
And you're foolishly free to think Bubble scans are foolproof.
Yeah I am trying to understand how the handwritten ballot would trump the bubble ballot as far as avoiding fraud. I had no idea that is what they were called. Thanks WW. lol
when you say "bubble ballot" you are talking about the darken the circle kind right?
that's the one where the hanging chad came into play. they apparently ran their bubble ballots through a machine that punched holes in their circles and missed one, causing the hanging chad. maybe I'm wrong but that's what I thought it was. it wasn't the lever style voting booth that caused it was it? not sure.
Nope. My ballots are just ovals I color in with a black marker given to me by the election worker. Nothing there to cause "hanging". I honestly do not believe the ballot gets a hole punched in it at the machine I place it through but maybe someone who knows more about that detail than I do can let you know.
Ballots are not hand counted now.
Even in a recount, ballots are just rerun through the machine to compare and re-tabulate the totals. The only ones hand counted are those that are rejected by the machine and those with write-in candidates.
That doesn't answer the question. nice dodge though.
Actually it did answer the question. You asked if I wanted to do away with hand counting of ballots.
Ballots are not hand counted, they are counted by machine. The only ones counted by hand are those rejected by the machine and probably absentee ballots and for them it still depends on the form of the ballot.
Even no "recounts" the ballots are not hand counted, they are re-run through the machines for a second tabulation and again the only ones hand counted are those that, for some reason, are rejected by the machines.
So you start with a false premise, that the majority of ballots are now hand counted. They aren't.
There are plenty of high tech jobs here, you just need the education for them. They tent to be better paying longer lasting then the type of job you are talking about which are tempoary (1-2 weeks) to count election results.
That's a lie and no where near what I said.
I agree, punch ballots didn't work very well. Neither would the idea of hundreds of millions of voters writing by hand their candidates name in and then having 10's of thousands of people count them on a national scale.
So your solution is to reduce human error on the count of the voter by introducing more humans into the system my asking humans to decypher what a human wrote?
That makes no sense.
I didn't say it's foolproof. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, it makes you look weak.
I said comparatively that hand written ballots would be the least foolproof, above them are punch ballots, and above them are bubble ballots. That is not saying bubble ballots are foolproof - just better then the two options you present.
You didn't ask what I would like, you asked what I foresaw in the future.
A hundred years from now my grandchildren's, grandchildren will have a much different view of the mature information age then those of use who saw it's first beginnings.
Again, please don't lie. I didn't say that bubble ballots were foolproof, it said they were better than the two alternatives we've been talking about which are punch ballots and the idea that hundreds of millions of voters should be writing in the names of their candidate then requiring the inject of 10's of thousands more humans into the system to hand interpret the "voters intent" from the ballot.
>>>>
That doesn't answer the question. nice dodge though.
Actually it did answer the question. You asked if I wanted to do away with hand counting of ballots.
Ballots are not hand counted, they are counted by machine. The only ones counted by hand are those rejected by the machine and probably absentee ballots and for them it still depends on the form of the ballot.
Even no "recounts" the ballots are not hand counted, they are re-run through the machines for a second tabulation and again the only ones hand counted are those that, for some reason, are rejected by the machines.
So you start with a false premise, that the majority of ballots are now hand counted. They aren't.
No, I asked you do you want to do away with hand counting ballots? you still have not answered the question.
There are plenty of high tech jobs here, you just need the education for them. They tent to be better paying longer lasting then the type of job you are talking about which are tempoary (1-2 weeks) to count election results.
Awesome.
That's a lie and no where near what I said.
I agree, punch ballots didn't work very well. Neither would the idea of hundreds of millions of voters writing by hand their candidates name in and then having 10's of thousands of people count them on a national scale.
So your solution is to reduce human error on the count of the voter by introducing more humans into the system my asking humans to decypher what a human wrote?
That makes no sense.
I didn't say it's foolproof. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, it makes you look weak.
I said comparatively that hand written ballots would be the least foolproof, above them are punch ballots, and above them are bubble ballots. That is not saying bubble ballots are foolproof - just better then the two options you present.
You didn't ask what I would like, you asked what I foresaw in the future.
A hundred years from now my grandchildren's, grandchildren will have a much different view of the mature information age then those of use who saw it's first beginnings.
Again, please don't lie. I didn't say that bubble ballots were foolproof, it said they were better than the two alternatives we've been talking about which are punch ballots and the idea that hundreds of millions of voters should be writing in the names of their candidate then requiring the inject of 10's of thousands more humans into the system to hand interpret the "voters intent" from the ballot.
>>>>
So we are back you hating on job creation, again. If you're gonna flip flop go take gymnastics.
Clearly having hand counted ballots does two POSITIVE things, that your Bubble Scanning idea doesnt:
1. Cuts down tremendously on voter fraud
2. Creates jobs regardless of how long they last. that's still a damn check.
Everybody doesn't have the schooling to get a high tech job your crying about. that's part of the problem. displacing people who don't have high education that obviously can be put to work at this time of year, at the very least. and make good money at it. better than nothing.
That doesn't answer the question. nice dodge though.
Actually it did answer the question. You asked if I wanted to do away with hand counting of ballots.
Ballots are not hand counted, they are counted by machine. The only ones counted by hand are those rejected by the machine and probably absentee ballots and for them it still depends on the form of the ballot.
Even no "recounts" the ballots are not hand counted, they are re-run through the machines for a second tabulation and again the only ones hand counted are those that, for some reason, are rejected by the machines.
So you start with a false premise, that the majority of ballots are now hand counted. They aren't.
No, I asked you do you want to do away with hand counting ballots? you still have not answered the question.
There are plenty of high tech jobs here, you just need the education for them. They tent to be better paying longer lasting then the type of job you are talking about which are tempoary (1-2 weeks) to count election results.
Awesome.
That's a lie and no where near what I said.
I agree, punch ballots didn't work very well. Neither would the idea of hundreds of millions of voters writing by hand their candidates name in and then having 10's of thousands of people count them on a national scale.
So your solution is to reduce human error on the count of the voter by introducing more humans into the system my asking humans to decypher what a human wrote?
That makes no sense.
I didn't say it's foolproof. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, it makes you look weak.
I said comparatively that hand written ballots would be the least foolproof, above them are punch ballots, and above them are bubble ballots. That is not saying bubble ballots are foolproof - just better then the two options you present.
You didn't ask what I would like, you asked what I foresaw in the future.
A hundred years from now my grandchildren's, grandchildren will have a much different view of the mature information age then those of use who saw it's first beginnings.
Again, please don't lie. I didn't say that bubble ballots were foolproof, it said they were better than the two alternatives we've been talking about which are punch ballots and the idea that hundreds of millions of voters should be writing in the names of their candidate then requiring the inject of 10's of thousands more humans into the system to hand interpret the "voters intent" from the ballot.
>>>>
So we are back you hating on job creation, again. If you're gonna flip flop go take gymnastics.
I didn't flip-flop nor did I anywhere indicate that I had job creation, I said I prefer to create long term higher paying jobs as opposed to temporary jobs where people are hired for 3-4 days ever two to four years.
Over a 4 year Presidential cycle would you prefer job creation where people 260 days per year (2080 hrs per year / 8 hours per day) verses 6-8 days out of 1460 days (4 year cycle).
Clearly having hand counted ballots does two POSITIVE things, that your Bubble Scanning idea doesnt:
1. Cuts down tremendously on voter fraud
2. Creates jobs regardless of how long they last. that's still a damn check.
It's not "my bubble scanning idea", it the most common form of voting currently used.
Hand counting v. machine ballots had nothing to do with the person casting the ballot and wouldn't be relevant in terms of voter fraud. What hand counting each and every ballot with a hand-written candidates would do would introduce 10's of thousands unskilled, low pay, temporary employees into the equation and I would predict the number of votes miscounted would skyrocket.
Everybody doesn't have the schooling to get a high tech job your crying about. that's part of the problem. displacing people who don't have high education that obviously can be put to work at this time of year, at the very least. and make good money at it. better than nothing.
Psst - those jobs are already there because most voting is done already via machine readable ballot. What you propose, by mandating that all voting be done by write-in ballot, would mean the loss of more manufacturing jobs and the jobs for the people that currently maintain those system replacing these solid, long term jobs with jobs where people gett paid for 6-8 days out of ever 4 years.
I must say though that the idea of employing people 6-8 days in a minimum wage job every for years and calling it "making good money" is a pretty liberal position.
You're not thinking it through.
>>>>
Actual voter fraud occurs 0.0006% of the time.EVERYBODY that votes needs to write in your candidate's name on the sheet.
Whether it's Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or WHOEVER.
Write their names in. It only takes a half a minute to write somebody's name so don't act like it's a gotdamn chore. unless you don't care if your vote counts or not and would rather put that responsibility in the hands of the voting machines and the dolts that run them. way too much possibility of fraud when those 2 factors determine your final choice.
So it might as well be YOUR handwriting in INK.
That way it's no excuses, no mix ups, not undercounted votes, no fraud, and definitely no gotdamn hanging chads
Do you agree?
Actually it did answer the question. You asked if I wanted to do away with hand counting of ballots.
Ballots are not hand counted, they are counted by machine. The only ones counted by hand are those rejected by the machine and probably absentee ballots and for them it still depends on the form of the ballot.
Even no "recounts" the ballots are not hand counted, they are re-run through the machines for a second tabulation and again the only ones hand counted are those that, for some reason, are rejected by the machines.
So you start with a false premise, that the majority of ballots are now hand counted. They aren't.
No, I asked you do you want to do away with hand counting ballots? you still have not answered the question.
Awesome.
That's a lie and no where near what I said.
I agree, punch ballots didn't work very well. Neither would the idea of hundreds of millions of voters writing by hand their candidates name in and then having 10's of thousands of people count them on a national scale.
So your solution is to reduce human error on the count of the voter by introducing more humans into the system my asking humans to decypher what a human wrote?
That makes no sense.
I didn't say it's foolproof. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, it makes you look weak.
I said comparatively that hand written ballots would be the least foolproof, above them are punch ballots, and above them are bubble ballots. That is not saying bubble ballots are foolproof - just better then the two options you present.
You didn't ask what I would like, you asked what I foresaw in the future.
A hundred years from now my grandchildren's, grandchildren will have a much different view of the mature information age then those of use who saw it's first beginnings.
Again, please don't lie. I didn't say that bubble ballots were foolproof, it said they were better than the two alternatives we've been talking about which are punch ballots and the idea that hundreds of millions of voters should be writing in the names of their candidate then requiring the inject of 10's of thousands more humans into the system to hand interpret the "voters intent" from the ballot.
>>>>
So we are back you hating on job creation, again. If you're gonna flip flop go take gymnastics.
Clearly having hand counted ballots does two POSITIVE things, that your Bubble Scanning idea doesnt:
1. Cuts down tremendously on voter fraud
2. Creates jobs regardless of how long they last. that's still a damn check.
Everybody doesn't have the schooling to get a high tech job your crying about. that's part of the problem. displacing people who don't have high education that obviously can be put to work at this time of year, at the very least. and make good money at it. better than nothing.
Personally I am not pleased that the US government is the largest employer. I want LESS government in our lives.
Could you show me where the Bubble scanning of ballots has shown to be full of voter fraud?
Actual voter fraud occurs 0.0006% of the time.EVERYBODY that votes needs to write in your candidate's name on the sheet.
Whether it's Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or WHOEVER.
Write their names in. It only takes a half a minute to write somebody's name so don't act like it's a gotdamn chore. unless you don't care if your vote counts or not and would rather put that responsibility in the hands of the voting machines and the dolts that run them. way too much possibility of fraud when those 2 factors determine your final choice.
So it might as well be YOUR handwriting in INK.
That way it's no excuses, no mix ups, not undercounted votes, no fraud, and definitely no gotdamn hanging chads
Do you agree?
That is so rare, it's an issue not even worth discussing.
>
BTW - the poll results are interesting.
1 Vote Best Idea Ever - even though the OP will probably deny it, it was proabably his vote.
1 Vote for Good Idea
8 Vote for Bad or Worst Idea ever
*****************************
So OP with 80% of the votes against your idea, who do you think is making more sense?
Or are you somehow going to try to claim "victory" when only one other person thought you had a good idea?
>>>>
