How hard can voting be? Really?

[Grizzly]

I admit that the model I'm working from - Canada - is different in one crucial respect from that of the US. Here the federal election is managed across the country and in all constituencies by one agency, Elections Canada.

But even in the most densely populated ridings ("counties"), the counting is done in less than an hour.

A polling place may have several polls. The whole works are managed by a returning officer and a deputy. Each poll has a deputy and a clerk. There is a voting list, people are asked to supply identification and are given a ballot. The ballot is torn off of a numbered pad (to track how many ballots were given out. Your name is crossed off the list as having voted. You go and check your candidate's name and fold the ballot. The clerk signs the back to denote that he/she has accounted for the ballot and you put the bloody thing in the box.

The ballots are a list of names. On the left of the ballot is a black area with circles within which you are free to make just about any mark you desire, as long as it is just one mark and one name...

Polls close, the ballots are tallied and counted. The unofficial tally is called in to Elections Canada, the boxes closed and sealed by the Returning Officer... voila.

What's so hard about that? Why the need for sophisticated voting machines?

----
Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
Mountains will be in labour, and an absurd mouse will be born.

[Humphrey]

Hey alot of money went into the Voting machines that don't work. We are proud of them! :-P

[Gerrsun]

Perhaps Canada should invade us and institute free elections for everyone here ....


I, for one, would welcome our new flannel-wearing masters and would like to take this opportunity to offer my services as a snitch. :P

[Lurker]

Hey alot of money went into the Voting machines that don't work. We are proud of them! :-P
Only in America can we proudly make such statements!! 8)

[Parrothead]

While ballots are being tallied, ballots can be challenged by "scrutineers" picked from workers for candidates in the riding. I do agree marking an "x" on the ballot makes counting easy. There are differences to the US. In their elections, they are not only voting for their choice of Pres/V.P., some are also voting for Senators, members of Congress and propositions (on a variety of issues) put forward at local? and state levels.

[Candy]

I just voted. =D>
There were no lines. 8-[
The location was a school I have never heard of less than a mile from my home. :-?
The lady beside me had really bad breathe. :evil:
The voting machine was not working, so I had to stick my punch hole ballot in a big box. :o
I did get a sticker for my time, which reads, I VOTED. 8)
Now, maybe I can finally sleep before work tonight. :D

[Humphrey]

Don;t worry. At work nobody will be doing work, but instead watching TV listening to how X Candidate is suing Y candidate because Z happened to Nancy Sue in B state due to C harrasing them or N screaming at them.

Then we will see Y candidate suing X candidate becasue they see X candidate as trying to hinder their election/re-election with their speach to Q group of people one hour before polls closed thus stopping that group from voting and cousing him the vote of the state. .

[pumpkinpie]

I just voted. =D>
There were no lines. 8-[
The location was a school I have never heard of less than a mile from my home. :-?
The lady beside me had really bad breathe. :evil:
The voting machine was not working, so I had to stick my punch hole ballot in a big box. :o
I did get a sticker for my time, which reads, I VOTED. 8)
Now, maybe I can finally sleep before work tonight. :D

No lines for me either, at about 8:30 this morning! We had the touch screen computer system. SOOOOO easy!

I'm not making a partisan statement here; we have the same "problem" this side of the pond, IMO. But, couldn't our leaders [Prime Ministers or Presidents] be elected on the popular vote? It might even eliminate "It's a wasted vote!" type excuses?

Well done Candy by-the-way.. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

[Grizzly]

While ballots are being tallied, ballots can be challenged by "scrutineers" picked from workers for candidates in the riding. I do agree marking an "x" on the ballot makes counting easy. There are differences to the US. In their elections, they are not only voting for their choice of Pres/V.P., some are also voting for Senators, members of Congress and propositions (on a variety of issues) put forward at local? and state levels.

Been there, done that through 2 Quebec referendums. But the bickering is over whether a mark should be counted or not and the rules (except for the last referendum) are pretty clear.

Federally, it's true, there is only one set of votes, but provincially and locally (civic) there can be several.

Here in Alberta we had a mayoral, aldermanic, school trustee votes on the same day. Different coloured ballots, different boxes to stuff them into. Tres simple.

Are there legal battles? Sure. Some are bizarre - someone ate his ballot, another group broke in to a polling station in NB and threw the box into the ocean. But hanging chads? Not federally at least.
----
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
We are slaves of the law so that we may be able to be free.

[Humphrey]

I'm not making a partisan statement here; we have the same "problem" this side of the pond, IMO. But, couldn't our leaders [Prime Ministers or Presidents] be elected on the popular vote? It might even eliminate "It's a wasted vote!" type excuses?

Well done Candy by-the-way.. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>I agree on the popular vote.

With elections coming down to literally only a few thousand vote difference nationwide. The idea behind the electoral college has become out of date and not truely what should be happening.

The argument that if we got rid of the electoral college, then some states with small populations will be missed does not work anymore. First of all with national numbers so close, every state does count now. Also if the state was considered to vote heavily one way or another before, then they were rarely visited anyways by the politicians with the current system. Now they will have to to eek out every vote from a divided populace.

So instead of trying to get the most votes to win the electoral vote, now they have to get the most votes period. A heck of alot more democratic.

[Candy]

Well done Candy by-the-way.. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> pumpkinpie, too! :wink:

[A Thousand Pardons]

With elections coming down to literally only a few thousand vote difference nationwide. The idea behind the electoral college has become out of date and not truely what should be happening.

I'd disagree on that.

The argument that if we got rid of the electoral college, then some states with small populations will be missed does not work anymore.

The electoral college gives more weight to states with a small number of voters. I heard stats this morning that Wyoming has one elector for every 200,000 voters, whereas California has one for every 600,000 voters. The reason for that is, Wyoming has only one Representative (based upon population) but three electors, so their proportion is about three times greater. But that's the system that the states agreed to, when they agreed to be states. Change the constitution, if you like, but the original argument still holds up. And of course, California still gets way more electoral votes than Wyoming--and Wyoming only gets two "extra," just like California.

Maybe every state should get one vote? Yeah, that's the ticket. :)

[Andromeda321]

On my lunchbreak as a a pollworker in an Ohio swing state where punchcards are still used. I have the ever exciting job of taking off stubs and putting ballots in the ballot box. Sounds boring but as of 1pm we had 300 people voting ( :o ) and had a line running from 630 to 1030 nonstop. Some people were lined up at 530 outside our polling place to vote even though we weren't opening for an additional hour!
We also had stickers which I had the job of distributing but those ran out at 1000 or so.

Where, over there, you have "Electoral Colleges" we have "Constituencies"; either way, the aruments here are the same in principle: small places imagine they will, somehow, be underrepresented if they are made to adhere to the PV. IMO, however, our leaders should be elected by people and not by places. :-k :-k

What does Pumkin Pie taste like Candy? I've never seen it - let-alone eaten it!! 8-[

[Grizzly]

The electoral college gives more weight to states with a small number of voters. I heard stats this morning that Wyoming has one elector for every 200,000 voters, whereas California has one for every 600,000 voters. The reason for that is, Wyoming has only one Representative (based upon population) but three electors, so their proportion is about three times greater. But that's the system that the states agreed to, when they agreed to be states. Change the constitution, if you like, but the original argument still holds up. And of course, California still gets way more electoral votes than Wyoming--and Wyoming only gets two "extra," just like California.

Maybe every state should get one vote? Yeah, that's the ticket. :)

I've heard this before from several US friends... the part about how certain states will get more attention in election times. Hey! Wyoming will get some attention. They didn't this year. Who did? Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin... where was Wyoming?

In the final analysis, whether it is 1 or 3 votes, they still don't count do they?

One state one vote would make it interesting, then it would really be a "fifty state vote" rather than this weird amalgam of popular vote and electoral college.

But hey, what do I know, I come from a country that has a minority government.

----
Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream

[electromagneticpulse]

I'm not making a partisan statement here; we have the same "problem" this side of the pond, IMO. But, couldn't our leaders [Prime Ministers or Presidents] be elected on the popular vote? It might even eliminate "It's a wasted vote!" type excuses?

Well done Candy by-the-way.. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>I agree on the popular vote.

With elections coming down to literally only a few thousand vote difference nationwide. The idea behind the electoral college has become out of date and not truely what should be happening.

The argument that if we got rid of the electoral college, then some states with small populations will be missed does not work anymore. First of all with national numbers so close, every state does count now. Also if the state was considered to vote heavily one way or another before, then they were rarely visited anyways by the politicians with the current system. Now they will have to to eek out every vote from a divided populace.

So instead of trying to get the most votes to win the electoral vote, now they have to get the most votes period. A heck of alot more democratic.

The british system doesn't have the big electoral college but instead every village/town/city with MP's in there counts. The individual still might not but the people who get in power are more how the public voted.
Saying that IIRC (as i was young at the time) Labour got into government while being an unpopular candidate.

The thing that annoys me though is how most politicians dont make full sentances. I always watch tony blair and think his writers did a poor job because he makes a pause every 3 or 4 words, we're electing people who dont speak fluent english. But then again i think my location says it all on speaking the english language :D

, I come from a country that has a minority government.

----
Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream


Yes, we had one of those in 1974...There must be ways of ensuring such things never happen. In a "true" democracy, they never would, IMO.

PS: the party that "won" that election was the one I'd normally support! :D

[pumpkinpie]

On my lunchbreak as a a pollworker in an Ohio swing state where punchcards are still used. I have the ever exciting job of taking off stubs and putting ballots in the ballot box. Sounds boring but as of 1pm we had 300 people voting ( :o ) and had a line running from 630 to 1030 nonstop. Some people were lined up at 530 outside our polling place to vote even though we weren't opening for an additional hour!
We also had stickers which I had the job of distributing but those ran out at 1000 or so.

=D> =D> =D> =D>
Thanks for helping out today!!!

[Argos]

In Brazil people vote eletronically usingthis equipment (http://www.tre-mg.gov.br/urna_eletronica/imagens_da_urna_eletronica2.htm). On last sunday, 80 million people voted in the municipal elections. The results were declared two hours later. The same with the 1998 and 2002 presidential elections.

The presidential elections are held under a unified federal system, managed by the Supreme Electoral Court. The votes, submitted electronically, are totalized in the federal capital. It´s a very safe system.

[Humphrey]

With elections coming down to literally only a few thousand vote difference nationwide. The idea behind the electoral college has become out of date and not truely what should be happening.

I'd disagree on that.
How? Seveal states like florida and other contested ones came down to the hundreds, if not thousands of voters. OVerall for the year 2000 there was a: 539,946 voter difference betwenn the two main people. this Elecion is predicted to be closer. Thus even a small state will be important to the election of a candidate based on a pure popular vote.
[source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/ ]

The argument that if we got rid of the electoral college, then some states with small populations will be missed does not work anymore.

The electoral college gives more weight to states with a small number of voters. I heard stats this morning that Wyoming has one elector for every 200,000 voters, whereas California has one for every 600,000 voters. The reason for that is, Wyoming has only one Representative (based upon population) but three electors, so their proportion is about three times greater. But that's the system that the states agreed to, when they agreed to be states. Change the constitution, if you like, but the original argument still holds up. And of course, California still gets way more electoral votes than Wyoming--and Wyoming only gets two "extra," just like California.

Maybe every state should get one vote? Yeah, that's the ticket. :)[/quote]

Accroding to what i read if there is a tie in the Electoral college, it goes to the house and there is one state=one vote.

Like others have said, how does the electoral college focus on smaller states? Name the lat time you heard of a major candidate spending a large portion of their time in one of them? How often has each candidate been to Wyoming?



Note: I an under no cercumstance going to support one person or the other. All i want to discuss is the inadequacy of the current election system.

[Silent Knight]

Could it be because Canada had about 13 million people vote, compared to about 100 million typically in the US?

Note: I an under no cercumstance going to support one person or the other. All i want to discuss is the inadequacy of the current election system.


I agree wholeheartedly with you, Humphrey...making a better voting-system has nothing to do with taking sides. If Mr Bush [or Mr Gore] had won on the PV - none of the snipes against him would have carried any weight?
:-k :-k :-k :-k :-k :-k

[Sammy]

For the first time, we (Calvert County, MD, just SE of Washington, DC) had touch-screen machines (Diebold). I can't comment about how secure/tamper-resistant they are, but I found them VERY user-friendly.

It would be virtually impossible to cast a vote in any way other than you intend. The ballot screens are clear and logically arranged. You can go backwards to change a choice, and there is a final review screen before you committ to casting the vote.

[Humphrey]

Could it be because Canada had about 13 million people vote, compared to about 100 million typically in the US?

Whats the percentage of Canadians who vote?

They are expecting a 65% (of americans [according to CNN morning show]) turnout this election.

[Jpax2003]

Humphrey, Here are a couple good sites for information on the elctoral college.

www.presidentelect.org
www.electoral-vote.com

I posted some information about the electoral college on another thread so I won't repeat myself here. Besides, I want to avoid a confrontation with a certain poster (not you).

[snowcelt]

Could it be because Canada had about 13 million people vote, compared to about 100 million typically in the US?

Whats the percentage of Canadians who vote?

They are expecting a 65% (of americans [according to CNN morning show]) turnout this election.

This spring the turn out in the Canadian Federal Election was the lowest ever at around 60%.

As to the total of votes making a difference, I doubt it. All votes in both the US and Canada are initially collected in relatively small polling stations and the numbers are added up as one goes from polling stations on and up to the national stage. You do not need special math to add past 13 million.

I am glad that the US Federal Election will have a higher turnout. Democracy fails if the people choose not to participate.

[Parrothead]

, I come from a country that has a minority government.

----
Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream


Yes, we had one of those in 1974...There must be ways of ensuring such things never happen. In a "true" democracy, they never would, IMO.

PS: the party that "won" that election was the one I'd normally support! :D

I don't mind the fact we have a minority gov't right now. In a way it does keep them accountable, as they actually have to work with other parties to address issues, rather than ramming things through Parliament as a majority. It serves as a "wake up" call to all parties, not to take the electorate for granted. Last federal minority was 25 yrs ago, provincially (Ontario) we last had a minority gov't in the late 80's.

[TriangleMan]

I am hopeful that with the election being such a tight race, and the issue that occurred in 2000 still on people's minds (which highlighted that an individual's vote can and does matter), the turnout will be more than 65%. It sure seemed to me like "Joe Average" Americans were taking this election more seriously than in 2000.

[Humphrey]

Grapes: just read a article with your Wyoming/california example. It says the exact same thing you do, but just has more accurate numbers:
From: http://www.presidentelect.org/art_depangher_unaccept.html

"Let's take, for example, Wyoming. It cast 218,351 popular votes in last year's presidential election. Since Wyoming had three electoral votes, the ratio of popular votes per electoral vote was 218,351:3, or 72,784:1. In California, which had fifty-four electoral votes, 10,965,856 people cast ballots for president. Here, the ratio is quite different: one elector for every 203,071 votes. Thus, in choosing electors, a Californian's vote is worth about one third as much as the vote of a citizen of Wyoming."

[edit] Nevermind. Language trouble again. You mean Voters, this mentions people who voted. Big difference. Doh! :-)

[SeanF]

With elections coming down to literally only a few thousand vote difference nationwide. The idea behind the electoral college has become out of date and not truely what should be happening.

I'd disagree on that.
Me, too.

So instead of trying to get the most votes to win the electoral vote, now they have to get the most votes period. A heck of alot more democratic.
It certainly would be more democratic - hence my opinion it's something to be avoided. :)

[Humphrey]

Me, too.

Why?

So instead of trying to get the most votes to win the electoral vote, now they have to get the most votes period. A heck of alot more democratic.
It certainly would be more democratic - hence my opinion it's something to be avoided. :)Heh. You do have a very good argument there. :-)

[A Thousand Pardons]

I've heard this before from several US friends... the part about how certain states will get more attention in election times.
You may have heard it before, but you didn't hear it from me. :)

Hey! Wyoming will get some attention. They didn't this year. Who did? Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin... where was Wyoming?

Rocky Mountains, just below the 45 parallel.

In the final analysis, whether it is 1 or 3 votes, they still don't count do they?
Add up all those electoral votes that you all would take away from the small states--they just happen to be red states, in the main. As a result, the Vice President is a resident of Wyoming.
Language trouble again. You mean Voters, this mentions people who voted. Big difference. Doh!
No, not voters--people. The proportion is based on population.

So, there's another way that the vote is skewed! All those large red families with many children. :)

[Ut]

, I come from a country that has a minority government.

----
Clamo, clamatis, omnes clamamus pro glace lactis
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream


Yes, we had one of those in 1974...There must be ways of ensuring such things never happen. In a "true" democracy, they never would, IMO.

PS: the party that "won" that election was the one I'd normally support! :D

In a true parlamentary democracy, every government would be a minority government. That forces the ruling party or group of parties to consider everyone's viewpoint. When you elect a majority government, you elect a king for 5 years.

[Gramma loreto]

I'll stick with the EC. The entire population of registered voters in my state could vote ten times and still not match the influence of New York City. This is what the framers intended to ameliorate by establishing our voting system. They were concerned that large population centers, in a strictly popular, nationwide vote, would overwhelm the rural areas... giving short shrift to their interests, concerns, and values. For us, the people of Alaska, voting under such a system would be like farting in a high wind...only, without the warm feeling of relief.

Think of it this way. In the 2000 election, Gore carried only 677 counties versus Bush's 2,434...but they were heavily populated areas, thus giving him the popular vote. (He could have taken a flight from Pittsburgh to LA without crossing a single county he won.) I don't even like the term "popular vote." If such a majority vote comes from only 21% of the voting communities, is it really popular? I think not, because in the case above, Gore's majority was neither widespread or particularly diverse, regionwise.

Even now, under the EC system, campaigns spend their money where they'll get the most bang for their buck...but the EC places a cost on carrying this too far. Ignore the hinterlands at your own peril. They could swing that state's electoral votes away. With a strictly popular vote, candidates would not be so constrained, and indeed, would be foolish not to concentrate almost exclusively on the large population centers where media economies of scale are far more favorable. Messages and platforms would necessarily be tailored for these constituencies in order to woo them.

We are not a pure democracy. Our form of government is representative...and so is our system of voting for our President.

[Candy]

Think of it this way. In the 2000 election, Gore carried only 677 counties versus Bush's 2,434...but they were heavily populated areas, thus giving him the popular vote. (He could have taken a flight from Pittsburgh to LA without crossing a single county he won.) I don't even like the term "popular vote." If such a majority vote comes from only 21% of the voting communities, is it really popular? I think not, because in the case above, Gore's majority was neither widespread or particularly diverse, regionwise.
I saw a commercial earlier for one of those tabloid shows showing Gore talking. He introduced himself, "Hello, I'm Al Gore, former President of the United States of America." The croud started chuckling. :lol:

[Captain Kidd]

I use to agree that a popular vote was the way to go until somebody told me pretty much what Gramma loreto said. While my state has a few more than 3 EC votes, still, candidates wouldn't come here unless their plane needed to make some sort of emergency landing.

[SciFi Chick]

Me, too.

Why?

Because we are not a democracy.


So instead of trying to get the most votes to win the electoral vote, now they have to get the most votes period. A heck of alot more democratic.
It certainly would be more democratic - hence my opinion it's something to be avoided. :)Heh. You do have a very good argument there. :-)

Humphrey - America is a Republic. The Constitution was purposely set up to protect the individual, not the majority. I don't know if I'm being historical or political here, but my intent is historical. 8)

[tuffel999]

Hey Humphrey you may want to head over to FWIS we have been hashing out why the EC is used instead of a general vote.


This was a public service anouncement.................................beep.. beep....beep...

[Jpax2003]

I don't even like the term "popular vote."Hey, Them's fightin' words. But seriously, I said that and ended up in a long argument. If anyone asks you to elaborate, dont do it. [-X

[Humphrey]

I enderstand that it is a republic, but its a republic based on democratic ideals on electing the leaders. Meaning. Yes our leaders make up a republic, but getting them into office should be democratic.

For example at the second according to CNN:
Bush has:
EC:193
Vote: 23,276,855 (52% total)

Kerry:
EC: 112
Vote: 21,448,707 (48% total)

Thus a 2 million difference in votes leads to a 80 difference in the EC.

This means that some states have a larger pupulation and smaller EC or a smaller population and larger EC. Meaning that some votes count more than others.

I explained before how the times have changed from the framing of the ideas behind the election. Times have even changed from the '88 and '92 elections. These past two elections will (most likely) be decided by less than a million votes. You cannot tell me that even the smallest state will not matter in a election that close.


P.S. tuffel999, i mean no disrespect at all to FWIS, but i feel better in the calmer atmosphere over here. :-)

[edit] Just to be clear, I do not care right now who is leading in the EC or not. I am not making my opinion of the EC on that at all. I would feel the exact same way if the numbers were reveresed. The EC hinders 3rd parties coming in (they have less of a chance of getting their electors into the EC) and also does not count the vote of the people. From what i remember only 38 states require their electors to go along with the popular vote. If they want to be re-elected they most likely will follow it, but they are not required to.

[tuffel999]

P.S. tuffel999, i mean no disrespect at all to FWIS, but i feel better in the calmer atmosphere over here. :-)


What I got my rabies shot................... 8-[

[A Thousand Pardons]

I don't even like the term "popular vote."Hey, Them's fightin' words. But seriously, I said that and ended up in a long argument. If anyone asks you to elaborate, dont do it.
Seriously, if that was what you had said, you would not have got into an argument. Let's see, you actually said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351231#351231), "When someone talks about "the popular vote" they should be treated the same way as we would treat someone who claims the earth is flat." Big difference.

You're free to express your dislike about anything--it's your personal opinion. I won't even PM you.

[Jpax2003]

I don't even like the term "popular vote."Hey, Them's fightin' words. But seriously, I said that and ended up in a long argument. If anyone asks you to elaborate, dont do it.
Seriously, if that was what you had said, you would not have got into an argument. Let's see, you actually said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=351231#351231), "When someone talks about "the popular vote" they should be treated the same way as we would treat someone who claims the earth is flat." Big difference.

You're free to express your dislike about anything--it's your personal opinion. I won't even PM you.LOL, you promise.. no PMs :) But since you bring it up here...

I did say I didn't like the term "popular vote", and then I went on and stuck my foot in the door. It was a bad idea. However, my arguments were only semantic in nature. I really didn't intend to advocate for or against the EC. I'll bet you that if you watch TV over the next few days someone will say that a candidate (in 2000 or maybe 2004) should have won the election because that person won the popular vote. That would be incorrect usage, and that is my pet peeve. They could say that someone should win because they got the popular vote (meaning the most votes in the national total) but not that they won it. There is no legal construct called the popular vote for president that could be won. The popular voting is for electors.

For a person to go on TV and portray themselves as an expert when making a claim that is technically and demonstrably false, it is no different than someone like Nancy Leider claiming to be an expert in orbital mechanics. The difference is that the person on TV is close enough to the truth to obscure it and motivate people to action under false pretenses. Nancy Leider only got a few pets killed, a reckless comment during an election could instigate people to riot.

I wonder... if we were able to look back with precision would we see that the confusion and subsequent intentional mis-statements over the 2000 election lead to a loss of confidence in american politics that might have been spun into propoganda about "lawless americans" and our "illegitimate government" that lead to violence and deaths in locations around the world. Ok, that's one long run on sentence. It might have happened. It may be impossible to prove, but I don't think the scenario is absurd. I won't attempt to link this scenario to any terrorist activity, like 9/11, but you can all think about that possibility on your own.

[Doodler]

For the first time, we (Calvert County, MD, just SE of Washington, DC) had touch-screen machines (Diebold). I can't comment about how secure/tamper-resistant they are, but I found them VERY user-friendly.

It would be virtually impossible to cast a vote in any way other than you intend. The ballot screens are clear and logically arranged. You can go backwards to change a choice, and there is a final review screen before you committ to casting the vote.

Heh, I graduated from Calvert High School, class of '92. Nice to see the Armpit of the State is keeping up with the 21st century.

Howard County had the touchscreens this year, too. I'm wondering if those chips in the plastic cards they gave us to unlock the console to vote also stored our voting information.

If so, its the slickest system I've seen. Short of magnetizing those cards, you can't manipulate voter data.

[teddyv]

[quote=Sammy]If so, its the slickest system I've seen. Short of magnetizing those cards, you can't manipulate voter data.

I wonder about the lack of backup records (i.e. paper) that can be recounted. What about potential power outages during elections (not overly likely).

[Humphrey]

[quote=Sammy]If so, its the slickest system I've seen. Short of magnetizing those cards, you can't manipulate voter data.

I wonder about the lack of backup records (i.e. paper) that can be recounted. What about potential power outages during elections (not overly likely).Actually some places did have power outages. they just had to wait for them to come back up.