Amber McReynolds, Denver's former Election Registrar, has been named by Governing as one of 2018's "Public Officials of the Year." Although some of what she did during her 13 years in Denver would require changes in state law here, some of her actions could be implemented now. Her focus has been the voters, as opposed to political parties.
eSign. Candidates and petitioners collect electronic signatures on tablets and get instant verifications of the signatures’ validity. In Pa., an app could be prepared to enable candidates to determine whether the signatures they get actually come from registered voters. This would minimize nomination petition challenges, which force judges to decide elections instead of voters.
Ballot TRACE. This enables voters who mail in their ballot to determine if it was actually received. This has reduced calls to the elections office, and would work here.
New voting system. This uses scanners, printers and touchscreen tablets more familiar to voters and at 1/10th the cost of voting machines. This would need state certification in Pa.
Ballots mailed. - This is routine in some states, but not here. There is nothing preventing the elections office here from mailing a sample ballot to all registered voters before the election. The only downside I see is cost.
Same Day Voting. - Here, you must register 30 days before an election.
Do these ideas work? They do in Denver, where turnout was 72% in 2016, and cost went down. If you want people to vote, these ideas should be considered.
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Monday, January 07, 2019
23 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
These all sound like great ideas to me except eSign. I think eSign could be one option of several ways to verify voter identities, but leaving signature verification to a computerized system alone is a bad idea. People's signatures change sometimes, especially for those with diseases like Parkinson's that affect their motor skills. Even in folks without such conditions, signatures can vary quite a bit depending on whether they use a machine or paper to write it and how much of a hurry they are in.
ReplyDeleteThis si so silly oit must eb that Zirinski fanatic that wriote it. Denve ris a well educated upper middle class city. Probalby tyh ermsodt in the west. They are very technologically friendly.They also olov etheir pot.
ReplyDeleteTo think you can impose this nonsense on Pennsylvanians is as bad as California plastic bag legislation.
Most people do not understand nor trust all this electronic nonsense. Especially when it comes to voting. More doors will be slammed in your face with that silly e-pad than people signing it.
Stop the silliness and just work to make our system function.
Stay off the Rocky Mountain High weed! Dude!!
Bernie speaking of elections, who is going to be county council president, Zirinski or Hefner?
ReplyDeleteThese are generally bad ideas and will contribute to fraud. However, I do think a couple of ideas have merit:
ReplyDeleteHere's my take (pro or con) on each of the proposals:
e-sign: In an era of identity theft, I'm not sure of the wisdom of voters giving up their signatures to people with tablets arriving at their door. It's not hard to envision how this could be exploited by those who are unscrupulous, whether they're part of the political process or just common criminals.
Ballot TRACE: Sounds good, but would want to know more about how it works and what the cost is.
New Voting System: The counties are currently investing money to update their voting machines, which are already touchscreen, to provide greater security. Even if tablets would work and have the same level of security, it's not a change that would happen any time soon because of the money being invested currently. Willing to listen to more on this one, but definitely need more info.
Same Day Voting: A bad idea that is ripe for Election Day fraud and confusion.
Ballots Mailed: Would be happy to see ballots mailed in advance to voters, provided they're mailed early enough and that any ballots returned as undeliverable (because the voter no longer lives there) is grounds to immediately remove that person from the voter rolls. If a person still shows up at the polls to vote they could be given a provisional ballot along with a warning that there will be SEVERE consequences if they are found to be improperly voting. Would also require the passage of SEVERE MANDATORY penalties for casting an improper ballot, which we should currently have anyway.
I think they should move slowly with the electronic changes. This is an area still rife with fraud. Until security issues are solved, this is a bad idea. The are also hackers who are close to solving super prime numbers (the distinct number given to every internet transaction). Votes are transactions and just as vulnerable. I'm all for tech. But we have serious kinks to work out and elections should not be Guinea pigs for the beta test.
ReplyDeleteWheelchair availability at election polls. Rent equipment if necessary, but have it available.
ReplyDeleteVote early and vote often is my motto. Now lets get to the cemeteries and register a few new voters. Trump needs all the help he can get.
ReplyDelete1:00, I am not talking about verifying the signature, but whether the signer is in fact a registered voter.
ReplyDelete6:40, Perhaps I was unclear.
ReplyDelete1) eSign is something that could be used to verify that someone is a registered voter, not verify a signature. This is already on the web, an an app could really cut down on nomination petition challenges.
2) Ballot Trace is something I would implement for absentee voters.
3) Given the price tag of a voting machine, any responsible public official would at least be looking into what Denver does and whether it can be replicated here without compromising security. Unfortunately, most public officials have little regard for the taxpayers.
4) Mailed Ballots - It sounds as though you really just want to strike voters from the polls. You must be an R.
5) Same Day Voting. - You raise the bogeyman of election fraud without specifics, something common among those who like to keep turnout low.
"Bernie speaking of elections, who is going to be county council president, Zirinski or Hefner?"
ReplyDeleteI don't think either could attract the votes from their fellow Council members. They have alienated them.
Voter ID would get rid of a lot of the fraud issues, correct?
ReplyDeleteHell, in PA without getting a new real ID drivers licence, they won't let you on an airplane or into a Federal Building. I understand that Voter IDs are used in spurious ways in other parts of the country (the deep south), but there are enough counties here where people wouldn't be geographically far from their county seat or driver's license centers to get the ID. If people are too lazy to get one, that's their problem. But if you want to get on a plane you'll take the steps to a passport or a Real ID License. It's the same principle: if you want to vote, you'll do what you need to do to vote.
I think electronic machines have been a boondoggle that has just created a new corrupt system of costing taxpayers every few years for new machines. They are used twice a year. The old mechanical machines lasted for decades and would have lasted for many more decades. They provided a paper readout and seemed to be foolproof. I guess that why we had to get rid of them. All electronic machines are vulnerable of being tampered with. Maybe that's why we needed them. There is no reason why a smaller compact mechanical machine with a readout is not made. Everything electronic is vulnerable to tampering and will need to be thrown away every few years. But of course then officials will have to be wined and dined to help them make a decision as to which machines to purchase every 3 years.
ReplyDeleteBernie O'Hare said...
ReplyDelete6:40, Perhaps I was unclear.
1) eSign is something that could be used to verify that someone is a registered voter, not verify a signature.
Bernie -
Maybe I'm missing something. This is what you wrote in your original post:
"eSign. Candidates and petitioners collect electronic signatures on tablets..."
Are you now saying that no signatures are collected electronically on tablets?
Bernie O'Hare (9:11 am) said...
ReplyDelete6:40, Perhaps I was unclear.
3) Given the price tag of a voting machine, any responsible public official would at least be looking into what Denver does and whether it can be replicated here without compromising security. Unfortunately, most public officials have little regard for the taxpayers.
4) Mailed Ballots - It sounds as though you really just want to strike voters from the polls. You must be an R.
On a New Voting System:
I agree it's worth a look at some point. However, my understanding is that the state has already mandated that the counties procure new machines similar to the current ones. Those purchases and commitments will certainly occur before the state approves changes to something similar to what Denver uses. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of any (county-level) public official to look to purchase a Denver-type system on they heels of the counties purchasing new machines now. There is no need to pay twice.
If you're talking about state-level public officials investigating them for sometime in the more distant future, I'm fine with that.
On Mailing Ballots:
If you're going to the expense of mailing a ballot to every registered voter, it is irresponsible NOT to use those mailings as a means to verify addresses. As anyone who has ever sent out political mail knows, sending out mailers to the voters on the lists provided by the counties results in a large number of returned mail pieces.
Those are people whose voter information is no longer valid. Why wouldn't you or anyone else (Democrat, Republican, or Independent) want our voting lists to be accurate? We should all be able to at least agree on that.
Same day voting: My wife and I moved from Fla to Pa slightly less than 30 days prior to the last election. We were unable to vote in Fl as we were no longer residents, and were unable to vote in Pa as we were not residents within 30 days prior to the election. In this scenario, a type of same day provisional ballot could be cast, with the County election department verifying residence in Pa and eligibility determined at that point. I emailed this concern to my representative, and received no response.
ReplyDeletevoter ID....
ReplyDeleteCan't do any of this it only benefits the Democrats
ReplyDeleteI've been a practicing cryptographer for almost 30 years, and I simply don't see any voting applications where it and related computer-based data security technologies are appropriate.
ReplyDeletePaper methods are logistically impossible in a Financial Technologies (FinTech) environment of hundreds of millions of global financial transactions per day, but they're not at all impossible at the polls. Indeed, in elections, paper methods are greatly superior.
When you're talking about money changing hands, there is such a thing as an acceptable level of risk, and every competent data security and financial risk management professional recognizes -- albeit grudgingly -- that unavoidable fact. We deal with it with great success by waging a daily "arms race" with some of the world's best hackers. The great majority of the time, we win. But not always. When we occasionally lose, we lose *big*. Ask Target, for example.
Elections are an entirely different thing. Their relatively small scale -- compared to the scale of global financial transactions -- and low frequency make paper methods logistically quite possible. And paper methods are superior in that application for several reasons.
The decentralized "retail" nature of elections with numerous polling places and generally un-associated, well vetted personnel at each location makes multi-site fraud difficult to achieve, and even more difficult to hide indefinitely. Centralizing elections through the use of computer networks, however, opens the possibility of "wholesale" fraud from remote locations that is far easier to conceal.
That's not to say that fraud does not occur in a paper-based system, but it is inherently an asymmetrically large effort for each small success. Successfully hack a network, on the other hand, and you've got a BIG "success" (if success is the proper term given the disastrous consequences in an election).
When it comes to elections, a bunch of honest, dedicated retired people policing the polls and the processing of ballots is virtually invincible compared to anything cryptographers can provide on large scale computer networks.
I hope my data security colleagues don't hate me for saying that, but it's simply true.
Which jurisdictions are using networked voting machines?
ReplyDeleteIn order to verify that a person is registered, wouldn't eSign have to verify the signature by matching it to another one? Presumably the signature on the registration? I don't understand what the distinction you are making here is.
ReplyDelete@11:20
ReplyDeleteI'm not one to give The New York Times much credit, but they do a very good job of answering your question and others here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/magazine/the-myth-of-the-hacker-proof-voting-machine.html
How about adding Voter Referendum? Its the only way to get popular things passed when blocked by senseless politics.
ReplyDeleteI repeat Mr previous post.
ReplyDeleteMr. O'Hare; regarding voting machines; I was the elected judge of elections in Bethlehem city 2nd North for ten years ending in 2000.
This was the last time we used the lever machines. As one of the Judges of elections I was required to attend several lectures about the efficiency and proficiency of new computer voting machines and listened to "experts" tell me about how no one could hack into the system. That was my last year. I would like to emphasize that the only reason for a plug on those machines was for the light over the inside of the booth and had absolutely nothing to do with the operation of the voting machine. With the old machines I could hold an election in a cave with candles and a flashlight in less time and more accurately and NOBODY was going to hack or abuse my voting machine.
The reason it takes time to vote, is the same reason, regardless of the type of machine that is used, and that is because of human fallibility in the utilization of the alphabetical registration books by the citizens of the Election board. Each and every voter must sign their name next to their registration in the book and IT TAKES TIME for a member of the board of elections to find the correct spelling of a voter's name to identify and match that spelling with that particular voter. That is the reason, and the only reason voting takes time and there is no way anyone can shorten that process regardless of type of voting machine!!! I am still a fan of the older machines.