My election experience (rant)

[vienna]

A long while back, current California Governor Jerry Brown espoused the idea voters should have the choice of "None of the above" in primary nominating elections and was actually able to get the option on the ballot for a single election. I recall, the day after the election, the tally showed "None of the above" had the most votes; the newspaper headlines read "Jerry Brown's Nobody Beats Everybody"...


@Platpus:

The incident i described was really very much of a one-off. I have not had any other bad experiences, other than the run-of-the-mill glitches that occur during any election process. I don't think the supervisor in the incident was poorly trained; I got the impression he, himself, had most likely been out the night before and was struggling through the morning after, but, rather than owning up to his failing, he was trying to lay blame on everyone else. As I said he was a bit young and maybe not the best suited to the task...

I have gotten some amusement from some of the senior citizen volunteers over the many years of voting. The voting process here involves going down to the poll, presenting a sample ballot received in the mail with your voting ID printed on it to a trio of poll workers seated at a table. The first takes your ID info and enters it on sort of log sheet, calling out your name and address to the second worker, while you sing the log sheet; the second worker opens up a large book which is a master list of all the registered voters in the precinct, finds your name and address, verifies the info, then crosses your name out; the third worker then gives you your ballot, and off you go to the booth to vote. One election, the second worker at the table was a rather elderly and nice lady. The first worker called out my name, so the lady opened the book to the first page and carefully turned each page, getting to about the page where my name should have been, and then she stopped, looked at the first worker and asked "What was the name, again?". The first worker repeated my name and the lady closed the book, opened it to the first page, and, again, carefully and slowly, turned each page, again getting to near my page and, again stopping to ask for the name. Finally, on the fourth time, she managed to get to the page, remember my name, and all went well afterward. When this happened, I was in my late 20s and was patient with her because I had been taught to make allowances for the elderly since one day I would be the elderly person who would need a bit more time or effort to what is effortless to youth. Now that I am nearing the point in my life where the simple becomes difficult, I have a great appreciation for the effort of that elderly election worker...


<O>

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by vienna

A long while back, current California Governor Jerry Brown espoused the idea voters should have the choice of "None of the above" in primary nominating elections and was actually able to get the option on the ballot for a single election. I recall, the day after the election, the tally showed "None of the above" had the most votes; the newspaper headlines read "Jerry Brown's Nobody Beats Everybody"...


<O>

What you are referring to is called a "null vote" i.e. a vote cast but not for any candidate. Null voting is a valid vote and can be important.

The political parties pay attention to the number of Null Votes. The number of ballots cast and the totals of the votes are public information and the political parties pull these numbers after the election. Everyone also has access to the total number of registered voters. These pieces of information can give political parties some significant information.

Someone who does not vote is simply indicating that they don't care about the election

Someone casting a Null vote is indicating that they do care but don't like any of the candidates.

There is a big difference between the two. The political parties are very interested in getting the second type of citizen on their side.

The person who does not care about the election will probably continue not to care regardless of what the parties do. They are going to spend a little time/money getting the word out, but most of their attention is going to be on the second -- a person who cares enough about the election to come to the polls but does not vote for any candidate.

Lets look at some examples from a primary

Example 1.

5000 registered voters in precinct A

Candidate A - 1200 votes
Candidate B - 1100 Votes

46% voter turnout close race. Most people don't care either way

Example 2

5000 registered voters in precinct A

Candidate A - 1200 votes
Candidate B - 1100 Votes
Null/under vote - 1500

76% voter turnout and the majority did not want either candidate

This is important information to the political parties.

The first example illustrates voter apathy
The second example illustrates candidate apathy

This is why it bothers me when people tell me that they don't vote because they don't like either candidate or, worse, their vote won't matter.

If you don't like the candidates, let the parties know via the Null vote. It is a powerful tool.

In the last election, we had write in votes for this one office. The majority of the write in votes were for some variation of "none of the above". This is another way of casting a null vote.

Null votes won't affect the election they are cast in. With few exceptions, elections in the US are based on a plurality of votes and not a majority of votes.

Not voting means you don't care
Null voting means that you do care

Political parties know this.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by vienna

I have gotten some amusement from some of the senior citizen volunteers over the many years of voting. The voting process here involves going down to the poll, presenting a sample ballot received in the mail with your voting ID printed on it to a trio of poll workers seated at a table. The first takes your ID info and enters it on sort of log sheet, calling out your name and address to the second worker, while you sing the log sheet; the second worker opens up a large book which is a master list of all the registered voters in the precinct, finds your name and address, verifies the info, then crosses your name out; the third worker then gives you your ballot, and off you go to the booth to vote. One election, the second worker at the table was a rather elderly and nice lady. The first worker called out my name, so the lady opened the book to the first page and carefully turned each page, getting to about the page where my name should have been, and then she stopped, looked at the first worker and asked "What was the name, again?". The first worker repeated my name and the lady closed the book, opened it to the first page, and, again, carefully and slowly, turned each page, again getting to near my page and, again stopping to ask for the name. Finally, on the fourth time, she managed to get to the page, remember my name, and all went well afterward. When this happened, I was in my late 20s and was patient with her because I had been taught to make allowances for the elderly since one day I would be the elderly person who would need a bit more time or effort to what is effortless to youth. Now that I am nearing the point in my life where the simple becomes difficult, I have a great appreciation for the effort of that elderly election worker...

Ugh. I remember those days. It really sucked working the polls. We are lucky, we have our poll books on laptop computers and it makes the book keeping a lot easier.

Does your state still do it this way? If so, I hope that one day soon they will change and get laptops. It makes the process faster (voters like that), easier (election officers like that) and less error prone (SBE likes that).

<O>[/QUOTE]

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

What you are referring to is called a "null vote" i.e. a vote cast but not for any candidate. Null voting is a valid vote and can be important. ...

Here in California, the vast majority of voters don't understand the concept of a null vote. This may stem from voting policies in the distant past voiding an entire ballot if any one item on the ballot didn't get voted upon. The practice was intended to encourage (enforce) voters to vote on every item on the ballot, but the practice was eliminated some time back, although I can't recall whether it was stopped by court action or legislative action. The "None of the Above" Jerry Brown espoused was the only time it ever appeared on the ballot, AFAIK, and hasn't been raised seriously since. The belief at the time was both parties were soundly and publicly embarrassed neither could muster enough voter support to get their candidate/issue passed. For the voters, it was a chance to visibly express their dissatisfaction with the parties. The Null Vote may be there, but it becomes the "dirty little secret" the parties don't want voters to know about lest they male greater use of the ability. What I would have found interesring would have been if one of the parties' candidate/issue had come in first, follwoed by "None of the Above", and the other party in third. I wonder what the reaction of the third place party would have been to such a public shunning? ...

Originally Posted by Platapus

Ugh. I remember those days. It really sucked working the polls. We are lucky, we have our poll books on laptop computers and it makes the book keeping a lot easier. ..

Does your state still do it this way? If so, I hope that one day soon they will change and get laptops. It makes the process faster (voters like that), easier (election officers like that) and less error prone (SBE likes that).

<O>

[/QUOTE]

California has a multitude of poll practices and voting methods since voting administration is overseen on a county level and, thus, is open to the influence of county budgets, voter preferences, political party finagling, and other factors. Here, in Los Angeles, we still have the paper log books; I don't know about the res of the state. The County did try electronic voting around the 2004 election, but it seemed everyone, voters, political parties, political commentators, and anyone else involved were quite vocal in nixing the idea so, since then, we have stuck with mid-20th century methods. Shame, really; the electronic system was very easy to use and was very transparent...


<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

the electronic system was very easy to use and was very transparent...

A lot easier to game as well.

1 paper ballot vote = 1 hard copy of that vote to be reviewed/recounted if necessary. 1 electronic vote = No hard evidence no hard proof how the votes were actually cast.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

A lot easier to game as well.

1 paper ballot vote = 1 hard copy of that vote to be reviewed/recounted if necessary. 1 electronic vote = No hard evidence no hard proof how the votes were actually cast.

I agree, what I was referring to was the electronic poll books where we check in voters.

I was very happy when Virginia got rid of the electronic ballot, just for the very reasons you mentioned.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I agree, what I was referring to was the electronic poll books where we check in voters.

I was very happy when Virginia got rid of the electronic ballot, just for the very reasons you mentioned.

I knew you were referring to the poll books and I do wish we had them electronically here in LA. I threw in the electronic balloting because I knew relatively few places have had the chance to try the systems out. I agree there is a high possibility of "gaming" electronic systems. Here, the system used did produce a hard copy printout of the ballots as cast and, in addition, the voter was presented with a final overview of the ballot just cast before it was finalized. The County stopped using the system due to some of the concerns about "gaming", but there was an additional concern about future use when reports leaked out about the votes in the being tabulated offshore, and IIRC, the company running the system was centered in italy...

To be honest, and realistic, about any current voting system other than wholly electronic, the possibility of "gaming" exists for any high volume voting system since all of those types of systems, at some point or another, depend on computer systems for the speedy and efficient tabulation of votes and generation of results. Those systems are also open to "gaming" and the possibility is really much overlooked. In order to "properly" "game" an election, you would only need to tamper with the computer system enough to switch enough votes to achieve a win margin large enough not to provoke a recount, but not large enough to raise suspicions...


<O>

[August]

That's fine edge to walk especially given our polarized times, especially since the the Freedom of Information act lets those votes be recounted by anyone.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by vienna

In order to "properly" "game" an election, you would only need to tamper with the computer system enough to switch enough votes to achieve a win margin large enough not to provoke a recount, but not large enough to raise suspicions...


<O>

That would be a lot harder to do than some may think.

Each paper ballot when scanned, at least in our machines, is time stamped. So in order to monkey withe tallies, it would be necessary to change the recording of the vote while the voting is in progress, before you know what the real vote is. This might work if the votes were tallied all at once.

Also, access to the voting machines would be a problem. They are kept locked up and specific internal parts are sealed. If one wished to monkey with the code, it would have to be done at the factory and that is before the code is inspected upon delivery.

Even assuming you could do this for one machine, the likely hood of any one machine's results having that strong of an effect on an election is slim. So in order to really have a chance of influencing an election, one would have to monkey with multiple machines.. many machines and that is for a State election. Thousands of machines would have to be altered to affect a national election and the chances of that happening are pretty slim.

It would be much more effective to spend the money on smear campaign tactics..... which is what the political parties do anyway.

There are double checks and safeguards that even I am unaware of concerning the machine in my precinct.