How should votes be tallied?

[blahface]

What precautions do you think we should take when tabulating the votes? Should any of it be electronic or should it all be hand counted?

I personally think that we should use a scan-tron paper ballot. Once scanned in, a unique ID should be printed on the ballot and an electronic record of the ballot should be added to the database. The ballot database file should be made pubic (not in real time; after all the results are in) and every polling station should check in public view a small random sample of ballots and compare them to their electronic counterpart.

Is there any potential problems with this or do you think there is a better way? One potential problem I see is that maybe due to a bug it doesn't give out a unique ID or maybe the printer fails at the polling station. If this happens though, they can still be hand counted later, or they can be scanned in with a different machine later. I think this is the best compromise in terms of ensuring the integrity of the system and getting results without counting for days or weeks.

[Vendetta]

The UK still uses hand count of ballots written with paper and pencil/pen.

It appears to be a functional system which seems to fuck up a lot less than all the more complicated ones the USA likes to try.

[Zeropoint]

Voting by mail for everyone. Registered voters get their ballots in the mail with plenty of time to fill them out and put them back in the mail (with free return postage, of course), OR drop them off at any one of a number of convenient locations such as the local library. The ballots are a simple "color in the space for your vote" affair of some sort, with no identifying information about the voter on them. The completed ballots can be tallied by hand or by an electronic scanner as necessary.

It's simple, easy to understand, cheap, convenient for everybody, and you have paper ballots to make it easy to recount or audit the vote. What's not to like? It's also how we do things here in Oregon, and it works out fine.

[Lord Revan]

Voting by mail for everyone. Registered voters get their ballots in the mail with plenty of time to fill them out and put them back in the mail (with free return postage, of course), OR drop them off at any one of a number of convenient locations such as the local library. The ballots are a simple "color in the space for your vote" affair of some sort, with no identifying information about the voter on them. The completed ballots can be tallied by hand or by an electronic scanner as necessary.

It's simple, easy to understand, cheap, convenient for everybody, and you have paper ballots to make it easy to recount or audit the vote. What's not to like? It's also how we do things here in Oregon, and it works out fine.

What's not to like, there's no way of knowing if a)person sending in the vote actually made it or b)that voter wasn't influeced to vote a certain way during the voting process.

There's a reason why most democratic nations use special voting booths where no one but the voter can enter during the voting process.

[B5B7]

Voting by mail for everyone. Registered voters get their ballots in the mail with plenty of time to fill them out and put them back in the mail (with free return postage, of course), OR drop them off at any one of a number of convenient locations such as the local library. The ballots are a simple "color in the space for your vote" affair of some sort, with no identifying information about the voter on them. The completed ballots can be tallied by hand or by an electronic scanner as necessary.

It's simple, easy to understand, cheap, convenient for everybody, and you have paper ballots to make it easy to recount or audit the vote. What's not to like? It's also how we do things here in Oregon, and it works out fine.

What's not to like, there's no way of knowing if a)person sending in the vote actually made it or b)that voter wasn't influeced to vote a certain way during the voting process.

There's a reason why most democratic nations use special voting booths where no one but the voter can enter during the voting process.

In Australia one can vote at polling booth or do a postal vote. Your concerns about tampering are more theoretical than actual, as such even if it did occur can only be on a very small scale otherwise it gets noticed. When do postal vote have to sign the envelope that encloses the voting slip, which in turn is in the free post envelope provided by the Electoral Commission.

[The Romulan Republic]

Vote by mail, with coming in and voting in person on election day optional. Ballots filled out and counted by hand. Automatic recount if its within, oh, two percent let's say. Going to take a page from Bernie's book and say that anyone who's eligible should be automatically registered to vote, with an opt out.

[AMX]

Vote by mail, with coming in and voting in person on election day optional.

Other way round, IMO.
Votes should be private and anonymous, which can not be guaranteed for mail-in ballots.
This makes them inferior to voting in person, so that should be the prefered method.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's a fair point.

I may be somewhat influence by the fact that as an American living in Canada, I am a beneficiary of the mail ballot system.

[Esquire]

Vote by mail, with coming in and voting in person on election day optional.

Other way round, IMO.
Votes should be private and anonymous, which can not be guaranteed for mail-in ballots.
This makes them inferior to voting in person, so that should be the prefered method.

This isn't logically consistent; anybody with the wherewithal to track hundreds of millions of nonidentified paper forms could also bug polling stations for similar or less effort. Ultimately it's academic; as far as I know there's precisely no evidence in developed countries that voter fraud occurs in any significant quantity, nor does vote-tracking.

[AMX]

This isn't logically consistent; anybody with the wherewithal to track hundreds of millions of nonidentified paper forms could also bug polling stations for similar or less effort. Ultimately it's academic; as far as I know there's precisely no evidence in developed countries that voter fraud occurs in any significant quantity, nor does vote-tracking.

You're thinking on the wrong scale.

This is not about large-scale manipulation, it's about protecting individual voters from threats in their personal environment.

You wouldn't want, say, a husband deciding how his wife is going to vote.
Or first-time voters having their ballots filled out by their parents.
And do you remember certain companies threatening to lay off workers if Obama got reelected? With mail-in ballots, you can go a step further - make them show you that they are going to vote for your candidate.
Little things like that.

[Esquire]

And how prevalent do you think such problems would actually be? Compare that with how many people can't (/don't) vote at all due to the unnecessary inefficiencies imposed by in-person voting.

[Solauren]

Run the Polls for 2 weeks. Set the polls up at the following public buildings.

Post office
Public Library
Police Station
Or another suitable public building.
(i.e your local immigration office, local social assistance officer, etc, etc, etc).

You go in, you present proof of ID, your name gets crossed off the list (possibly an electronic list). You fill out a ballet in private. You mark a square with your vote. When in doubt, shade the box in. If the ballet is not clearly marked, you can ask for 1 redo, and have someone assist you.

At that point, manually count them, and then feed them though a scan program as a double check. Manual count always wins.

If need be, for a recount, get the canditates in question into the room, and do the count in front of them.

[SpottedKitty]

The UK still uses hand count of ballots written with paper and pencil/pen.

Not only that, the results (with rare exceptions) are ready sometimes within hours, usually by the next morning. The myth of "counting for days or weeks" is exactly that. Unless electoral areas are much bigger on average (in population numbers) than places like the UK, there's really no practical reason not to use hand counts.

Or is it the "ooh, shiny" factor of "must use a fancy gadget that gives results nownownow!!!" skewing the preference?

[bilateralrope]

The UK still uses hand count of ballots written with paper and pencil/pen.

Not only that, the results (with rare exceptions) are ready sometimes within hours, usually by the next morning. The myth of "counting for days or weeks" is exactly that. Unless electoral areas are much bigger on average (in population numbers) than places like the UK, there's really no practical reason not to use hand counts.

Or is it the "ooh, shiny" factor of "must use a fancy gadget that gives results nownownow!!!" skewing the preference?

Even if it took a few weeks to count up the votes, so what ?

Making sure the votes are counted accurately is important. Counting them quickly isn't.

[AMX]

And how prevalent do you think such problems would actually be? Compare that with how many people can't (/don't) vote at all due to the unnecessary inefficiencies imposed by in-person voting.

That's why in-person voting should be the prefered option, not the only option.
People who have an actual reason for it are welcome to vote by mail.

[Esquire]

You're rather missing the point. Faced with a system which manifestly doesn't work (in the US at least) for well over half the population, why would you support that system over a different one? If the best you've got is 'somebody, somewhere might misuse it somehow,' you're going to need to try harder.

And obviously in-person voting ought to still be a thing, it's just a ridiculously inefficient and objectively dysfunctional concept for the preferred methodology.

[Vendetta]

You're rather missing the point. Faced with a system which manifestly doesn't work (in the US at least) for well over half the population, why would you support that system over a different one? If the best you've got is 'somebody, somewhere might misuse it somehow,' you're going to need to try harder.

And obviously in-person voting ought to still be a thing, it's just a ridiculously inefficient and objectively dysfunctional concept for the preferred methodology.

Except every country other than the USA appears to be able to cope with doing it.

I mean even in the UK where polling isnt even a weekend like eg. Australia we manage to actually allow everyone to vote just by having polling stations open until 10PM instead of closing as early as 6 like some US states (and having enough of them) and do a hand count of paper ballots fast enough to produce a decisive result by the next morning.

[Beowulf]

Except every country other than the USA appears to be able to cope with doing it.

I mean even in the UK where polling isnt even a weekend like eg. Australia we manage to actually allow everyone to vote just by having polling stations open until 10PM instead of closing as early as 6 like some US states (and having enough of them) and do a hand count of paper ballots fast enough to produce a decisive result by the next morning.

How many things are you voting on in an election?

[madd0ct0r]

Last one i attended in the uk? Two or three things.

[Vendetta]

How many things are you voting on in an election?

Usually one to three. Either just an MP, or MP plus council elections choosing up to three councillors if they hold them at the same time, and sometimes Police Commissioner as well.

They'll be done on seperate ballot papers, obviously.

[maraxus2]

How many things are you voting on in an election?

Usually one to three. Either just an MP, or MP plus council elections choosing up to three councillors if they hold them at the same time, and sometimes Police Commissioner as well.

They'll be done on seperate ballot papers, obviously.

That sounds wonderful. Ballots in CA are far too long. A voter in San Francisco gets to vote on the following items on November 8th:
1. President
2. Senate
3. Congress (they get to decide which Nancy Pelosi to send back to DC)
4. State legislature (both assembly and Senate)
5. 17 (yes, 17) separate statewide initiatives
6. At least 28 (and counting!) Citywide/Countywide measures
7. Supervisorial seat

That's like 50 things before we even get to the really-down-in-the-weeds shit like countywide judges or parks commission or whatever. San Francisco's ballot looks like a phone book. My native Oakland ballot isn't much better. This is why Vote-by-mail works; gives you time to actually digest what you're voting on, if that's your thing.

This isn't logically consistent; anybody with the wherewithal to track hundreds of millions of nonidentified paper forms could also bug polling stations for similar or less effort. Ultimately it's academic; as far as I know there's precisely no evidence in developed countries that voter fraud occurs in any significant quantity, nor does vote-tracking.

You're thinking on the wrong scale.

This is not about large-scale manipulation, it's about protecting individual voters from threats in their personal environment.

You wouldn't want, say, a husband deciding how his wife is going to vote.
Or first-time voters having their ballots filled out by their parents.
And do you remember certain companies threatening to lay off workers if Obama got reelected? With mail-in ballots, you can go a step further - make them show you that they are going to vote for your candidate.
Little things like that.

So far this has not been an issue. Oregon, Washington, and Colorado have had mail-in balloting since 1998, 2011, and 2013 respectively. Lots of opponents claimed that mail-in ballots would be a recipe for election fraud and intimidation. This has not happened. Oregon has among the higher turnout in the US, likely because the state is all vote-by-mail.

As to the question though, California has a pretty solid system in place. We allow no-excuse absentee balloting that can be mailed up until election day. The votes are counted up to three days later. California voters have the right to file FOIA requests and subpoena their own ballot in order to ensure that they are counted, though obviously few people actually bother doing so. You can also turn your absentee ballot in at any polling place, provided you're still in the same county where you are registered to vote. We also use optical scan voting that is mostly electronic, but also has a papertrail to back it up.

It's part of a broader package of provisions designed to make it much easier to vote. California also has, among other things: online voter registration, same-day voter registration, provisional voting, automatic voter registration when getting/renewing drivers licenses, predominantly mail-in voting, pre-registration for people under 18 years of age, and no voter ID requirements. The Ledge and Secretary of State passed these new rules after California's pathetic turnout in 2014.

TBH how votes are counted is far less important than other systems of voting. It's exceptionally dumb that we vote on a Tuesday and let the states regulate how people vote. That's far more impactful on people's turnout than lack of faith in ballot sanctity or whatever.

[Beowulf]

Sample Ballot

So, obviously, we've been talking past each other. Americans are like "Of course the ballot counting takes a while. There's so much stuff on the ballot to count!" And the people from other countries are like "Why so complicated? Why do you need special voting machines? It's so simple!"

[Vendetta]

Sample Ballot

So, obviously, we've been talking past each other. Americans are like "Of course the ballot counting takes a while. There's so much stuff on the ballot to count!" And the people from other countries are like "Why so complicated? Why do you need special voting machines? It's so simple!"

A complex ballot paper with loads of stuff on it is a consequence of machine counting, not a cause of it.

If there are multiple things to vote on in a UK election they have seperate ballot papers that are collected seperately in different boxes and counted seperately.

[SpottedKitty]

If there are multiple things to vote on in a UK election they have seperate ballot papers that are collected seperately in different boxes and counted seperately.

<nod> Not that the multiples are all that many — I think the most I've ever seen all at once is three separate papers, I think it was one for a General Election, one for Scottish Government MEPs, and one for local councillors. Usually it's only one, occasionally two, because they don't always come up in the same year.

This is a good point, though, the US system is a lot more complicated, with a lot more elected positions and other stuff, all going on at the same time, so I'm not sure if a simple direct comparison can really be made.

[blahface]

I am really uncomfortable with voting by mail. We need a secret ballot. There is too much potential for coercion. If I were 18 and we had vote by mail, my dad would be the type to say “Hey, we got our ballots. Let's fill them out together.” He would not have directly punished me for voting Democrat, but I would have gotten a long lecture about how I was a communist Nazi. I would have voted Republican just to avoid conflict. Then there is also vote buying which may have changed the results in the 1888 US Presidential election. Anyway, this is a derail. The topic was supposed to be about tallying, not elections in general.

One problem I have with hand counting ballots is that it then becomes very pretty hard to transparently use other voting systems like approval voting. You can't really sort out ballots into piles with a cardinal voting system. Also, as others have pointed out, we have a bunch of races to vote on that are all on the same ballot. Hand counting just isn't practical.

A paper ballot is an absolute must, but I don't see the problem with electric tabulation as long as we can audit each ballot record.