[pigpenz]

found the information:
the term is called "vote spoilage"
you can vote but the question is, is your vote counted. in every election there is a certain % of votes thrown out for minor details, like voting for 2 candidates in one race can cause your whole voter ticket to be thrown out. This is what many believe happened in Ohio in the 2000 presidential election

[PassedOut]

pigpenz, on Oct 22 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

found the information:
the term is called "vote spoilage"
you can vote but the question is, is your vote counted. in every election there is a certain % of votes thrown out for minor details, like voting for 2 candidates in one race can cause your whole voter ticket to be thrown out. This is what many believe happened in Ohio in the 2000 presidential election

One of the advantages of the optical scan system we use here is that, in addition to providing an auditable paper trail, the voter gets immediate feedback on whether or not they've spoiled the ballot.

After marking the ballot, the voter brings it (still in the privacy sleeve) to the poll worker, who then removes the identifying stub (which protrudes from the sleeve). The voter brings the sleeve with the ballot to the scanner, which pulls the ballot from the sleeve and attempts to read it.

If the ballot is spoiled - typically by an overvote for a particular contest - the reader returns the ballot, unrecorded, with a descriptive error message. A poll worker will then supply the voter with a fresh ballot in place of the spoiled one.

As an alternative, the voter can reenter the spoiled ballot - using an override procedure - with the knowledge that the contest with the overvote will not be counted at all. All of the valid votes on the ballot will be recorded.

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Oct 22 2008, 10:33 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 21 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 21 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

Re: Acorn, showing up to vote is less of an issue than getting mail-in ballots, particularly in the cases of the multiply-registered and underaged voters.

I can't speak for other states (although I presume procedures are mostly similar), but I can speak as an election official in Michigan: Mail-in ballots are handed only to properly registered voters (with verification by picture ID). The ballots received in the mail need a correct signature - verified by workers from both parties - before they are entered into the optical scan reader and counted. The ballot control procedures to stop duplicate voting, etc., are exactly the same as for voters who show up in person on election day.

So I think that the concerns you have are completely unwarranted.

I'm curious between this and your post in the Rolling Stone thread; do you think voters should have to show I.D.?

I think it most reasonable to check voter IDs to make sure the identity is correct. Voters who do not have picture IDs should be (IMO) provided with them at registration.

However, the goal is to verify identities, not to disenfranchise voters. If a registered voter comes in (even if not a nun or priest) with an expired driver's license or passport, but the photo, address, and signature confirm the voter's identity, then it is (IMO) criminal to deny that person the right to vote.

In our precincts we have local records along with the records provided by the state. Our records are much more accurate than those provided by the state. When a voter applies for a ballot who does not appear on the state database, we check the application and the voter's picture ID against our own records. If the voter is properly registered at that precinct, he or she is allowed to vote, and we send an update to the state.

If the voter does not appear on the records, by far the most likely reason is that he or she has gone to the wrong precinct. Our poll workers help the voter find the right precinct to go to. If the voter insists that he or she is at the right place, we accept a provisional ballot.

In over eight years of working on the election commission here, I can say that I've never seen anyone attempt to vote fraudulently, nor do I know anyone else who has encountered such a situation.

[pigpenz]

Lobowolf, on Oct 22 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

I don't think there's any ID checking for mail-in ballots here (California).

no, I just mailed mine in yesterday. most likely the early votes arent even used unless there is a need for them in a close elections...most likely they just go sit in a box somewhere unless they are needed.

[TimG]

pigpenz, on Oct 22 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 22 2008, 10:30 AM, said:

I don't think there's any ID checking for mail-in ballots here (California).

no, I just mailed mine in yesterday. most likely the early votes arent even used unless there is a need for them in a close elections...most likely they just go sit in a box somewhere unless they are needed.

My personal experience is that the absentee ballots are counted and the totals added to the in person vote results before the precinct results are reported.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Oct 22 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

I think it most reasonable to check voter IDs to make sure the identity is correct. Voters who do not have picture IDs should be (IMO) provided with them at registration.

However, the goal is to verify identities, not to disenfranchise voters. If a registered voter comes in (even if not a nun or priest) with an expired driver's license or passport, but the photo, address, and signature confirm the voter's identity, then it is (IMO) criminal to deny that person the right to vote.


In over eight years of working on the election commission here, I can say that I've never seen anyone attempt to vote fraudulently, nor do I know anyone else who has encountered such a situation.

I agree that expired photo ID's should suffice, but the nun story aside, Item 4 in the Rolling Stone article suggested (and "suggested" is an underbid) that photo ID shouldn't be required at all, which strikes me as off-the-charts nuts.


I haven't worked on an election commission, but I can't imagine that fraud is all that rare. My recollection of the Dornan-Sanchez Congressional race is that a bipartisan investigation concluded that hundreds of fraudulent votes had been recorded, but not enough to have changed the outcome, as Sanchez won by about a thousand votes. Still, a finding of a few hundred in a single Congressional district strikes me as surprisingly high.

[mike777]

Having lived in Chicago in the sixties I can never remember any voter fraud. Voting was pretty easy and straight forward.

[TimG]

PassedOut, on Oct 22 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

In over eight years of working on the election commission here, I can say that I've never seen anyone attempt to vote fraudulently, nor do I know anyone else who has encountered such a situation.

But, how many have voted fraudulently and escaped your attention?

I went and picked up an absentee ballot today. Also got one for my wife. I needed no photo ID, though I did need to know address and date of birth.

I was told that the ballot had to be returned to the Town Hall by Monday, November 3rd, or it could be dropped off at the polling place by an immediate family member. I asked if they had to be a registered voter. "No." Can I send it to school with my son? "Yes." He is in the 5th grade and the polling place is his elementary school gymnasium, we're a small town and the clerk in the Town Hall knew he I was talking about a 9 to 11 year-old.

[mike777]

I would guess voting for a union or a democrat should not be considered voter fraud.
NOT voting for a union or a democrat may be voter suppression

Voting against a union or for a republican may be voter fraud.

[Hanoi5]

So, are they using the same machines than Venezuela?

[luke warm]

mike777, on Oct 22 2008, 04:14 PM, said:

Having lived in Chicago in the sixties I can never remember any voter fraud. Voting was pretty easy and straight forward.

[barmar]

luke warm, on Oct 23 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 22 2008, 04:14 PM, said:

Having lived in Chicago in the sixties I can never remember any voter fraud.  Voting was pretty easy and straight forward.

Isn't Chicago where the phrase "Vote early, vote often" was coined?

[mike777]

barmar, on Oct 26 2008, 09:52 AM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 23 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 22 2008, 04:14 PM, said:

Having lived in Chicago in the sixties I can never remember any voter fraud.  Voting was pretty easy and straight forward.

Isn't Chicago where the phrase "Vote early, vote often" was coined?

Yes, in general, if you vote early you will have more time to vote again.

[mycroft]

I thought you could only "vote often" in Daleyland if your address was "headstone #xxxx, Cook County Graveyard"