There was a video showing ballot stuffing in Russia's election.
This Republican move seems to be an effort to emulate that election.
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
426 points (98.2% liked)
News
23440 readers
3849 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Chairman Bruce Campbell shouted "Hail to the king, baby!" before kicking over the entire container of 8000 ballots, forcing another recount because he suspected demonic influence on the election results.
Republicans' effort to count fails after they run out of fingers.
Klaatu barada nikto!
Groovy
Honey, you got real ugly
When asked if he counted the votes exactly he shrugged and said "look, maybe I didn't count every single little tiny ballot, but basically yeah, I counted them."
Humans are error-prone; of course hand counting will lead to errors. Such a non-issue to try to fix. Dumb.
That's why typically there are other election employees and observers present. Canada's federal elections are tallied by hand count, and results are always (as far as I'm aware) certified the same day. Canada's population is about 40 million people, so not quite the US's 330+ million, but a lot more than this town's 8000.
Spain also hand counts. At each poll station there are three citizens recruited at random (sort of like jury duty) who run each ballot box. They check voter's credentials and cross off names from the list. The process is overseen by each parties appointed "overseers". The whole counting process must be validated by all. I prefer this method. Machines can be tampered with.
Why not machine certify and hand-count verify? Could have both systems for quick results on the day and verified accurate results in the longer term. Have the voting machine print out your results and you can self verify and put them in a secret ballot box to be hand-counted later.
Why not machine certify and hand-count verify?
Because the manual system works well and costs little.
Could have both systems for quick results on the day and verified accurate results in the longer term.
Canada already has hand-counted and verified results the same day the election occurs, in a country with a population roughly equivalent to the state of California. Adding machine counting would only add complexity and cost while producing no additional benefits.
Have the voting machine
Canada doesn't have voting machines, nor do we want them. Our ballot system is a piece of paper and a pencil. That's it. That's our whole voting "machine."
The real genius is in how the vote counting process works. Every candidate is allowed to provide a representative, often called a scrutineer, to oversee the counting process at each polling station. Scrutineers are allowed to challenge a ballot if they feel it has been attributed to the wrong candidate or should have been considered a spoiled ballot. The doors to the polling station are locked while ballots are being counted, and no one is allowed to go home until the count is complete. Basic self-interest ensures that counts are done in a timely fashion, while also ensuring that every candidate can have a representative that was part of the counting process.
Under the Canadian system, for all practical purposes it would be impossible to perpetrate election fraud. A candidate would need to somehow induce Elections Canada employees and/or volunteers at multiple polling stations to miscount ballots. They would also need to convince multiple scrutineers to turn a blind eye, scrutineers who were nominated by their opponents. Each riding typically has 4+ candidates (at minimum Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, and Green party candidates, plus often some independent or fringe party candidates), and every single one of those candidates is allowed to provide a scrutineer at each polling station. There will be many polling stations across a single riding, so that's potentially dozens or hundreds of people that would need to be coerced or convinced to contribute to the election fraud. And that's just for one single riding.
The doors to the polling station are locked while ballots are being counted, and no one is allowed to go home until the count is complete. Basic self-interest ensures that counts are done in a timely fashion, while also ensuring that every candidate can have a representative that was part of the counting process.
Right, but do you have a political cult who would willingly stall the process so it would not be completed in a reasonable time just so that they can claim the process is flawed and skewed against them when they lose?
It only "costs little" because you have a ton of people willing to do it. What if there's something that prevents people from volunteering? Say, snow? Or maybe a worldwide pandemic? Or massive wildfires?
These are all obvious possibilities. There's really no reason to not machine count with a matching hand count. Extra cost? This is your entire country's election. It's not the time to pinch pennies.
It only “costs little” because you have a ton of people willing to do it.
First off you say that like it's a bad thing. For the record, it is not. Second, many of the people counting votes are paid, i.e. Elections Canada employees. Scrutineers could be volunteers or paid employees of the party/candidate they represent.
What if there’s something that prevents people from volunteering?
That would equally inhibit people from voting. Besides which, elections can and have been postponed in cases of severe weather, and wildfires have been considered in cases where they've been occurring around an election. No politician or Elections Canada supervisor is going to send voters, employees and volunteers out to die for an election.
Or maybe a worldwide pandemic?
We had one, it went fine. Anyone who didn't like the thought of voting in public had the option of voting by mail, something that every Canadian has been allowed to do since 1993.
There’s really no reason to not machine count with a matching hand count.
Yes there fucking is. Machines add completely unnecessary complexity to a simple system that works.
deleted by creator
Hey, don't get me wrong, it's not all sunshine and roses up here in the north. We have huge problems with cost of living, especially housing, which our current government is failing to address. We have a multi-party system but in my lifetime the national power only ever oscillated between two parties, Liberal (roughly equivalent to US Democrats) and Conservative (roughly equivalent to US Republicans pre-MAGA, or maybe even pre-Reagan). Based on current polling, Canadian discontent looks set to sweep out the incumbent Liberals and sweep in the opposition Conservatives sometime between now and Oct. 2025. I don't think the Conservatives are going to do any better at addressing cost of living, but fear that they'll bring in a bunch of regressive crap while they continue to fail in the same way the Liberals have failed. There are lots of other areas where Canada has room for improvement, but within the very narrow scope of how Canada runs its elections, that I will claim we got right.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I still don't see any reason you can't do this and have a machine count to compare. Redundancies are never a bad idea, and basically every study which has ever been done on the topic shows that hand counts are generally more error prone than hand audited machine counts.
Any increase in accuracy would not be worth the tradeoff. The current system in Canada is very simple and very visible. Scrutineers for every candidate can watch the votes being counted and immediately understand what is happening. No amount of trust is required for the system to work.
A machine that counts votes would be a black box to observers of the election. Most would need to trust that the machines are operating correctly. When machine counts and manual counts disagree, even slightly, it sows confusion and discord. The mere existence of voting machines and machine counts in the US has been sufficient to give rise to numerous conspiracy theories. In my view they are part of the rot besetting American democracy, and I don't want them where I live.
Humans can more easily be tampered with (or just be dumb).
That's their goal with the whole Dominion voting machines and crying about mail in voting. It's to weaken our already outdated voting machines/processes and to make it easier to steal elections on their end.
Because they're not trying to fix an issue, it's an excuse to meddle with the election and make things worse so they can sell their "democracy is broken, vote for a strong man" schtick
It's dumb because this is a solved problem. Where I am we have bubble ballots where you mark the box, and the machine scans it and drops it into a box. Hand audits of this technology routinely show discrepancies of literally zero over millions of votes.
This is the part which drives me crazy. The concern trolling over vote counting is so transparent, and all because the worlds stupidest orange clown has managed to inject that stupid into the brain of every Republican voter.
It's disturbing how little actual information is in the linked article. I'm sure something truly concerning happened, but "more than 8,000 ballots" is literally the only metric provided and then the author just uses the article as an excuse to talk about Mike Lindell and Trump's indictments.
Keep in mind there are roughly 15 to 30 questions on each ballot. If they're manually verifying each answer on each ballot, then it's really easy to make mistakes.
Assuming accuracy of your numbers, you've literally increased the article's concrete data by 100%
Have you looked at your ballot? You're usually not just voting on just the primary candidate. There are also elections for senators, congressmen, judges, and town and state amendments usually included. 15 to 30 questions isn't unreasonable. However for a town of 8,000, not sure how many town specific questions there are.
Yeah, I had 12 people on my ballot and live in a city with over 2 million. I assumed you were using assumptions, but even if you called it an estimation, I'd still give you partial credit for trying harder than the article to be informative.
As I read your comment I'm thinking, oh, this sounds like a Newsweek article.
Checks source... LMAO.
Context: my comment here https://lemmy.ml/comment/9458613
Well I'm certainly shocked.
The real question is how many of those votes were scribbled on fortune cookie paper?
Thing about counting votes is, you can't be corrupt.
It's not the votes that are wrong, it's the corruption.
The Republican push for hand-counted ballots has continued to emerge as the party criticizes a number of electronic voting systems, linking them to claims that the 2020 election was stolen via widespread voter fraud.
One of the major proponents of paper ballots is Trump supporter and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has been an outspoken critic of electronic voting machines. He has said he wants U.S. elections to be held using paper ballots.
Broken clock syndrome. You don't have to be a MAGAt to think that paper ballots are more secure than digital ones.
It isn't the paper ballots that are the problem, it's the hand counting. Many states use paper ballots which are then counted by electronic tallying machines. This method gives results quickly and has the paper ballots to be counted manually if there are discrepancies. Hand counting is slower, less accurate, and just as vulnerable to malicious actors.
HI! My name is Chad, and I'll be hanging over here, just to confuse you
These types of ballots don’t have chads. They have circles you fill out with a pencil or black marker, very similar to standardized tests like SAT’s. After you fill it out you feed it into an optical scanner that tallies the votes.
At the end of the election officials simply add up the results from each optical scanner. And if there’s a legitimate concern about the counts, or simply a desire to audit a machine then you just pull the ballots from one or more machines, count the results, and compare those with what the scanner counted.
So you have an easily audited paper trail and the ability to audit small sets of ballots/machines rather than hand counting everything.
I was making a joke, kinda like the following,: I'm still pissed that Chad overthrew the election
Brooks Brothers riot and the SC otherthrew that election. I remember when that happened and I only years later learning about the riots. For some reason, I just remember people making Chad jokes.
That was my first presidential election as a voting age adult. I was 20 that year. Before the DC sniper was caught, while they were doing their thing, I had surmised that they were taking potshots at The SCOTUS for overturning the legitimate election, and forcing Dubbaya on us.
Well I mean when you defund education often and long enough, counting is bound to be cut from the curriculum eventually. I mean why teach those toddlers to count when you could instead be teaching them how to make the bootstraps they'll need to pull themselves up with once they hit age 10?
You mean bootstrap, you have to be able to count to get to bootstraps.
Well yeah, anyone who’s had a job dealing with any amount of counting knows that machine counts are inaccurate but nothing compares to the inaccuracy of hand counting details
view more: next ›