h a l f b a k e r yAssume a hemispherical cow.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In this system, each state/county can still use whatever type of voting system it wants (butterfly, levers, electronic, scanned, etc.). HOWEVER, the voting site must also have at least two other types of ballots available on hand.
All voters must use the main voting method, if they want their votes
to be counted in the election. Voters will also have the *option* of casting their vote two more times, using different types of ballots.
In the case of a very close election where individual votes must be recounted, or, if the voting machines are found to be defective after the election, the "secondary" votes cast by each voter who chose to do so are examined and tallied.
Chances are, even someone who didn't know how to use a butterfly ballot or who wasn't strong enough to punch a hole in a perforated film of paper will still succeed in making his choice known on two of the three ballots that he has cast. The candidate twice voted for, out of the three votes, is ruled to be the voter's choice. If all three ballots were different, the vote is discarded. No more "Is it dimpled or not" or similar nonsense.
For really stupid counties, a 3-out-of-5 system might prove more effective.
Thank you.
[link]
|
| |
So you are suggesting redundant voting just in case there is a mistake. This becomes an important issue when voting machines are used. (+) |
|
| |
How about using just 2 machines which are connected (mechanically?) to each other. You vote with one voting apparatus, then move to the other and vote again. If your two votes don't match, a light flashes or a bell rings signifying a problem and both of your votes are nullified. You go back and try again. If your two votes match, no lights or bells. Your vote is tallied. Election supervisors could randomly send in testers who purposefully vote different ways on each machine in order to see if those votes are identified as erroneous. |
|
| |
Unfortunately I think this would just make things more
complicated, resulting in additional human error. [-] |
|
| |
I've had some time to think about this over the last six years, [calculust], and I now agree with you :) |
|
| |
I think they already have these in Florida.... |
|
| |
I always thought that that was a quote from Capone but apparently he just nicked it from some bloke called Thompson. One of Chicago's many fine, upstanding mayors. |
|
| |