Is this a Vote for Franken or Lizard People?
Ever wondered what the thrill of checking ballots in a recount is like? Always dreamed of deciding what constitutes a voter's intent? You are in luck.
Minnessota Public Radio is posting pictures of challenged ballots in the MN Senatorial recount between Al Franken (D) and Norm Coleman (Inc-R), and allowing viewers to vote on whether or not the ballot should have been counted and, if so, for whom. Its actually really fun.
I hope Al Franken wins. From the looks of things so far, he's got a pretty good chance.
1 comment:
I just checked this out, and went through all the sample ballots. What were these people smoking? How hard is it to fill out a Scantron? I guess it could be hard for someone who's really old or has a physical disability, but in that case, can't you get a poll worker to fill it out for you?
As the MPR site suggests, this does create a strong argument for electronic voting - not in its current, unaccountable form, but at least in some form where the voter is not actually making the marks themselves on the ballot (or using a stylus to punch holes in the ballot). How about this voting system: Use an electronic interface to choose who to vote for, then the voting machine prints out a ballot on a Scantron form. The voter then looks over the printed Scantron form to make sure that all the bubbles are filled in correctly (and that no one has tampered with the code in the electronic voting machine). Once the voter is satisfied that all the bubbles have been filled in correctly, she puts the printed ballot in the ballot box. This way, we have actual paper ballots that have been double-checked by the voters, not just a printout from the electronic voting machine that some say constitutes a "record," but in reality could be incorrect. These printed ballots would all be very clear regarding voter intent, and there would never be any controversies about "hanging chads" or bubbles that are halfway filled in. The printed ballots would then be read by a Scantron machine, so that the electronic voting machine would not be doing the counting. This would create the best possible paper record for recount purposes, while eliminating completely the possibility that electronic voting machines could be tampered with.
Post a Comment