Let's come up with a foolproof voting method.

[matt_mcl]

In Canada, we use pencil and paper voting. I am not 100% certain of the very precise details of how ballots are stored and handled prior to voting, but I do know the procedures are similar as for currency.

When you are handed your ballot, a serial-numbered strip called the counterfoil is torn off the ballot paper (there is of course no serial number on the ballot itself), so there is a tally of how many people voted.

The amount of ballots used at each polling table (covers about one city block or about 200-400 people) must be equal to the number of people voted.

Each polling table is staffed by two people, who are either drawn from lists provided by the parties who won and came in second in that electoral district in the previous election, or who are hired by Elections Canada directly. Also, any candidate may designate scrutineers for any or all of the tables, who may monitor the voting process and the count.

The ballots are counted on election night, but are retained in case a recount, conducted by a judge, becomes necessary. (This election, a seat on Montreal’s South Shore actually changed hands due to a recount.)

We do have our little problems (there were rather draconian ID requirements this year that many feel prevented lots of people from voting, especially the poor, rural people, Native people, and young people, and there were also problems with under-trained and in some cases unfit poll officials) but in general there is a high degree of confidence in the system.

Elections Canada is a non-partisan organization and conducts federal elections and referenda throughout Canada.

[matt_mcl]

ETA: they tried some sort of electronic voting in the last municipal election here in Montreal – I think you marked a paper that was then scanned – and it was an unmitigated disaster. I think they’re going back to the old way next time.

[Cheesesteak]

@Furious_Marmot

Additionally, we need a set of procedures to ensure that each person votes no more than once

Election Ink. I’m also in favor of requiring a photo ID, and making photo IDs more accessible to indigent citizens.

Paper ballots stuffed into a box work much better if you’re not voting for 20 things at once. Seems to me that trying to tally a dozen individual votes per ballot would get really confusing if its done by hand.
My fool proof method is to have the machine electronically tally up the votes, while printing a receipt for the voter to review. The voter does not get to handle the receipt, it is displayed behind a window, and when the vote is confirmed, stored for backup purposes. This might be most easily done with the receipts on a long roll instead of separate cards. If there is an error, the vote number is canceled and re-voted.

[Acid_Lamp]

@Cheesesteak

My fool proof method is to have the machine electronically tally up the votes, while printing a receipt for the voter to review. The voter does not get to handle the receipt, it is displayed behind a window, and when the vote is confirmed, stored for backup purposes. This might be most easily done with the receipts on a long roll instead of separate cards. If there is an error, the vote number is canceled and re-voted.

This.

In Kissimmee, Fl we voted using scantron “fill in the bubble” sheets. They ought to take the next step and have the machine display your choices for confirmation. Once you confirm, the machine will spit out a number for you to keep. The number is linked to your name, but not to your ballot choices, only it’s number which could be matched to physical receipt if necessary. This way minor issues could be ironed out by staff comparing the receipt to the ballot. Major “batch issues” could be resolved by number. The machine offloads every 100 ballots it processes. In the event of serious fraud, or catastrophic failure, the supervisor could re-call those voters by their number to re-cast their ballot.

[Spoons]

@Aspidistra

This got me thinking - is there anywhere in the world apart from the U.S. that doesn’t do things this way? Australia and the UK I know have paper and pencil - apparently according to this thread so does Denmark and, I kind of assume, most places in Europe. I also assume most less wealthy countries would do things by paper. That doesn’t leave many other voting-machine possibilities… Japan? Canada?

Canada is pencil-and-paper in federal and provincial elections. Some municipalities use a fill-in-the-bubble-on-the-card system for municipal elections, but that’s still pencil-and-paper, really. The ballot cards can be counted by machine, but if necessary, the cards can still be easily counted by hand. The pencil-and-paper system works well, I think–better than machines that can malfunction or be hacked.

My solution to the OP would be to standardize everything–ballots, methods, people, etc. so that it is the same all across the country. I realize that since the US states set their own rules and such for voting, this would not be an easy thing to implement, but it would ensure that the same ballot (well, as far as federal candidates go) using the same design, and the same method would be used in every state. This would at least eliminate the weird “butterfly ballots” and hanging chad problems, since if such things were used, they would be used everywhere and everybody would be familiar with them. Then, in the case of a conflict such as occurred in 2000, neutral officials from other states can come in to try to solve the problem. (Wasn’t there something about the Republican Secretary of State of Florida directing the recount in 2000? How could that possibly be fair?) These neutral officials would be familiar with the layout and design of the ballot, and with the voting method, but they wouldn’t necessarily have a stake in the outcome. As long as any partisanship was balanced in the choice of the “neutral” officials (say, one Democrat official and one Republican official from another state were chosen; or something like that), it seems to me that this would be a step toward the foolproof voting method that the OP seeks.

I realize this would be well-nigh impossible, since it would probably require every state to amend its constitution and that’s never an easy process, but it’s an idea.

[Enderw24]

@LSLGuy

Some folks would argue that there is even a requirement to be unable to connect you with whether you had voted.

Why should a new system be designed with the requirement that the “bank” not know whether I voted or not? The current system does no such thing.

I’ve voted in several states. In some they ask for ID. In some they ask for proof of residency (through gas bills or the like), but in all cases they have a master list of who is eligible and registered to vote. Then they make you sign your name and cross you off the list to ensure that no one else votes under your name.
So there’s a big book out there (several big books I would imagine) that have lists of where and when I voted. I assume they aren’t burned or shreded after each election. In fact, I can guarantee it because, having worked on campaigns before, this is precisely where candidates pull their list of “likely voters.”

Now, who specifically I voted for isn’t known under the current system. I agree that it should be addressed.

[matt_mcl]

@Enderw24

I’ve voted in several states. In some they ask for ID. In some they ask for proof of residency (through gas bills or the like), but in all cases they have a master list of who is eligible and registered to vote. Then they make you sign your name and cross you off the list to ensure that no one else votes under your name.
So there’s a big book out there (several big books I would imagine) that have lists of where and when I voted. I assume they aren’t burned or shreded after each election. In fact, I can guarantee it because, having worked on campaigns before, this is precisely where candidates pull their list of “likely voters.”

The same is true of Canada and in fact following the advance polls, and at hourly intervals on Election Day, Elections Canada makes available to all candidates lists of who has voted (or more precisely their voter numbers). The parties use this to check off their identified supporters and figure out who they still have to contact to remind them to go and vote.

Of course, there is no way to find out whom you voted for, but it is necessary to know who has voted, in order to prevent people from voting twice.

[Musicat]

@LSLGuy

A key design requirement for voting is that it be impossible for anyone or anything to connect you with how you voted. Some folks would argue that there is even a requirement to be unable to connect you with whether you had voted.

Around here, it is possible for anyone to get lists of all voters (names and addresses) who voted in any of the last 10 years’ elections. The data shows which election – primary or whatever – that each person voted in, but not of course, their actual vote.

Campaigners use this data to target specific people or groups. Like the ones who vote infrequently might be encouraged to vote more often if a candidate felt it would help his cause.

A friend of mine used the data to prove me wrong when I made the off-the-cuff remark that “I never vote.” She found I went to the polls for almost every election.

Although this data does seem like a mild invasion of privacy, I think all parties would object to making it unavailable.

@matt_mcl

Of course, there is no way to find out whom you voted for, but it is necessary to know who has voted, in order to prevent people from voting twice.

But that info does not need to be made public. Poll workers check off a voter’s name in the big master book at the polls, so an attempt to vote again would be thwarted.

[RealityChuck]

@Furious_Marmot

RealityChuck: I remember those machines from when I was a kid. Any idea how they work internally?

Not precisely, but from what I understand, when you pull the big red lever to open the curtain, all the choices you made are registered on odometer-like dials inside the machine (the voting levers are also reset).

Once voting is complete, the election workers open the back (the machines are sealed to make any tampering obvious) and write down the numbers on the wheels.

New York doesn’t actually have recounts of the machines. They are sealed up once the voting is done, and if there’s any question, workers check the numbers on the dials again. Errors only occur when the poll workers write down the wrong number, but since you have two people looking, that’s rare.

Fraud would require the collusion of all the poll workers, but since there are both Republicans and Democrats present, it’s extremely unlikely.

The machines were developed back when Tammany Hall was big and the machines were a big contributor to their loss of power (another was the change in registration rules that required voters to match a signature, much like the system American Express uses on their Traveler’s checks).

It really is as accurate and tamper resistant as you can get, especially when the model gives a paper count of the starting tally and the ending tally (there was a way to set the count ahead and then paste a paper zero on one of the counters, so it would start at, say, 00300 and look like 00000. The paper would fall off during voting. However, the paper tally would indicate the numbers started at 300 so the votes will be counted correctly).

The only objection to them is that they are not ADA-compliant, but there’s no reason they couldn’t be made so. They are more expensive initially than other devices, but are sturdy as hell and are probably comparable or even cheaper over the life of the machine.

The main reason no one considers them is that there’s no manufacturer to lobby for them.

[beowulff]

Everyone needs to watch the HBO special “Recount,” available on NetFlix.

[jackdavinci]

@RealityChuck

It already exists: Mechanical lever voting machines. Most notably, the AVP Printomatic.

They system has worked well in New York for a century. They are next to impossible to screw with, produce a paper tally of the votes, and are easy to count (just write down the numbers listed on the back). Fraud would require the agreements of both parties.

I live in NY and agree that for the most part these seem like the best option. I’m worried though, because my friend tells me that NY is going to require replacing them with some other mechanism in the future. Do you know if this is true?

The only problem I have with them is that it would be hard to use them if we changed to the IRV system which I favor.