Up here in Canukistan:
1> You are registred to vote via your Taxes and/or the Census. (just check a box on your Taxes!)
2> You look up where you vote.
3> You go to your voting location. You are handed a piece of paper. It has the list of candidates (~ 5 to 10) written out, and a large black-outlined box beside each one.
4> You X, check, or smily the appropriate candidate.
5> You place it in a voting box.
6> The votes are counted as follows:
In the presence of scruteneers for each candidate:
a) The box is opened
b) The ballot is held up
c) The worker says "I see a vote for Bob"
d) The scruteneers either accept or gripe
e) The count is totaled, possibly with "disputed" ballots placed aside
Fraud is still possible, but it is bounded. It does require the partisan scruiteneers being blind and/or corrupt. But it isn't mass-produced fraud.
Each scruiteneer can check their notarized totals against their station's published total. The sum of the station's votes are public, as is the total votes. Corrupting this system requires a corrupt infrastructure the size of the amount of corruption.
I suppose this doesn't work in the USA because of your tendency to stick the kitchen sink on your ballots.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
My guess is voter fraud is going to stay on this level (provided it doesn't go to the Internet voting) because if you rig the machines, sooner or later someone is going to cry foul (with cause, not the crap we saw in 2004).
|
How could you tell if things where foul in 2004? I don't know if there was fraud, but there was no way to tell if there wasn't.
There is no way to know if the computer is cheating and making up votes. The existence of a few anomolous areas (places where the number of votes exceeded the number of people registerd to vote, etc) seems like circumstantial evidence of wide-spread fraud.