Welcome to the Citizens Audit Blog!
We welcome any and all of your comments, criticisms, and suggestions regarding the "Citizens Audit: A Fully Transparent Voting Strategy" ( http://e-grapevine.org/citizensaudit.htm ).
Most voting systems today rely on statistical techniques to detect anomalies in election results. These techniques can reduce, but cannot eliminate, the risk that some votes will be inaccurately recorded or counted. This conflicts with the principle that "Every vote counts."
The Citizens Audit strategy is an attempt to ensure that every ballot is 100% accurate, and that every vote count is 100% accurate.
There are still elements of this strategy that need to be considered and refined.
Your input will help in that task.
Thanks for taking the time to share your ideas!
Regards,
Roy Lipscomb
Developer of "Citizens Audit"
P.S. To leave a comment, just click on either "Comments" or "Post a Comment," below.
Most voting systems today rely on statistical techniques to detect anomalies in election results. These techniques can reduce, but cannot eliminate, the risk that some votes will be inaccurately recorded or counted. This conflicts with the principle that "Every vote counts."
The Citizens Audit strategy is an attempt to ensure that every ballot is 100% accurate, and that every vote count is 100% accurate.
There are still elements of this strategy that need to be considered and refined.
Your input will help in that task.
Thanks for taking the time to share your ideas!
Regards,
Roy Lipscomb
Developer of "Citizens Audit"
P.S. To leave a comment, just click on either "Comments" or "Post a Comment," below.
posted by Roy Lipscomb at 3:32 PM
3 Comments:
I had a similar thought about voting in 2004, after the stealing...
Everyone who wants to would vote twice, once on the black box and again by paper ballot set up and run by community volunteers. Then we count the paper. Then if the Dear Leader announces that this or that candidate only got X number of votes, it could be proved wrong by the paper ballots.
Anyway, I agree that we need a parallel system since "they" have stolen the regular system.
Yes, a parallel election sounds like a very attractive strategy. But after giving it some thought, I suspect it will not solve the problem.
1) If a community-conducted election comes up with different results than the official election, the incumbent government officials can claim that the community election is the one that was rigged. How could the community prove otherwise?
2) It's unlikely that absolutely 100% of the voters who participated in the official election would also participate in the community election. Some people will be suspicious, others may not want to take more time to vote, etc.
3) It's conceivable that voters may not remember all the votes they cast, at least in the minor races on the ballot.
The strategy I'm proposing would defintely sidestep the second and third problem, above.
If my strategy has any weakness, it's in making sure that that videos are made in each precinct, and made by opposing parties in the election. In Chicago, we sometimes don't have enough Republicans to help out at the polls, so we recruit Democrats to fill some of the Republican slots.
Thanks much for your comment!
5:27 PM
Delete
Jack,
Thanks for your question. It raises
a good issue, because a "citizens
audit" may lengthen the time needed
to certify the election results.
It should suffice to allow roughly
three days for citizens to access
and count the votes, and another two
days for people to file complaints.
(But I'm sure that if the official
count is in error, as soon as it
gets published you'll find that
complaints from voters will start
start rolling in.)
There's no hardship in waiting a
few more days for election results;
we waited over a week for results in
the March 2005 primary here in
Chicago. That was partly due to
voting machine malfunctions; but
the point is that the wait did not
bring down the government. ;)
Thanks again!
Post a Comment
<< Home