Temecula Voter wrote on Jun 20, 2006 10:17 PM:I think that Mr. Cassel makes an unbelievable jump by asserting that absentee voters use the absentee ballot solely for the purpose of avoiding the electronic ballot. That's not true in my case. I use the absentee ballot simply for the matter of convenience. I vote in the quiet of my own home with the initiatives by my side, fully explained and researched, complete with my notes. I'm not forced to drive around town looking for my polling place, recall how I wanted to vote on certain items, nor do I have to wait in line to vote, wasting precious time. As to Ms. Dunmore violating the letter and spirit of the law concerning annoynmity when voting, a complaint filed with the Secretary of State and District Attorney's office should take care of that problem. Ms. Dunmore has an obligation to uphold and OBEY the law. Not massage it to fit her needs and wants. Seems to me she's tampering (or has the potential to tamper) with votes when she take the paper votes and inserts them into the computer.

Curious wrote on Jun 21, 2006 10:14 AM:Why would the RoV not simply manually enter the information from the paper ballots? There were only 150, so it shouldn't be an issue of time. Clearly those voters didn't want the electronic voting machines to touch their ballot, and must have believed they were avoiding them by demanding the paper ballot. "Temecula Voter" mis-read one part of the Op Ed. Nowhere did Mr. Cassel state Absentee Voters use the Absentee Ballot SOLELY to avoid the electronic ballot. Rather, he opined that a "large percentage" do so for that reason. In any case, I suspect the number voting absentee to avoid the manipulation possible from the electronic system is continuing to grow, as more comes out about the lack of security of e-voting. I am truly outraged that the clear intent of these paper ballot voters has been disrespected. It is time to examine the operations of this department which is charged with preserving the integrity of our votes.

thomas wrote on Jun 21, 2006 10:29 AM:Temecula voter apparently didn't read Mr. Cassel's article closely enough. Mr. Cassell is talking about those ballots cast on election day at the polls on paper. If Temecula voter sent his absentee ballot in by mail or dropped his at the polls then it had to be read by scan tron machine because there were tens of thousands of absentee votes cast and Mr. Cassell was referring to the 150 cast on paper on election day at the polls. I do agree with Temecula voter though that a referral to the District Attorney's Office, or perhaps the Attorney General or Secretary of State certainly seems to be in order for this one.

Ron wrote on Jun 21, 2006 11:28 AM:Voters aren't stupid, as some may suspect. We can make our own decisions about how we vote, when we vote, or why we vote.

Vote Counter wrote on Jun 21, 2006 12:44 PM:Many people vote absentee for the convenience, but everybody wants their vote counted. I don't want anybody at the Registrar's office rewriting my completed ballot for me. It is tantamount to, "here, let me take that ballot into the back room to be counted." Whether it's a back room or a black box, votes are being counted in secret. The Registrar acts like our votes are property of the government, but they are actually controlled by private companies. Great article, Art. Why don't Riverside officials recognize that the Registrar of Voters is incompetent? HEY RON, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin

Always Absentee wrote on Jun 21, 2006 12:48 PM:I always vote via absentee. For me it's about convenience. I will continue to do so until they get that online voting thing worked out.

urrightto wrote on Jun 21, 2006 1:25 PM:Those who use absentee ballots for convienence need to be aware that such are counted by optical scan machines that do not count accurately,plain and simple.

To Urrightto wrote on Jun 21, 2006 1:51 PM:So are the rest of them ... no matter what they tell you or what you want to believe.

Linda wrote on Jun 21, 2006 2:33 PM:With respect to Absentee Votes, which may very likely be also named Our Lost Votes, I commend Art Cassel's well documented input. It is utterly shameful and unAmerican that when the paper ballots were opened, those casting them lost all privacy. Having their name on the envelope and their votes in plain sight is unacceptable. And I wish to add my voice to the outrage over the disgraceful way Riverside County Registrar of Voters, Barbara Dunmore, mishandled these votes, casting these ballots into the very machines I, for one, INTENTIONALLY chose to avoid, instead of tallying them by hand. Shame on her for her shabby performance. If she and all the others who see nothing wrong with a system so desperately wrong, are allowed to proceed unchecked by higher standards, then indeed, our democracy is in grave danger.

Temecula Voter wrote on Jun 21, 2006 5:24 PM:Quoting exactly from the article: "In the June 6 primary election in Riverside County, the birthplace of electronic voting, 49 percent of those voting used an absentee ballot. There is little question that a large percentage of these voters have selected to do so due to concern about the accuracy of electronic voting." That's a statement made without factual support, but rather based on pure speculation on behalf of the author. Now - who misread the article? Not me! Perhaps YOU should read it again.

Curious wrote on Jun 22, 2006 2:10 AM:Temecula Voter - c'mon - your exact words were "solely for the purpose of avoiding the electronic ballot", as if that was what Mr. Cassel said. Nowhere will you find "solely for the purpose of" in his op ed. Let's not get hung up on opinions and percentages. After all, it IS an OP(inion) ED(itorial) piece, so he is entitled to his opinion. Bottom line is, electronic voting is not secure from tampering. It is, in fact, a black box where something goes in, something comes out, and we are told to "trust" it is all on the up and up. And when we try to get closer to observe some of the processes, we are told we must stay away "to protect the privacy of the voter". What a line to use, when the 150 paper ballot voters names and votes are in plain sight for all the workers to see. I guess it's ok for county staff to see the actual votes of people, by name, but not ordinary citizens. We must be second (or third) class - after all, we only (think we) elect our officials who then appoint the bureaucrats. It would be WAY too novel of an idea to think they are actually accountable to us.

Transparent Voter wrote on Jun 22, 2006 1:26 PM:The big picture here is that our Registrar of Voters has not been voter friendly, not has she run her office in a tranparent manner. This is yet ANOTHER case in the box of plenty where there is twists, turns, and glitches that are passed off as "no problem." When are our Board of Supervisors, the RoV bosses going to demand uniformity, transperancey in our county's system? We don't follow the law in this county when it comes to voting, why? Enough is enough!

Kate wrote on Jun 22, 2006 8:38 PM:Yesterday morning I opened the paper & read Art Cassel’s article. Mr. Cassel stated exactly what happened during my voting experience this month: from the photocopied ballots, the complete lack of privacy & the condescending attitude given to me when I questioned signing (& listing more information) on the front of the envelope for the ballots. I had already signed in properly. Why was personal information need on the envelope holding photocopied ballots? The final remark that infuriated me was something to the effect; “I don’t know why she’s worried about her anonymity?”. This from the people signing us in & administering ballots. If I hadn’t felt I needed to vote I would have taken that ballot & left. A friend with me called the office in Riverside & was told “we were ordered to do this to insure a correct count.” That made no sense at all, one ballot, one number, there was a number on the envelope that could have been placed next to my name in the register log. By the way, I know of more people that would have asked for paper ballots had they known they could have done so. Yes, I realize I could use absentee ballots, but I view walking into a polling place & casting my votes as not only my right & privilege but also as my obligation as a citizen, or is that as obsolete as the thought of at least the semblance of privacy?

Curious wrote on Jun 24, 2006 12:59 AM:Why isn't there anyone disputing this story? Could it be that it is completely true, yet those in power just don't CARE? If this was an isolated incident of slighting the voters in Riverside County, one might chalk it up to stupidity. But since it seems to be endemic, it more resembles hard- headedness and general distain for "those pesky voters", as a recent NY Times Op Ed piece opined.