New Voting Machines in Boone County, Kentucky

New Voting Machines

Our county has new voting machines. The old ones were forty years old, and are obsolete. For this, and other reasons, the new machines were purchased. This primary election, 2010, was the first time they have been used. The response from the great majority of voters was positive. As a poll worker I think the new method has some good features; but there are some concerns, and I think the voters might be interested in a discussion of the new system.

How Does the Process Work?

Voters must present identification unless personally known to one of the officers at the polls. There are two judges, a sheriff, and a clerk. If one of these will claim your acquaintance you do not need to present your driver's license. I like that; I always feel slightly offended when I have to prove who I am. Sometimes security can be more important than an inconvenience. You must then sign the Voter Registration book. Some people worry about the initial or maiden name—I suggest you sign your name just as you always do: You can't read about half of the signatures in the book anyway. In the general election coming up in November voters will not be asked their party affiliation; anyone can vote for any cadidate; but in the primary this is necessary because you can only vote for candidates of the party in which you are registered.

I am always shocked at how many people do not know which party they are. I am also surprised at how many people switch back and forth, but that is their privilege. However, you should call the clerk's office and be sure you are registered in the party you wish to vote for by the end of December of the previous year. There are always some problems about this, so if you think there will be any question it is best to make sure.

After signing the voter's registration book, you will receive your ballot from one of the judges. Prior to this year, voters received a ticket for one party or the other, and a judge would take it and set the machine for your party; now your paper ballot shows the contests in which you may select a candidate. If you are not a member of either major party you may still select candidates on the non-partisan ballot. All judicial races are non-partisan. In the gemeral election the ballots are not issued by party; you may vote for the candidate of your choice in every race.

Then you sit down at a booth and select your candidates by marking the ballot. Do not make an 'X' or a checkmark; fill in the entire square box beside your candidate's name. You may use either blue or black ink. If you make a mistake write "spoiled" across the face of the ballot, like you are voiding a check. An election worker will give you an envelope to put it in, and will give you a new ballot when you have put the spoiled one in a slot in the side of the machine. Do not hand your spoiled ballot to the poll worker—we do not want to see how you voted.

When you are satisfied that your ballot is properly marked—look over it again once or twice—this is important!—then you are ready to drop it into the ballot box. A number of voters remarked that marking a paper ballot seems to be 'going back' instead of forward in technology. This is not really true, because the high-tech part is in the submission of the ballots. The ballot box is a computer scanner. Lay the ballot on the face of the machine and push it forward toward the arrows, like putting a dollar in a change machine. You may scan it face-up or face-down; I suggest face-down, as it is less likely that anyone will see it. The screen at the side will show that your ballot was accepted and your votes recorded. You will see an American flag waving on the screen.

If you vote for more than one candidate in any race it will be rejected as "over-voted" and you must spoil that ballot and start over. If you have over-voted your ballot will be rejected, and the machine will spit the ballot out, like the change machine does a crumpled bill. When your ballot has been 'spoiled' and replaced with one that is done correctly, the flag on the screen will wave, and the ballot will drop into the ballot box. You will not get the paper back. Take your "I Voted" sticker from the smiling judge, and congratulate yourself on a job well done—the future of the Republic rests on such as you.

Your vote is recorded instantly, and will be tallied with the others from the magnetic card in the machine as soon as the polls close. The results for each precinct are posted on the door as the poll workers leave. The paper ballots will remain sealed in the machine for sixty days, and then will be destroyed, unless there is a recount. That is a good feature of this system; there is something to count. On a totally electronic system everything is digital, and the electronic cards always give the same figures when they are re-counted. At the end of the day, all the electronic cards are taken back to the courthouse, along with the voters book, and other equipment, and made part of the grand total for the whole county.

Good features of this system are that the paper ballot is more personal; however it is probably not quite as private as the old system. By scanning your ballot face-down you should reduce the risk of someone else seeing how you voted. A few voters this time actually handed their ballots directly to the poll worker, like a kid giving the teacher their homework; we are not comfortable with this. We do not wish to see your votes, and it is no part of our job; but we are too busy to remember your vote anyway should it occur.

Origin and Importance of the Secret Ballot

The secret ballot was an important American innovation to the democratic voting process. It is not in the Constitution, and the change is due to Yankee abuse of the old voting system during the Civil War. In the old system, the candidates were placed on a list, and the names of the voters also on a list. As each voter's name was called, he announced the names of the candidates he wished to vote for. Everyone present—and that included every interested person in the precinct—knew how everyone voted. Would you enjoy casting your vote for a Southern-sympathizing candidate in the presence of armed Yankee soldiers? The secret ballot was instituted as a check on tyranny.

There is no good reason why your friends and neighbors should not know how you voted; but if you have a reason you don't want them to know, they shouldn't. Neither should the government, or officials who might discriminate against you if you voted for someone else. If you are like me, you are glad to tell people how you vote. We put signs in our yards and stickers in our vehicles, don't we? Secrecy isn't always important, but the protection of the secret ballot should be available to any who feel they need it. You will have no difficulty in protecting this right with the new system if you exercise reasonable precautions in marking and submitting your ballot.

Some Concerns about the Undervote

These are some of the good points of the new system, but there are a few concerns; and at least one specifically negative feature I would like to present for consideration.

There is a problem with registration of voters. It may be that the the easiest way to win a primary now is to juggle registrations rather than ballots. Phone polls, which are conducted regularly could correlate votes of individuals who not plan to vote for the current regime, and allow registrations to be changed by fraud. There were a number of people at the polls who indicated this is what may have happened in their case. In an election that results in a difference of fewer than 100 votes this could be a significant source of fraud. A re-count in such a case would not be as effective as an investigation for fraud. I suggest both, together, for this primary. It would be nice to be sure, and I think electronic phone polls should be outlawed. I will be reviewing this in a separate article. All such irregularities should come under judicial review, and the results of the investigations published online.

There is a problem with the undervote. There was a feature of the old system that allowed voters to register a protest that is not available under the new system. That is, the scanner will not accept an unmarked ballot. A voter should be able to cast a ballot without voting for anyone. This may seem unimportant, but it serves a valuable function. I always vote, but sometimes there is no choice if a candidate is running unopposed. I never vote for someone I consider to have abused his position, and there are several now in office I have declined to vote for in past races, but then there was no alternative. I cast my ballot anyway, but I do not necessarily select a candidate in every single race.

The number of people who vote, but do not vote for either candidate in a race is called the undervote; say 6,000 people vote, but only 200 vote for a particular unopposed candidate. He will win, but this is a seriously unpopular candidate, as 5,800 voters did not vote for him. The old system reported the undervote; this one apparently does not. Furthermore, if you don't vote for at least one candidate the machine will reject your ballot. This is a serious setback for anyone wishing to vote protesting all candidates, as was available with the previous system. This can be easily corrected by providing a box indicating "I do not wish to vote for any candidate." The machine would accept the ballot and the American right and tradition of protest would be preserved.

I'm surprised that the smart people who brought us the new system did not consider this—but they may not be old enough to realize that there are administrations so bad that voters wish to reject the entire ticket. I think the ability to register protest is a right well worth preserving, and I hope this will be changed immediately.

Conclusion

Any system will work with honest people, none with those who are not. At election time, as at any other, it is still true that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

James Duvall, M. A.
Big Bone University
Big Bone, Kentucky
Nec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem.

A Question of Morality;

or, Why I Have Decided Not to Vote for Trey Greyson for Senator, 2010—He's Out of Touch


When I voted for Trey Greyson for Secretary of State I knew very little about him; I met him at a campaign rally for Governor Ernie Fletcher. He seemed very distant—standoffish,I should say—but considering it was towards the end of a tough campaign I didn't think much about it. After the election I was glad to have at least one person I considered Republican in a state office.

That was then. In the meantime I have had some experience with the kind of people the Greysons really are and have concluded they are out-of-touch “yuppies” who don't have much experience with the real world. Trey Greyson may not now be a Clinton Democrat politically, though I cannot help being suspicious for anyone who ever voted for Clinton; but I have concluded he is at least very like Bill Clinton in a more unsatisfactory way: he is a Clinton-style liar—and he follows Clinton's “pragmatic” morality. Trey, like Bill, apparently thinks that if he tells lies about his opponent often enough the rest of us are stupid enough to believe them.

Many voters and editorials have noted that Greyson is not serious, and does not have a platform. He is out of touch with reality; in the current economic climate real people are serious about the issues.

Liars look down on other people—that explains the stand-offishness—and I believe that Trey Greyson is out of touch with real people. But this is only an aspect of a more troubling characteristic of Mr. Greyson: He is out of touch with morality. He has continually lied about his opponent, Dr. Rand Paul. But he seems to regard it as justified to get what he wants, and I regard that as a major character defect.

This lack of moral perspective and taking the easy way out appears to run in the Greyson family. I had an unsatisfactory encounter with his wife, Nancy Greyson, that leads me to believe they are both interested, not in truth, right, or justice, but in taking the easy way out, and doing all they can for themselves, and for Trey's political career.

In September 2009 I lost my job as Local History Researcher for the Boone County Public Library, after seven years of employment. This was due to the collusion of two evil people, also without moral perspective: my former supervisor, Bridget Striker, and the H. R. person, Sherri Slavey, who blindsided me with a pre-termination document presented immediately after the retirement of our longtime Director, when no one was there to stop them. This they did in the week between Directors.

Instead of questioning why there was no documentation to support the disciplinary action, Ms. Southard,the new Director, fired me on her third day, refusing even to listen to what was actually happening. According to library policy and state law, she was supposed to try to resolve any problems, then write a report and submit it to the Board of Trustees for a hearing. I never got that hearing.

Nancy Greyson, Trey's wife, is the Secretary of the Library Board of Trustees. Mrs. Greyson has a law degree, which should indicate some knowledge of policy, procedure, and the evaluation of evidence. I hoped that of all the members, she at least would ask the right questions—and only a few questions would have made obvious what had really happened.

I was finally allowed to speak to the Board for ten minutes—not a hearing, and not because they had wanted to know the truth, but so they could claim they gave me a hearing to preempt legal action. None of the members of the Board cared that they violated their own policy, and the statutes under which public libraries are to be governed. Mrs. Greyson was hostile, and made several smart-aleck remarks. she went along with the administration “switching procedures” on me (a common tactic), and there is good reason to believe that she had attended the pre-meeting that involved at least half of the Trustees before the Board meeting started. Such meetings are illegal by State law.

The Board, including Mrs. Greyson, decided to do nothing rather than undo what the new Director, who has never worked professionally in a public library before, had done in haste. How could anyone think she knew enough about the situation on her third busy day of work to make such a decision. I suppose the Board wanted to back her up because they are paying her close to $120,000 a year in salary, plus a vehicle and other benefits. Such an investment was more important to them than my run-of-the-mill salary, though their letter of determination acknowledged the quality and importance of my work. At any rate, I was deprived of my right to due process, to have a lawyer present, and to be allowed to give my testimony in a public venue. Mrs. Greyson and the Board attorney at least should have been aware of these rights, if they had cared.

I did not change my mind about Trey Greyson because the Board would not reinstate me — in fact I still haven't gotten around to tearing his bumper sticker off my truck. It has been there since he ran for Secretary of State. I assumed, even after this, that I would still be able to vote for him, despite my disappointment in the lack of initiative his wife showed for seeing that justice was done.

As this campaign has proceeded I have gotten a chance to observe Trey Greyson in action, to read obviously false claims he has made about his opponent. To see how insincere and immature his thinking is. Over a period of time is has become clear to me that the evidence I now have concerning Trey and his wife, proves that the real problem is a moral defect in the Greyson family. They aren't going to buck the status quo for anyone, even if it is obvious that person is being wronged. (My wife says this is a carryover from their college days in the fraternity and sorority.) They will always play the game for their own advantage. It doesn't really matter what happens to other people, even when they have specific legal and moral responsibilities, because they look down on other people.

We need Senators in Washington to stem the tide, to choke off the funds poured out for the Money Monster that lives in Tax Payer's Lagoon. We need people to stand up to the crooked tax-swilling Obama administration, not people who play the money game for their own advantage. We need people who will support the ideals of the Tea Party, and fight against invasive government, while furthering the cause of justice and truth.

We need legislators with backbone; not more liars. We should be represented by hardhitting speakers of truth. Our people in public office should fight for what is right, not condone injustice, without even making an inquiry into the facts of a case.

So why do I think the Greysons are out of touch? Nancy apparently doesn't realize how important a job can be to a man with a wife and seven children. (Talk about being out of touch with reality!) She cannot conceive that a hearing is not an effort to burden the Trustees with extra work, but a chance to clear one's name from false charges and innuendo.

I began this election campaign assuming I could not vote for Rand Paul, as I could not vote for his father in the past election. But I found that Rand Paul is not a carbon copy of his father, and that he takes the issues seriously, being both pro-life and a supporter of traditional marriage. I have felt great sympathy for Rand Paul after hearing Mr. Greyson lie about him and run a totally negative campaign, while skirting the issues himself.

When I thought about what had happened to me at the hands of Nancy Greyson and others like her, I saw that this indicates a whole host of moral and character issues, and came to the conclusion that I could not vote for her husband as a U.S. Senator.

I know how Rand Paul must feel hearing Trey Greyson lie about him. I too have felt the frustration of trying to speak truth to the bland, “generic” people like Mrs. Greyson, and the others, who get appointed to our public boards, and who infest modern public life. I could only sit and wonder as the Board easily disposed of my case, and then proceeded to pass around plans for a new library facility at Hebron where the Greysons live. This
building is projected to cost the taxpayers over $10 million, and will surely raise taxes in Boone County to pay the long term cost of the approximately fifty additional employees need to staff such a large facility. Mrs. Greyson said she thinks it should feature both classical and contemporary architectural styles—talk about generic!

Moral disease has reached epidemic proportions, and those who have contracted it should never be rewarded with public office. Trey and Nancy are, in my opinion, in the last stages, and completely out of touch with reality. For that reason, among others, I will be voting for Rand Paul for U.S. Senate in 2010.

James Duvall, M.A.
Big Bone University
Big Bone, Kentucky
Nec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem.

Slightly corrected 22 June 2010.