How can we help you?

As a matter of fact, it is simple--but not so simple as to be ineffective. Read through the description again, and then another time. You’ll come to agree that there’s no substitute for letting the voter be a part of the process.

Yes, there are: apathy. Giving people the power to audit their own vote is less effective If people don’t care enough to check it (And even less effective if people don’t vote).

Then you can just continue to vote as you always have. Little has changed inside that voting booth.

Only a software change and the addition, if necessary, of a display screen for your Vote Word. No printers, scanners or “smart cards” are necessary.

Vote Words are short, simple words that are easy to remember. But if you can’t remember it, then you can simply write it on a piece of paper or record it on your phone once you are outside the voting location.

So far, electronic voting booths have been quite accurate, but if you do find an error on the website, you can report it. The election authorities will wait to see if a number of other people also report a problem. If there are just a few reports out of hundreds or thousands of votes cast, then election authorities will likely feel justified that it is a case of “user error” and that you mistakenly voted for the wrong candidate or forgot your Vote Word. But if a larger number of voters report a problem, then the election authorities will likely begin an investigation into the process or the software to determine what happened, or even consider a re-vote.

This is a self-correcting problem. Here’s what would happen if someone was so upset that Sally Smith lost to John Jones that he tried to cheat. Let’s say a very disappointed--and dishonest--Sally Smith supporter calls all his friends and encourages them to report that their Vote Word incorrectly shows that they voted for John Jones. To do this, these cheaters will have to use someone else’s published Vote Word. When they report their “problem” to the election office, the officials will then post those alleged Vote Words in a public forum, such as the website.

When voters are made aware of the dispute, the voters who actually were issued those Vote Words will realize that someone is claiming their Vote Word as their own and can begin to lodge their protests with the election authorities. In other words, what we would have is a very public dispute about just whose Vote Words are out there. The election authorities will then decide whether they need to examine the software and the polling place where the alleged problem occurred. If they feel that there is probable cause to audit the equipment and processes at that voting location, then they will descend on that polling place and begin their investigation.

Is this perfect? Of course not. The very best solution in a perfect world would be if everyone got a paper receipt when they voted. In this perfect world, printers would never jam or run out of ink, taxpayers wouldn’t mind paying for the extra hardware, voters wouldn’t mind waiting in longer lines or spending more time in the voting booth and no one would try to sell his or her vote. And most important, in this perfect world, if the voting authorities decide on a recount, then everyone would retain their receipt and would show it to the voting authorities upon request. But we don’t live in that perfect world--and so Vote Word provides each individual with the assurance that his or her vote was counted.

That’s an interesting point, and it emphasizes the fact that Vote Word places the responsibility on the voter. If a cabal of Sally Smith supporters tries to reverse an election by falsely reporting incorrect Vote Words, then the news media will certainly report the problem as well as the Vote Words. At that point, when the disputed Vote Words are published, instructions will be issued so that you can report in confidence that you, in fact, were issued that Vote Word. So if a group of, say, 30 Sally Smith supporters in four towns tries to overturn an election, then it’s realistic to believe that a number of real Vote Word holders will step up to discredit them.

It’s worth thinking about how unlikely this whole scenario is. First, imagine 30, 50 or 1,000 people getting together to claim other people’s Vote Words--and every single one of these people risking jail time to do it. Second, it would have to be in an election where those 30, 50 or 1,000 votes are the deciding margin. Finally, these people would risk everything on the assumption that when this story hits the news media, no one would challenge them. 

“If it can happen, it will happen,” you might say. And I would answer that you’re right--which is why Vote Word addresses that scenario. 

To believe that the “true owners” of Vote Words wouldn’t step forward to challenge those who are illegitimately claiming their votes is to abandon a belief in individual rights and personal responsibility.

When we say, “Let the voters audit their own vote,” then we’ve returned to a more public, transparent system--and a simpler one.

Luckily, election officials have figured this out already. You may have noticed when you go to vote that the poll workers keep a very tightly controlled count of how many voters walk into the booths. In our town (in NJ) they use serialized slips of paper, which they relate back to the sign-in sheets. However this is accomplished in your state, the intent is the same: the total number of people accounted for must equal (or be extremely close to) the total number of votes cast. So if Sally Smith beats John Jones 600 to 400, then the paper record (yes, paper!) showing how many people signed to vote must equal 1,000.

Anywhere from 5,000 to 8,000.

Remember, we can give out the same word at every voting location in the country. If “pizza” is your Vote Word, you look it up specifically for the location where you voted.

The software is designed to start issuing “word pairs” once words are exhausted. Using this method, the total number of Vote Words that can be issued in a single location goes from 8,000 to 64,000,000 (That’s 8,000 squared.)

Yes, voting booths that supply a paper receipt for the voter are very expensive--they’re expensive to purchase, expensive to operate, expensive to maintain and expensive to replace when the mechanical printers break. Worse than that, though, is the fact that even if a polling location performs a recount with paper ballot back-ups, the voters still have no idea whether their vote was included in the recount or recorded correctly.

To be fair, they’re doing it for good reasons. The main purpose for a voter-verified paper trail (VVPT)--sometimes called a voter-verified paper ballot--is so that a polling place has something to recount if the electronic machines fail. But, as mentioned above, a recount performed with paper ballots is still not a transparent process: how do you know that your vote was recounted?

Actually, no--not if it’s married to Vote Word. That is, if your Vote Word is printed on the paper ballot (and the paper ballot is legally required to remain at the polling location), then you will have an airtight system. Overpriced--but airtight. That way, if election authorities do have to perform a recount, your Vote Word can be re-entered into the computer, along with your vote. Then you can check online to make sure that the recount was performed correctly.