| The NCNow Survey
The NCNow Survey is an unscientific poll of visitors to NorthCountryNow.com who choose to participate.
This week's question:
Do you and/or a family member hunt? and Do you eat venison at any time during the year?
Take the NCNow Survey. Results will be posted Monday, Nov. 23
Results of last week's question:
Do you like the new voting machines?
47.2% -- No
29.4% -- Yes
17.8% -- Not entirely
5.9% -- Dont know, didnt vote
Total responses: 477
Total comments: 210
Here are your comments:
1. Waste of paper Mon, Nov 16, 2009 9:45 AM
2. I think the Board of Elections needs to do some things different with the training; otherwise I do not have a problem with the new voting machines. Confidentiality is an issue I had when placing my vote in the machine, as the inspector assisted me and he could easily see how I voted. Mon, Nov 16, 2009 9:04 AM
3. print too small. more time than old machines, but on the plus side new machines are less likely to spread as many germs. Mon, Nov 16, 2009 6:24 AM
4. We went back 60 years or more in time.... Sun, Nov 15, 2009 8:45 PM
5. When they work, they're okay - but there were lots of break-downs and there is virtually no privacy in those little wrap around "privacy" stands. When you feed your vote into the machine, anyone nearby can see your vote. Where'd the privacy of the curtained booth go? Why didn't they simply refurbish the old broken down ones? Sun, Nov 15, 2009 6:39 PM
6. I'd like to have some feedback on my voting. Apparently, the election day poll workers did not know how to display my read and recorded voted on the lcd screen. I'd just like some confirmation that my selections have been properly read other than the little message on the screen saying "Successfully Read". I'd like to see my choices displayed. That way I know and the poll workers know the machine is properly working. I'd rather not go away thinking my vote has been hijacked. What was wrong with the lever pull machines anyway? Sun, Nov 15, 2009 6:16 PM
7. There was nothing wrong with the old lever machines. Another example of Gov't wasting our money Sun, Nov 15, 2009 5:20 PM
8. The person who stands there and makes sure your ballot is put into the machine can see how you voted. I think it could stand to be improved upon. I don't think it is very private. Sun, Nov 15, 2009 4:45 PM
9. No they had to many mistakes with them there are people still waiting to find out some of the results Sun, Nov 15, 2009 3:45 PM
10. yes, as long as they are accurate and low cost effective. Sun, Nov 15, 2009 2:14 PM
11. Was this method designed by elementary school children. Come on this is going backwards and does not make common sense. What about the wasted paper? It also looked like the were more people working at the polling place. I was never told about the proposals on the back. This is a prime example why this country is in the shape that it Is! Sun, Nov 15, 2009 2:02 PM
12. Lack of privacy was a major concern at our polling site. Election monitors were able to read ballots as they were put into the scanner. Ballots were difficult to read for elderly or for those visually impaired. Amendments on back side of ballot were easy to miss. Sun, Nov 15, 2009 1:29 PM
13. Again a trip back in time ! there were a lot of problem's over St Lawrence County Sun, Nov 15, 2009 12:40 PM
14. They are horrible. A step backwards. No way to reverse a vote once in the booth. Bad total tallies. Who chose this process? A complete waste of money! Who do we hold responsible? Sun, Nov 15, 2009 9:07 AM
15. I like the new machines, but it seems like taking a step back to go forward. Sun, Nov 15, 2009 9:02 AM
16. The paper form has everything written out very clearly. There was a glitch with one of the machines at my polling place, but the other one worked fine. Sun, Nov 15, 2009 8:37 AM
17. Due to them malfunctioning it cost Mr hoffman trouble, so bring back the old ones Sun, Nov 15, 2009 3:38 AM
18. took too long. Machines weren't working all the time, so not sure my vote even was accepted. Sun, Nov 15, 2009 1:39 AM
19. Did not vote but I think its a very bad mistake to go with a computer system, computers can be messed with in multiple ways or like some of them did, just stop working completely. Then add in the fact that there is many elder people who reside up here in the north country, I'm sure they're confused by this technology. There was nothing wrong with the mechanical voting machines, and it was really hard to tamper with, and if they broke down it was a major reason, not because it was running some crap Operating System. Sun, Nov 15, 2009 1:33 AM
20. I feel it took longer to vote then it did before. Sat, Nov 14, 2009 9:09 PM
21. The new voting machines have too many bugs that have to be worked out. This past election was a fiasco - blame it on the machines and human error! We should go back to ballot boxes with handwritten votes, less confusion and less room for error. Sat, Nov 14, 2009 8:10 PM
22. they sure like to spend money on things that are worthless goe back to the pull handles and can some of the people thinking up these or better paper and pencil Sat, Nov 14, 2009 6:41 PM
23. I thought they were great. After everyone gets comfortable with them, I am confident they will feel the same also. Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:20 PM
24. The plus to all of this is a paper trail if needed. Sat, Nov 14, 2009 9:33 AM
25. creates a paper trail Sat, Nov 14, 2009 9:28 AM
26. Too slow Sat, Nov 14, 2009 9:06 AM
27. The machines with levers where faster Sat, Nov 14, 2009 6:32 AM
28. The old lever machines were easier. The ballot for the new machines was more difficult to read since the sections weren't very well divided. I almost missed the propositions on the back of the ballot. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:10 PM
29. Not a secret ballot, when someone is watching you feed your ballot into the scanner. Of course, I hate change! Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:57 PM
30. it seems alot like the license plate thing. what was wrong with the former voting machines? and how much did the new ones cost US, the tax payers? Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:27 PM
31. where's the privacy? Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:53 PM
32. Easy to use, but not reliable to trust, at least at poll-closing time. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 2:55 PM
33. We had the touch type and seemed to be very user friendly. I feel the new mark-in ballot has potential for errors. Some people had to go back and do theirs over. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:28 PM
34. lets go back to paper ballots, there are no glitches or tech problems. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:12 PM
35. I don't like marking a paper ballet then scanning it. There should be a better way than this. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:01 PM
36. I am sure I can get used to the new way but I felt it has too many steps. It was so much easier to go in the old booth, flip the levers and one was out. I voted in the Canton district and found the folks very helpful at the high school. I am sorry they had the new machines for this important vote. The problems that came up have given the looser excuses to question the validity of the count. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 1:00 PM
37. I love the old nastalgic feeling of pulling the lever after I vote for the candidate of my choice. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:54 AM
38. I liked filling in the dots, but I had to catch myself to remember to turn it over and vote on the back. That's really not too convenient and I wonder how many people forgot until they sent their vote through. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 11:01 AM
39. First, during the explanation of how they work, I was specifically shown to mark a box on the top row. Second, it was unclear that there were propositions that also were to be voted on because they were placed on the back of the ballot. I wonder how many people forgot or didn't know? Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:47 AM
40. Perhaps this is just another way of falsifying voting tabulations...jammed machines, improper tally, etc. Think we've heard this all before...it isn't the 'machine' used, it's the political games being played by those in power~ Honesty and our 'government of the people' is almost a thing of the past. How do you like ''CHANGE" now? It will gradually get worse unless people demand answers. That will be difficult as we're watching ''our votes'' being mismanaged once again. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:36 AM
41. I thought it went very well where I voted, though I have voted using similar machines when I lived in Vermont years ago. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:28 AM
42. give us back the old ones. much simpler, easier and faster. I also feel they are more accorate. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 10:08 AM
43. It seems to me with all of the avialble technology that the BEST the company we paid several hundreds of thousands of dollsars could offer in the form of a new voting machine is a piece of paper and a Sharpie? Are you kidding me? When you scan the document into the "reader" the voting attendants still have to print the results and call them in... wouldn't it make sense (we do live in the world of the internet after all) that this could be sent electronically and we could have electronic ballots. Total waste of effort, money and resources, is this really the best this county has to offer its citizens a piece of paper and a sharpie? Unreal... Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:57 AM
44. Didn`t like them at all. Election people didn`t know how to work them. The paper ballot. then scan it ? Seems like a recipe for dishonest manipulations for me. At least the old machines with the boot and closed curtain allowed some privacy- this new way dosen`t ! Stupid, waste of time , money, somebody must have paid big bribes to get this screwey system jammed down our throats! Fri, Nov 13, 2009 9:27 AM
45. I liked the new voting machines. It is such a simple operation. Less work for the inspector. Fri, Nov 13, 2009 8:19 AM
46. no privacy Fri, Nov 13, 2009 7:01 AM
47. I thought it was much slower.....I felt very sorry for the elderly....the boxes were so small and they don't see that well....and I think it's terrible that someone stands there staring at your ballot as you put it in the machine....Not very private! Thu, Nov 12, 2009 11:21 PM
48. What happened to privacy? Thu, Nov 12, 2009 10:19 PM
49. they are a lot faster and easier Thu, Nov 12, 2009 8:52 PM
50. The squares were too small and it lacks the privacy we used to have. All in all, not bad. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 8:51 PM
51. I believe it does give a paper back-up trail. Always good to have a back-up system. I feel that there may have been more fraud with the past system. Look at how the numbers keep changing after the fact with this last election. Makes one wonder. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 8:15 PM
52. I found the new way a less confusing and more relaxing way to vote. However, there are a few minor kinks to work out. Ex: Enough manilla folders to go around for voter privacy after marking votes. You shouldn't have to worry about flashing your ballots around between the marking booths and the vote machine. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 7:22 PM
53. seems like a step back instead of an advancement. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 5:30 PM
54. I was total disappointed that the machinces broke and it days to get totals counts done. WOW with the computer technology today that is BAD. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 3:46 PM
55. With the snafu in counting for the 23rd vote, I think that we should uses a hammer and put a nail in the correct spot on the wooden ballet. We must dumb down the process. Not for the people but for the election staff. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 3:35 PM
56. The privacy boothes suck too. I wonder what the price tag was for these glorified scantron machines. Just like everything in NY shoddy with little thought put into them. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 2:58 PM
57. Worried about older people trying to fill in little squares and people that have a hard time seeing Thu, Nov 12, 2009 2:49 PM
58. I love the new voting machines,it's the choices that suck! Thu, Nov 12, 2009 2:13 PM
59. No! No! No! I tried to vote and machine malfunctioned! Waited over 15 minutes for it to be "fixed" I never submitted my ballot, it was like watching the 3 Stooges to undo the paper jam! Personnel inadequately trained for a situation as simple as clearing a paper jam. Machine was manufactured where?! Thu, Nov 12, 2009 1:56 PM
60. Very easy process. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 1:29 PM
61. In Massena, the 2 issues that I wanted to vote on and I am sure others must have wanted to too, were on the back of the ballot, and had I not thought to turn the ballot over and look I would not have seen them. I am sure that quite a few voters did not see these 2 issues either and therefore were not able to cast a vote. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 1:28 PM
62. Now we are wasting paper! What happened to thinking green? Thu, Nov 12, 2009 12:59 PM
63. no privacy Thu, Nov 12, 2009 12:19 PM
64. Seems like we have went backwards taking a pen marking the box takes longer.... Thu, Nov 12, 2009 11:06 AM
65. I think they're less confusing to use than the old machines... I just wish there was a way to confirm your vote, and who exactly it was cast for. I am also unsure how secure they are. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 10:33 AM
66. Another totally unnessary waste of money. They wil be outdatded before they are dusty, and the person near the machine could easily see your votes. The goofy, metal writing tables looked like machine gun protectors, and will be an awkward storage problem for small voting sites. Just like the stupid and needless liscense plate change they are a perfect example of why the state is in such trouble. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 10:04 AM
67. Mechanical machinery works fine if properly maintained, and is not susceptible to unexpected data loss. Many of us have experienced unintended data loss with our computers, even if we use extreme care to avoid it. It seems to me that the cost of replacing the pins and dies in all the mechanical voting machines to eliminate "hanging chads" would have been more economical than replacing the entire machine itself. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 9:29 AM
68. What a joke Thu, Nov 12, 2009 9:11 AM
69. I did not like that I had to take the ballot and take it to another part of the room to scan it. To carry this huge ballot cross-over the room with all the people watching me was not enough of privacy for me. Give me the old machines back, or improve the process. Thank you. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 8:49 AM
70. lol, you use a marker, great if your the first person, sucks if you come at the end of the day. i voted first that day, my husband 1 hour before they closed, barely wrote for him. then you stick it in a machine. not that high tech. works fine. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 8:19 AM
71. I think we took a step backwards. I was nervous about using the new voting machine that I forgot to turn the paper over to vote on the two proposals. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 8:00 AM
72. Old machines were much better and I think we should go back to them. New Machines are like something they would use in a third world country. Thu, Nov 12, 2009 12:13 AM
73. If this is the best system that our finest and common sense(or leck of)common sense thinkers could come up with,they better stay away from trying to get to mars.With all the knowledge that is available in this country and come up with this joke as a way to vote is deplorable. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 11:36 PM
74. In reality your vote is not sceret. when they go to insert it in the machine your votes are in plain view of anyone around the machine,Ok maybe alot of people can't keep track of where any ones name is, But just the same your vote is not between you and the booth. If I had my way I'd be happy with the machine we had last voting period. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:54 PM
75. There must be a easier way to cast your ballot. This two step approach is not the way to go. Especially for the elderly with eye problems. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:54 PM
76. The ballot jammed and I ended up voting twice just to find out later that neither vote can be counted due to duplicates are not counted, nor is the original. What ever happened to writing it down on paper and sticking it in a box. If we had some honesty instead of technology we would be just fine! Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:46 PM
77. With the use of the paper ballot, I don't feel presured to hurry up and vote. Also if I make a mistake I can do another ballot. When the bugs get worked out, I think the new machines will be great. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:46 PM
78. I don't mind the scanners so much but the little tables to fill out the ballots are deficient. I mind that there is little privacy in filling out the ballots and in the scanning process. I am not sure what the expense of the new machines have gotten us. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 8:25 PM
79. Yeah they worked great when I voted. The only thing I wish were changed is a little more privacy when going from the booth where I marked my ballot to the machine where it was tallied. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 6:45 PM
80. i had no problem Wed, Nov 11, 2009 5:18 PM
81. everyone talks about going green what a waste of paper, very stupid Wed, Nov 11, 2009 5:02 PM
82. Anyone can see how you voted if they really want to. My wife had a problem they take your ballet and give you another, than who knows who can look it over very poor Design ! Wed, Nov 11, 2009 4:09 PM
83. Too easy to "spoil" ballots and sway the outcome of a close election. Why get rid of the old proven voting machines just because they're not "high-tech"? More wasting of taxpayers money. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 3:51 PM
84. the people standing by the machines see your votes as you put the paper through, thus there is not privacy Wed, Nov 11, 2009 2:12 PM
85. I felt we were going back in time.... Wed, Nov 11, 2009 1:37 PM
86. What a waste of paper.....and what about privacy as you vote, anyone can see who you checked off as you were feeding it into the tally machine.... Wed, Nov 11, 2009 1:34 PM
87. first time was pretty confusing, will probably be better next year Wed, Nov 11, 2009 12:27 PM
88. The only thing that I do like about the new voting machines is that there is a paper ballot that can be counted in a recount. There seems to be a long line now because of the new machines but that should take care of it self later after people become more use of them. To bad the paper ballots couldn't be at the post office at a earlier date and people could pick them up and fill them in and just go and put them in the machines on election day. This is just an idea that might make the process move a little faster and easier. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 11:30 AM
89. I liked the old voting machines better, it was quicker and you were in and out faster... Wed, Nov 11, 2009 11:07 AM
90. no privacy whatsoever. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:52 AM
92. the process does not seem to guarantee privacy . The open booth , the person "helping " you scan the document are all possibilities for problems . These procedures need to be re-thought and modified to guarantee privacy . Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:43 AM
93. The ballot and booth gives u a chance to really look over the ballot and lets u make sure you've voted for your candidate rather than pulling tabs and wondering if it was the right one for your candidate of choice. As for the voting machine itself, nothing could be more simple as long as they're internal works are recording properly and are monitored to make sure. Seems like they could be rigged by the unscrupulous but then what can't ! I wonder how soon the electronics in the machines will fail and if anyone ever compares the paper ballot totals with the totals the machines come up with ? Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:22 AM
94. I saw nothing wrong with the old voting machines. The new system in Canton seems to afford less privacy and more chance for errors in marking those little squares and perhaps failing to find the proposoitions on the back side. And I must add, one of the "helpers" was rather rude to me. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:21 AM
95. What was wrong with the electronic voting machines? Seems we are going backwards instead of forward. What a waste of paper and time! Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:17 AM
96. The paper ballots should be redesigned to better reflect the candidate choices to be made for each elected position as opposed to the existing linear view of the "party line" applicable to the old lever system. With ballots that size, all choices should be on the front of the ballot, as I spoke with many people who missed the Constitutional amendments on the back and didn't get to vote for these. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 9:06 AM
97. There were many problems with this new system. Privacy is nonexsistent. I spoke with a number of people who were not aware that there we propositions on the backside of the ballot. Your ballot is exposed as you pass it through the voting machine. The election workers are right at the machine and can view your ballot. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 8:29 AM
98. A new process always takes some time to become accustomed to and work out problems that may arise. For voting purposes, it seems some of these problems should have been corrected ahead of time. Voting took longer and having to darken in the box seemed like a step backwards. Although I know no one was truly looking at my vote, I didn't not feel it very private at all. I prefer the former voting booth much more. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 8:01 AM
99. Money spent for nothing.Who made the big buck on this deal? Wed, Nov 11, 2009 7:46 AM
100. Voting machines where fine. Now we need Someone to vote for! Wed, Nov 11, 2009 7:27 AM
101. New Yorks mechanical machines work. Stupid to have a mandate to have to purcahse new machines with money that is not there. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 7:20 AM
102. I like the machines, but the signing the poll book stinks. The set-up is all wrong. We need to go back to each district being set up at a separate table. The person could sign the poll book as before and be given their ballot. Each district would have only the correct ballot to give out. Then they would vote and put their ballot in the machine. It would work a lot smoother. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 7:06 AM
103. not enough privacy when taking them from the booth to the scanner. The election inspector takes it from your hand which was in a folder and she puts it in the scanner. She got a good look at it for sure. We should be doing that and they should be standing back and only come forward if requested for help. Wed, Nov 11, 2009 3:45 AM
104. they take to long to vote, have a good day Wed, Nov 11, 2009 3:44 AM
105. The marker I had was almost dry and I felt like anyone could see how I was voting. We were in front of windows where anyone could look in and see us. Not very private and I think older people had a hard time filling in the box. I felt like I was in kindergarden coloring. Go back to the old machines. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 10:32 PM
106. I was watching other peoples' votes as they put them in the machine with no problems - so much for anonymity. I stood and watched right next to the machine and could see everything... no one cared! I don't see what was wrong with the old machines? Did we have any problems with them? Are we to just trust electronic counts or is someone actually counting the physical vote papers? Tue, Nov 10, 2009 10:28 PM
107. my husband did have a problem with seeing the squares to fill in. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 9:55 PM
108. While I appreciated the paper trail (having moved here from Florida and witness to that mess), I don't like these machines. Just because it accepted my paper doesn't mean the bleed throughs didn't play a part... and what the heck was up with one person in multiple parties? Very strange.... I think something more to watch then machines. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 9:04 PM
109. what was wrong with the old ones, seemed to be much easier to me Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:27 PM
110. At first I did not realize that there were more voting options on the other side of the voting form. Had I not turned it over on a whim, I would not have voted on two propositions. Somewhere on the front of the page, it should have directed the voter to turn the page over. The tiny boxes were intimidating to fill in neatly and thoroughly. Could we not have a larger box and just put an X in it? Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:13 PM
111. They take a little bit longer, but hopefully will be more accurate. The old machines seemed fine to me, but I didn't realize how many mechanical problems they were having. It was difficult to get parts to repair them and also to find someone who knew how. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:12 PM
112. They should of did a test run and had peoples feed back they needed more light in the booth. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 7:32 PM
113. Did not like the fact that my vote was not confidential. The person "helping" the voters took the paper ballot from my hand and inserted it into the machine. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 7:30 PM
114. I thought the old system worked fine and offered privacy. The new system is a major paper waste, offered little privacy and did not seem to be much of an improvement. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 7:21 PM
115. The worker stood over me and looked to see who I voted for. What happened to our privacy?! Tue, Nov 10, 2009 6:06 PM
116. Filling out the ballot reminded me of the similar scoring system used for multiple guess tests I took in high school back in the late 50's here in the North country. How difficult was it? I would solicit those who complained they had no hard copy delineating their vote please explain to me how they felt more comfortable with the old style machines which gave the same or less indication of how your vote was counted. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 5:28 PM
117. I liked the flexibility to mark a candidate, then change my mind when I realized I'd read the ballot wrong. Now, you have to go through a whole kit and kaboodle with an election official. I would rather not expose my momentary lapse of focus to everyone in the polling station! Tue, Nov 10, 2009 5:03 PM
118. No! I understand the desire to improve the technology, while still having a paper backup. But, I don't think this is the right direction to go. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 3:45 PM
120. Although they at least keep the paper ballot as a backup, the process is cumbersome and a step backward. Imagine someone who is elderly and perhaps not so steady trying to mark in the little box on the paper ballot. And how do I know that the scanner is accurately reading my vote (when the ink bleeds through the paper). Tue, Nov 10, 2009 3:18 PM
121. People talk to you as your voting the privacy was not there. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 2:49 PM
122. Give me back my old machines! Tue, Nov 10, 2009 2:32 PM
123. So, we have candidates that drop out of the race and because the ballots are preprinted and they don't have time to get new ones, her name stays on the ballot and she gets votes. Great planning! Tue, Nov 10, 2009 2:07 PM
124. I felt like my privacy was taken away with someone standing over me while I submitted my vote and when it would not accept it very loudly I was asked if I made a write in choice and if my writing went outside the box.(Which I did but I don't think it was the business of everyone in the entire room)I felt like I was being herded into the "privacy booth" to mark my choices and was hovered over while doing so. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 1:57 PM
125. No secret as to whom you are voting for Tue, Nov 10, 2009 1:44 PM
126. It seems like we have gone back in time. Yes it was nice to have a few more minutes to vote and actually read the propositions on the back but do we need to waste all that paper. It was also too small for some of the senior citizens to read. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 12:24 PM
127. I think that in a day when we are all wanting more "green" solutions, this certainly is not it! Consider how may trees were used to make the scan paper in this county and then multiply that statewide. We're not saving anything! Tue, Nov 10, 2009 12:24 PM
128. Easy and quick. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 12:00 PM
129. Waste of money. Pencil and paper anyone? Tue, Nov 10, 2009 11:55 AM
130. It was like going back to the olden days using a paper ballot which is just plain stupid. The machines that the Town of Lawrence had before this were great you went in behind the curtain and push buttons and it was all registered electronically which is a lot better. Not enough privacy and using markers makes a mess. Seems like they could think of something a lot easier then this way come on folks this is the 21st century. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 11:51 AM
131. They'll do, but I do miss the old mechanical ones. They seemed far more private. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 11:43 AM
132. I hated them! I am not going to vote if they are like that next year! Tue, Nov 10, 2009 10:58 AM
133. It felt very much like we were moving back in time. Beside the aspect of having killed lots of trees to print out paper ballots, the anonymity of voting was completely lost. Did anyone else notice that "your" ballot had to be "found" and brought to you? That means that it can later be identified as yours... Big Brother really is watching! And for those who say the mechanical machines were too "insecure" -- have you ever heard of "hackers"? Kids in grade school could probably change the outcome of an election if everyone is using these new machines! Tue, Nov 10, 2009 10:46 AM
134. No privacy. Voted at a table with a black plastic shield in front and then had to stand in line, with ballot in hand, to put it in the machine all while the election worker was looking at your ballot. Poor system! A complaint was made to the Board of Elections and they stated that they've had numerous complaints of the same nature. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 10:46 AM
135. I didn't feel it was confidential. The attendee stood right beside me as I guided my form into the machine. My ballot was in full view for all eyes to see. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 10:01 AM
136. I think the boxes for marking your vote are too small for many to see clearly. Some people have difficulty marking within the square. Things usually improve after the first time, so hope next year may be better. I do think having a paper ballot in the event of a recount is good, no question then as to how many votes a person received. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 9:41 AM
137. The concept of electronic ballot reading seems to work quite well but the ballot marking is the part that seems a little archaic. You color in your choices like a kindergardener and then enclose your ballot, which is bigger, in a folder to be then slid into the machine to read it. This last election was our second time exposed to the new machinery as we voted earlier in the local primary. All in all it seemed to me to be a positive experience that went very smoothly with the aid of the election personel. At least now there is a back up system in place if the computerized portion of this system fails, we still have the original paper ballot to fall back on. It just seems funny to be coloring in squares in a ballot like those in a third world country. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 9:29 AM
138. It seems like more work...and less privacy! The privacy screens...what a joke, as they have you walk behind them to get to the next one available! Then, when you go to put in your paper, the person was standing right there looking at your paper and showing you how it needs to go in...Just seems strange...to ADD paper to voting in the age when we are trying to save paper and resources!?!? Tue, Nov 10, 2009 9:10 AM
139. not very "green" with all the paper used to vote, really stupid idea to change to paper ballots when a lot of people are bitching about saving the environment Tue, Nov 10, 2009 9:09 AM
140. There is no privacy. Everyone can see how you voted. This is really a step backwards to have this kind of system. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:48 AM
141. Absoluely wondrful and easy. With the paper ballot back up. Best idea since sliced bread. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:44 AM
142. It wasn't a problem, just wondering why going to paper is becoming more technological? Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:28 AM
143. When you take the paper to scan it, the person standing there to instruct on how to do it, can see the ballot. The privacy of casting a ballot is comprmised. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:24 AM
144. I did not like the lack of privacy, but using the paper ballot was easy. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:09 AM
145. We have basically went back to a paper ballot. Why don't we just mail everyone the ballot and let them vote and mail them in. I thought that the ballot could be very confusing if we had a multitude of people running especially when you add in the local elections. Back to the drawing board as far as I am concerned. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 8:08 AM
146. We have taken giant steps backwards in this so called high tech voting machine. What a mess it was. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 7:13 AM
147. I don't trust computers. Tue, Nov 10, 2009 6:58 AM
148. The paper ballots reminded my mom of the way they did things back in the 50's.
Because they were new the woman sitting there to make sure they were done correctly, was looking at the votes! Ah, a little privacy please! Tue, Nov 10, 2009 6:24 AM
149. They moved the lines along faster and are easier to use. The paper work provided to the voters before they vote needs to be improved. The book or pamphlet provided was poorly constructed and not easy to use Tue, Nov 10, 2009 5:38 AM
150. no Tue, Nov 10, 2009 4:45 AM
151. Absolutely not! What was wrong with the old ones.... Tue, Nov 10, 2009 12:07 AM
152. I didn't find the new voting system to be any easier or any more streamlined than the old system. And so far it doesn't seem to have made the counting any easier or faster, either. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 10:28 PM
153. No privacy and paper ballot wouldn't feed into scanner. A step backwards to be using paper ballot in this day and age. Mechanical voting machines were more reliable and results were known sooner. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 9:43 PM
154. No.......Not at all. I felt like we were taking a step backwards in time, filling out a paper ballet with a marker. In this day of technology, it seems like there should be a better way of doing it. We had to stand in line because the whole process just took much longer. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 9:25 PM
155. Bring back the old machines, at least they were accurate and did work, i think these are a step backwards Mon, Nov 9, 2009 8:53 PM
156. I'm not sure they were necessary for everyone. The old machines worked just fine. It doubled my time to cast my vote. I think that it is a waste of paper. The process used to check in was chaotic at the Potsdam Civic Center. The ladies were great but why not just have everyone check in at their own district table? Mon, Nov 9, 2009 8:35 PM
157. Get with the times still waiting for results Mon, Nov 9, 2009 8:09 PM
158. it's like voting in the 1800's not 2009. it's like we are going backwards instead of forward. bring back the old voting machines. I must prefer them to the new ones. thanks Mon, Nov 9, 2009 7:56 PM
159. A few problems with them that I see as totally unacceptable. 1. They do not insure that a persons vote is private. 2. They are hard to see for people with sight limitations, coloring in the little boxes maybe my grandson in 1st grade could help me. 3. Tearing off the ballots especially the ones in the middle of the stack we had some rip and of course those were then kicked back by the scanner. What happened to the touch screens? Mon, Nov 9, 2009 7:13 PM
160. what a waste of paper and time Mon, Nov 9, 2009 6:56 PM
161. It's much easier to do write-ins. It's a shame someone didn't run agaisnt Duve, the DUH A. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 6:47 PM
162. I did not vote! Due to the poor selection of candidates, I did not vote this year. This is the first time in 48 years! Sounds like some of the voting machines were about as good as the candidates. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 6:46 PM
163. this is all because the idiots in florida are not smart enough to press a simple lever so now we all get penalized for their dumbness. if this is the best the powers to be can come up with, god help us next year and especially in 2012. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 6:44 PM
164. the malfunctions on election day made me wonder how reliable they are. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 6:38 PM
165. No. Paper is too big for the table provided. Also if you are not careful with the permanent marker, you can ruin clothes when it slips out of the cap/hand when trying to keep paper from falling off the small table. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 6:01 PM
166. No, it's not anonymous anymore - the numbered voting sheet correlates with the voter's name, so someone could go back and see who I voted for. I felt more secure with the old voting machines! Beside, if you mess up you have to ask for a new sheet and the other is not shredded then and there. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 6:00 PM
167. Like going back in time, another less than bright idea...... Mon, Nov 9, 2009 5:41 PM
168. Feels like we are going backwards having paper ballots and whats up with the person looking at it when you put it in the machine. Wheres the privacy in that? You are assinged a number that is wrote down on that ballot and inserted in the machine so if the want to go through them after the could know how everyone voted. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 5:24 PM
169. Yes, but, one needs privacy while presenting the ballot into the machine. Having someone hanging over you watching you place ballot into the machine is not appropriate. They can clearly see the checks marked on your ballot. So much for a secret vote.. The voter can read whether or not it is accepted. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 5:17 PM
170. Took longer to vote than the old machines, more waste, larger carbon footprint, and I haven't seen an accurate election tally for St. Lawrence County yet - this with the whole country watching. Come On - we can do better. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 5:07 PM
171. As easy as filling out a lotto ticket Mon, Nov 9, 2009 4:29 PM
172. I heard on NPR that after scanning our ballots we would see a screen that allowed us to confirm our votes. I would have felt much more at ease if this feature had been active at my polling station in Norfolk. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 4:26 PM
173. dont vote anymore can,t trust any1 these days who do run! Mon, Nov 9, 2009 4:19 PM
174. It's great, even will get better the second time around. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 4:15 PM
175. Paper ballots and feeding them into a machine while the election official can look on and tell what you have marked. How is that confidential? I find it ridiculous in this day and age that we had to mark a paper ballot..... Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:59 PM
176. I hated it. It seemed like it took forever to vote and it is not very private. If they thought this was an improvement, I think they had better try again! Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:47 PM
177. I think its a waste of paper. Why not just have it electronic completely? Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:44 PM
178. The Town of Lawrence has used electronic voting machines since the early 1990's with no hitches. The new system failed so miserably that Owens was sworn in before our votes were counted. The individual who made the decision to install these should be fired. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:39 PM
179. I'm glad I moved out of New York State! Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:30 PM
180. No privacy when the inspector is standing there watching you as you cast the ballot. Stupid ink gets all over. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:26 PM
181. I found them easier to use, and I had more time to think about my vote. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:24 PM
182. poor lighting no privacy - election officials more interested in seeing who you voted for that helping make sure the ballot is counted. privacy is gone no more secret ballot. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:19 PM
183. There is nothing to like or dislike. I voted! The machine worked. C'est la vie! Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:19 PM
185. it should not have taken a vote for dede ,when she was out she was out .what a better way to throw the election,i will never vote republican again if she is not impeached,she was what they said ,from the start. dede ,perry,when will the public wake up? new york city people think we are stupid up north, well we proved it at the polls this year. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 3:12 PM
187. the part to fill it out is good, but then when we put it in the machine to submit our vote, it leaves it open and viewable to anyone around. That needs to be fixed Mon, Nov 9, 2009 1:46 PM
190. I felt like a kid again, trying to color and stay inside the lines. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 1:22 PM
191. You should be able to vote right on the machine. Not much advantage to doing a paper ballot and then putting it into a machine. Seems that we are going backwards instead of forward. Look at the error's some areas had this year. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 1:13 PM
192. Anybody watch the movie "Man of the Year"? After that, do you really trust computerized voting machines? Mon, Nov 9, 2009 1:13 PM
193. I couldn't believe how easy the process was! Mon, Nov 9, 2009 1:03 PM
195. I was surprised. It was much better than I thought it might be. Very well done, clear instructions ,plenty of help didn't expience any problems! Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:59 PM
197. It was simple to process and less time consuming. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:54 PM
198. Realy very slow and poll people were very poorly schooled and how to make the system easy for the voter. no privacy at all at the casting station. Might just as well folded up the expensive ballot and put it in a box like they do in the third world countries. So much for progress in this hi-tech age. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:52 PM
199. It felt like a step back. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:49 PM
200. Total lack of privacy! Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:45 PM
201. Pretty simple once you do it. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:44 PM
202. The security of my vote was comprimised when I moved the very large card with very easy to read Black filled squares to the machine that reads the vote. What was wrong with the old? They are mechanical so less problems go un-noticed and no one sees your vote... Also what about the referendums on the back? I didn't hear any talk about either of these issues.... Something smells in New York! Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:41 PM
203. I think pulling levers was much easier; I was told that both the old and the new machines run the totals, so I don't understand the need to change. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:36 PM
204. they are a waste of money, they take more time, and have the potential to be much less accurate than the old ones Mon, Nov 9, 2009 12:34 PM
205. Election Inspectors were friendly and helpful. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 11:44 AM
206. a little added time, but more effective Mon, Nov 9, 2009 11:43 AM
207. Everyone can see how you voted no more private, just look as they pass by Mon, Nov 9, 2009 11:26 AM
208. There should be an expectation of privacy when voting. I know for a fact that election workers, in the guise of assisting me cast my ballot, looked at my votes. This is not a good system. Mon, Nov 9, 2009 11:24 AM
209. If it ain't broke don't fix it...... Mon, Nov 9, 2009 11:18 AM
210. When I went to feed my ballot into the computer, I had attendants standing over me and they could clearly see who I voted for. Serious lack of privacy issue!
|
|
