Got any more info on this? I'm in a state where all voting is done through postal ballots.
Because there's no second chance, admins have to adjudicate for voter intent. So they modify the votes in the database.
To protect the database, as part of the backup, the votes are tallied both at end and beginning of shift. That means a running vote count. Law is that votes can only be tabulated when the polls close. So admin's have the fiction of "summary reports" vs "tabulation".
Yes, admins peek at early results.
Another new threat to integrity is signature verification. But that's a whole topic onto itself.
Happily...
The biggest mitigation would be to switch from brittle FPTP to robust approval voting and proportional representation (as appropriate).
This is FUD, to dust off an old chestnut, at least as far as Oregon is concerned.
Check it: https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=oregon+vote+by+m...
In the 2016 election, a potential 54 cases of voter fraud. Here's the breakdown of the kind of fraud (which amounts to .002% of ballots -- one in 38,000):
"Richardson said the suspicious ballots broke down into several categories: 46 voters appeared to vote in Oregon and another state; six individuals listed as deceased voted; and two voters registered in Oregon voted twice."
You’ve attended the canvassing board meetings?
You’ve audited an election?
You vetted the certification of the hardware, software, rules, procedures used by your jurisdiction?
You’ve collaborated with the nationwide network of admins, vendors, academics, and activists on these issues?
Can you refute anything I’ve stated?
Do you even know how your ballot is processed?
Did I say anything about fraud?
FUD indeed.
FWIW, you perfectly illustrate the challenges whistleblowers endure, so thanks for that.
It's on par with "you've inspected the rain clouds, you've watched the rain fall into the Bull run watershed, you've inspected the reservoirs, the pipes, done salinity and chlorination tests on your tap water?"
Voter fraud in Oregon is virtually non-existent, and all you can do is raise the spectre of I don't even know what. It'd be silly if it weren't so insulting, what you're suggesting.
have you ever audited an election... rolling eyes
Oh. You weren't asking.
You're mocking the notion that such a thing is knowable, that there's an objective reality.
I know. Facts, data, experience, critical analysis are all so unkewl. My bad.
Would you please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and post civilly and substantively, or not at all?
I was an election integrity activist. We were ridiculed, harassed, and in some cases jailed.
Of course, we were (mostly) right. But there's never a nod or h/t to acknowledge the pain and sacrifice.
And don't be fooled into thinking the sniffing salts are working. There's always another con, fraud, bubble. (In my case, all postal balloting, which is worse than the touchscreens.)
I think whistleblowers should maybe just bet on the short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#1992_pound_short