Patent Application
20100001070
The present invention relates to voting systems, and in particular to a vote by mail system that can detect potential coercion or buying of votes.
In democratic countries, governmental officials are chosen by the citizens in an election. Conducting an election and voting for candidates for public office can be performed in several different ways. One such way utilizes mechanical voting machines at predetermined polling places. When potential voters enter the predetermined polling place, voting personnel verify that each voter is properly registered in that voting district and that they have not already voted in that election. Thus, for a voter to cast his vote, he or she must go to the polling place at which he or she is registered, based on the voter's residence. Another method for conducting an election and voting utilizes paper ballots that are mailed to the voter who marks the ballot and returns the ballot to the voting authority running the election through the mail. In the usual vote by mail process, the voter marks the ballot to cast his/her vote and then inserts the ballot in a return envelope which is typically pre-addressed to the voter registrar office in the corresponding county, town or locality in which the voter is registered. The voter typically appends his/her signature on the back of the envelope adjacent his/her human or machine readable identification.
When the return envelope is received at the registrar's office of the voting authority, a voting official compares the voter signature on the envelope with the voter signature retrieved from the registration file to make a determination as to whether or not the identification information and signature are authentic and valid, and therefore the vote included in the envelope should be counted. If the identification information and signature are deemed to be authentic and valid, the identifying information and signature are separated from the sealed ballot before it is handed to the ballot counters for tabulation. In this manner, the privacy of the voter's selections is maintained and thus the ballot remains a “secret ballot.”
Vote by mail systems offer many advantages for both voters and election officials in terms of convenience, lower cost, higher voter participation, and potentially greater security and reliability. However, an objection raised to voting by mail is that it can result in organized groups, such as, for example, political parties, labor unions, corporations, churches, advocacy groups or the like, coercing voters to vote in a particular manner or paying voters to vote in a particular manner, also referred to as buying votes (or, from the voters' perspective, selling votes). In either such situations, a voter would merely need to sign the return envelope and give it to some third party with the blank ballot. The third party would then complete the ballot and mail it in the signed envelope provided by the coerced or selling voter. Because the envelope includes a genuine signature, the ballot will be authenticated as a valid vote by the voting registrar.
One possible solution to protect legitimate voters from coercion and for discouraging vote selling is to allow for voters to contact election officials separately and confidentially and rescind their votes prior to tabulation. With respect to coercion, potential coercers would recognize that their coercion may not be effective, since the voter could rescind a vote before that vote was actually tabulated. With respect to vote buying, buyers would be reluctant to buy votes since a voter could potentially sell a vote that is never tabulated. This solution, however, will work only if there is sufficient time delay between the receipt of the ballots and tabulation for a voter to contact election officials. In addition, if voters are not aware that such a right to rescind is available, it will not be utilized.
Another possible method for protecting legitimate voters from coercion and discouraging vote selling is to allow for a voter to return multiple ballots by mail, with only one actually being counted. With respect to coercion, potential coercers would recognize that their coercion may not be effective, since the voter could still vote for himself or herself in such a way that only that vote would be counted. With respect to vote buying, buyers would be reluctant to buy votes since a voter could potentially inconspicuously sell as many votes to as many buyers as he or she wanted, and still vote for himself or herself in such a way that only that vote would be counted. While allowing multiple ballots may seem like a good solution to the vote buying and voter coercion problems, current legislation in many jurisdictions specify that when multiple ballots are received, the ballot to be counted is either the first one received or the last one received (depending on the jurisdiction). This gives some control to a fraudster (a buyer or coercer) to increase the chances that his or her ballot, and not another one from the legitimate voter, will be counted. For example, if the ballot to be counted is the first one to be received, the fraudster would act as early as possible, and if the ballot to be counted is the last one to be received, the fraudster would act as late as possible.
Voting by mail is becoming more prevalent (apart from the usual absentee voting), and in some jurisdictions, entire elections are being conducted exclusively by mail. Thus, it would be beneficial for election officials to be able to detect potential voter coercion or vote buying by organized groups.
The present invention alleviates the problems associated with the prior art and provides methods and systems that will allow election officials to detect potential voter coercion or vote buying by organized groups.
In accordance with the present invention, organized coercion or buying of votes can be detected based upon information associated with the return of vote by mail ballots, and more specifically one or more induction parameters related to induction of the vote by mail ballots into a carrier delivery system for return to the election officials. Such induction parameters can include, for example, the location where and time when vote by mail ballots are inducted into the carrier delivery system for return to the election officials. Most, if not all, voters are highly likely to deposit their mail for induction into the postal system at a location close to their residence. In addition, voters will typically act independently of other voters, and therefore each voter will compete and return the vote by mail ballot at a different time. As mail pieces are inducted into the postal system, the mail pieces are marked to indicate the induction location and time of induction. Such marking could be provided, for example, in the form of a machine readable barcode provided on the outside of each envelope. Upon receipt of the vote by mail ballots by election officials, the marking indicating the induction location and time of induction are obtained from the envelope containing the ballot. This information is associated with the specific voter whose signature appears on the envelope containing the ballot and the specific voter's residence, which can be obtained using the voting records maintained for each voter or the voter information provided on the envelope, or alternatively, a location as specified by the voter. The data that is collected by the election officials can be analyzed, using for example, one or more business rules, to detect situations that indicate potential coercion or vote buying. Such situations can include, for example, a number of vote by mail ballots having the same induction location that varies from the expected induction locations (e.g., close to the voters' residences or locations specified by the voters), a large number of vote by mail ballots that are inducted at the same time, or even just a single vote by mail ballot that has an induction location that varies from the expected induction location. In the event that a situation indicating potential coercion or vote buying is detected, those voters whose ballots are involved can be contacted by the election officials, before the votes are tallied, to ensure that the specific voters have not been coerced or sold their vote.
Therefore, it should now be apparent that the invention substantially achieves all the above aspects and advantages. Additional aspects and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the description that follows, and in part will be obvious from the description, or may be learned by practice of the invention. Moreover, the aspects and advantages of the invention may be realized and obtained by means of the instrumentalities and combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims.
The accompanying drawings illustrate presently preferred embodiments of the invention, and together with the general description given above and the detailed description given below, serve to explain the principles of the invention. As shown throughout the drawings, like reference numerals designate like or corresponding parts.
In describing the present invention, reference is made to the drawings, wherein there is seen in
The body portion 32 is provided with a signature area 36 intended for the voter's signature. An area for voter identification information 38 may also be provided adjacent to the signature area 36. Such information can include, for example, the voter's name and address, and is preferably provided in some machine readable form such as a barcode. Alternatively, the voter identification information could be printed on the flap portion 34 or elsewhere on the body portion 32 such that it can be viewed when the flap portion 34 is in the closed position as illustrated in
In step 52, the control unit 12 will create a record including at least a portion of the voter identification information 38, the location of induction of the envelope 30, and the time of induction of the envelope 30. The portion of the voter identification information 38 included in the record preferably includes at least the voter's name and address. This information can be obtained directly from the voter identification information 38 that is provided on the envelope 30, from voter records maintained in the database 16, or from a combination of the two. Alternatively, the voter identification information 38 included in the record can include a location specified by the voter that is not the voter's normal residence, e.g., vacation residence, work location, or the like. The created record can then be stored in the database 16. Database 16 is also utilized by the control unit 12 to store records that compile data obtained from all of the envelopes 30 processed by the system 10. Such aggregate records could include, for example, data sorted based on the location of induction and the time of induction. In step 54, these records are updated in the database 16 to reflect the envelope 30 that has just been processed.
In step 82, it is determined if the data contained in the aggregate records is consistent with what is expected, e.g., there is no large concentration of envelopes inducted at the same location and/or substantially at the same time, e.g., within a few hours of each other. Such a large concentration could be indicated, for example, based on exceeding a threshold value. If the data indicates a large concentration of envelopes 30 inducted at the same location and/or time, this may be an indication that the voters did not actually deposit their own envelopes 30, but instead their envelopes 30 were provided to another party for induction, which may be due to possible coercion or possible vote buying. In step 84, the envelopes 30 that caused the inconsistency with what is expected in the data can be retrieved by the election officials for investigation to determine if coercion or vote buying has actually occurred. If in step 82 it is determined that the data is consistent with what is expected, then in step 86 the envelopes 30 can continue to be processed for tabulation of the ballots. Since the processing described in
As data is collected over time, the rules that determine if there is an inconsistency or anomaly in the data, e.g., the threshold value, could be altered and refined to better determine only those situations in which coercion or vote buying may have actually occurred. This will prevent election officials from having to conduct investigations that are unnecessary. Additionally, the use of previous elections could provide historical information relative to the voting habits of individual voters. Such information could include, for example, the induction location typically used by a voter, or timing habits relative to voting for a voter (e.g., if a ballot is typically returned early or close to the time of election). Such historical information could be used to establish the expected data for voters when performing the processing described above with respect
Thus, the present invention discourages vote buying and protects legitimate voters from coercers by providing election officials with the resources to determine if potential coercion or vote buying has occurred. In such situations, the election officials can contact the voters before the votes are tabulated, thereby allowing the voters to confirm their votes or change their votes. Therefore, coercers or vote buyers would not be certain that their coerced or purchased vote was ever actually tabulated as intended.
While preferred embodiments of the invention have been described and illustrated above, it should be understood that these are exemplary of the invention and are not to be considered as limiting. Additions, deletions, substitutions, and other modifications can be made without departing from the spirit or scope of the present invention. Accordingly, the invention is not to be considered as limited by the foregoing description but is only limited by the scope of the appended claims.
