What You Need to Know About Voting Machines

There are a couple of things here that nobody seems to discuss.

1. How bad is the accuracy? Presidential elections involve huge numbers, and here were reports of posible errors. However,there was never any formal scientific analysis of the probable error size to my knowledge. There's lot of arm waving, but nobody says "we've got to do better than the 0.1% error rate we had in the 2000 election. (And it may actually be nearly impossible with such a large scale process)

2. There were other 'errors' attributed to ballot design -- again nobody measured the extent. For some reason, ballot design is no longer discusse. '

3. It's far from amazing that the new digital machines have some issues. I'm sure that this was another 'gotta do something right now' deal ( again, without a clear handle on the size of the problem). I don't know that a clear objective was presented to the vendors other than 'digital' ( because it's automatically accurate). I'm guessing this because goverment units are aparently stuck with unsatisfactory machines. Apparently proof of accuracy was not a conract requirement.

Finally, I'll say that the real issues in 2000 were the closeness of the race plus the drama of the Florida 'turnaround'. The election could have had the most accurate count ever, but those 2 things caused the process to be closely scrutinized. The scrutiny found that, as always, there were errors. They may or may not have impacted the count, and they may have been balanced by other errors in other places, it's hard to say.

I've heard of voting machines that don't even print a receipt of who you voted for. Who thought up this design? I'm all for a paperless society, but some things scream for redundancy! A simple receipt for the voter and one for the registrar seems like it would be a major requirement. Barcode them, and in the event of a recount you could simply scan them. It might not solve tamper problems or paper jams, but it would provide peace of mind. If people working cash registers can switch out a paper roll, it can’t be rocket science. I’m all for advancing the way we vote. Whether it be voter cards that are issued with a chip in them, secure web sites, or whatever… Let’s just use some common sense. Please!

The requirements for a good voting system are not as simple or straightforward as one might think at first. As an example, if the voting machine prints out a receipt for the voter, the voter could be subject to bribery and/or coersion. Without a receipt as proof, no third party can be sure that you voted the way they wanted you to. That's an important reason why no receipts can be provided.

You're saying that providing a receipt for someone could be detrimental, because it could be used as proof to a 3rd party that you voted for someone specific. I understand your point. Someone might put a gun to your head and say, "Vote for _______, or I'm going to kill you”, and the same goes for bribery. That is a good point. Maybe this would be a better solution. Vote on an electronic machine, print a single receipt for the voter (so they can verify that the machine processed the vote correctly). Then require that the receipt be deposited in a ballet box for redundancy. The person would have that “warm and fuzzy”, and you would have a viable back up in case of machine failure or recount. I would still bar-code the receipt somehow for easy scanning in the event they had to be used.

Having an electronic voting machine print out a paper receipt for the voter to check before it's deposited into a "ballot box" is indeed a good idea. Indeed, that's the basis of what's called a "Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail," or "VVPAT." Computer Scientist Rebecca Mercuri has been promoting this concept for many years: see http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html for information.

Most people who have studied the various alternatives for voting end up favoring the simplicity of optically-scanned paper ballots over any type of electronic voting machines. With paper ballots, you have the advantage of a built-in paper audit trail. In addition, many people can mark their ballots simultaneously at the polling place--a paper-ballot system is much less likely to produce long waits on election day than one that depends on a fixed number of expensive touch-screen machines.

Electronic machines can be used by some handicapped voters who can't mark paper ballots without assistance. But even here, the machine can print out a paper ballot to be scanned along with the ordinary hand-marked ballots.

As an election judge in suburban Cook County Illinois I can speak for the way things are done here. There is a choice of optical scan ballot and touch screen voting. The touch screen includes a printer that prints a paper ballot that the voter reviews. Before the voter leaves the machine, the ballot is rolled off the screen and retained inside the machine. The paper in the touch screen machines is the actual offical ballot, and is treated the same way, with the same protections, as the optical scan ballots. One of the election judges in each precinct receives extra training on the machines that includes how to change the tapes if necessary. The touch screens have features that allow unassisted voting by the blind, and those who can't use their hands (sip and puff) or both.

As an election judge in suburban Cook County Illinois I can speak for the way things are done here. There is a choice of optical scan ballot and touch screen voting. The touch screen includes a printer that prints a paper ballot that the voter reviews. Before the voter leaves the machine, the ballot is rolled off the screen and retained inside the machine. The paper in the touch screen machines is the actual offical ballot, and is treated the same way, with the same protections, as the optical scan ballots. One of the election judges in each precinct receives extra training on the machines that includes how to change the tapes if necessary. The touch screens have features that allow unassisted voting by the blind, and those who can't use their hands (sip and puff) or both.

The whole american voting system is too complex.
I'm from Canada. The way it is done here is there is a ballot with the candidates names on it. You put an x beside the guy you want to vote for and put it in a cardboard box. The votes are then counted by hand. No touch screens, no optical scanners.

By the way, we just had an election. Called in September, held in October. Did anybody notice?

How I commented on the photo album, In Brazil all the country wide elections are done, for many years, on a 100% electronic system. The paper voting system is not regularly used anymore, and its used only in case of malfunction of the voting machine, that is something rare to happen.
The result of the election of the president, for example, is known few hours after the ending of the voting. All the votes are directed to a country wide network, that informs the total of votes from all the cities and all the states of the country.
The best of all the electronic voting system, is the time between the ending of the voting and the final result. Few weeks ago we had elections of the mayors and of the city counclimen of all the cities of the country. In some cities, large ones, the result was informed just a few minutes after the ending of the voting.

Oh... the machine can be operated by the blind without any assistance, and at the end of the voting, we receive a receipt that confirms that you voted (in Brazil the voting is mandatory), without informing on who you voted, of course.
Ps.: Sorry for the "repost"