Problems Reported With New Voting Machines

[SecularMotion]

Source: NY Times

Voters around New York State stepped into the brave new world of electronic voting machines in Tuesday’s primary elections amid complaints around the city of longer-than-usual delays and troubles with the scanners that are supposed to swallow and tabulate the new, SAT-style ballots.

Some polling places in Brooklyn did not open for more than 90 minutes — and there was one report of a three-and-a-half hour delay — as election workers tried to get the new equipment to function.

Even at polling places where the new machines seemed to operate correctly, it was slow going. At Public School 165, on 109th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue, 80 people waited in a long line, waiting to feed the ballots they had filled out into the machine. At least one frustrated voter tried to bail out and throw his ballot in a wastebasket, though an election worker told him not to — it was against the rules.

Some voters were unhappy about having to give the completed ballot to election workers running the scanning device. “That’s not a secret ballot at that point,” said Paul Randour, 75, a retired lawyer who voted on East 79th Street in Manhattan. He insisted on inserting his ballot into the machine himself.

Read more: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/problems-reported-with-new-voting-machines/?hp

[brooklynite]

1. And yet...

New Yorkers voted on paper ballots (for the first time in decades), which are collected and stored for an accurate re-count, if necessary.

[brendan120678]

2. We switched to the optical-scan type of ballots...

here in Connecticut about 4 years ago or so.

There was a learning curve, but it works(almost) flawlessly now.

There are occasional machine malfunctions, but the same is true with the old lever machines, which malfunctioned as well.

[EFerrari]

3. Flawlessly except for the part where the vote is tabulated in secret

and where the chain of custody of paper ballots is treated cavalierly because everyone is relying on a computer count.

[MineralMan]

4. I used optical scanning machines in California and now in

Minnesota. They work well, and the solid paper trail makes it easy to do recounts or to verify results. The recent Al Franken victory depended on that fact, and it worked perfectly. It is the machines with no paper trail that worry me, not the optical scanning machines.

I don't remember about California, but in Minnesota random comparisons are made following the election to verify the accuracy of the machine count and the paper ballots. No major discrepancies have turned up. The only issue is with poorly marked ballots that are not read properly. In the Franken race, those made the difference. Had the margin been larger, such a thing wouldn't have mattered.

[EFerrari]

5. Optical scanners have memories that are easily tampered with.

They're compact and you could slip one into your pocket pretty easily.

And most people don't consider that unless you mind the chain of custody, those ballots that are so reassuring to everyone are useless. Two people went to jail for stacking the "random" sample in the Ohio recount.

These machines are every bit as vulnerable as the touch screens. In 2006, they failed all over King County and then, lol, King County turned around and tried to sell them to San Francisco.

ETA: That's Cook Co, Il, not King Co, WA. I'm confusing my dirty voting counties.

[MineralMan]

7. There is no foolproof system of voting. Truly there is not.

There are only measure to prevent fraud, and those are well in place here in Minnesota. I don't know about elsewhere.

[EFerrari]

8. This isn't about "foolproof", but about foolishly overlooking obvious vulnerabilities.

One way to compensate for these is to do a substantial audit following the vote but the audits mandated by law are much too small and most venues don't do more.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, in Minnesota, we just did a complete audit for the

Franken/Coleman election. The results demonstrated that the cumulative errors in our optical scanned system are miniscule, and that the votes were properly counted. However, some ballots were rejected for being filled in improperly, and those ballots made the difference in a virtual tie. That recount is automatic in this state if margins dip below a certain percentage.

The entire process is observed by members of both parties, and challenges are dealt with in accordance to our election laws. It's a slow process, when it's needed, but it produces an accurate result. In most races, the margins are large enough to make hand counts unnecessary. When they are close, we get confirmation that the system is working as designed.

If your state does not have a system as solid as ours, then I encourage you to work to fix it. I no longer live in California. If I did, and such election errors existed, that would be a high priority for me.

Just saying that fraud exists is not enough. That claim must be proven. I've not seen that proof, but here in my state, I've seen proof that the system is accurate, stable, and well-policed. Works for me.

[Wilms]

10. The "recounts" in Fl2000, and in OH2004, didn't go so well.

MN happens to be doing a pretty good job. That doesn't mean that a result, not close enough to trigger a recount, would be trustworthy.

Meanwhile, in other states, the likelihood of catching error or fraud in a statewide contest is really small. And in CD-wide elections or smaller, the chance is pretty much nil.

[Bill Bored]

14. Excuse me but if that election were not so close, you would not have done a proper audit. nt

[EFerrari]

16. You saw one (1) contest get anything like a good audit.

You can't extrapolate from that. Or you can but it would be a mistake. There are plenty of counter examples as Wilms has pointed out.

The issue is not that you don't see any problems. That's not a good basis to judge election integrity. The issue is transparency. Without it, you have no rational basis to have confidence in the vote totals presented to you and you're relying on faith based voting.

If you are interested in election integrity, the Election Reform forum is a good resource.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

ETA: Link to the ER.

[Bill Bored]

13. Here is one county that's doing a real audit. (Probably the only one in NY.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x516232

[EFerrari]

15. Thanks!

:hi:

[Renew Deal]

18. NY audits 3% of the machines after the election.

Which is what they did with the lever machines as well, and unlike the lever machines there is a paper trail.

[EFerrari]

21. What good is a paper trail that doesn't lead anywhere.

Charmin makes "paper trails", too.



Iirc, there was a recount in a primary that was worthless because THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY was broken, maybe in New Hampshire.

This isn't about being a Luddite but about using your brain. In this case, if no one secures the ballots then you can't recount sh!t with any certainty.

But thank goodness the Republicans never engage in election fraud or we'd have a real problem on our hands.

[Renew Deal]

27. Minor cases of fraud were always possible in NY

But this system is what many knowledgeable people fought for. Unlike the old system, there is a paper trail. Unlike the old system, the machines don't need to work for people to be able to vote. Unlike the old system, several people can vote at the same time.

You can learn about NY election procedures here: http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/law/Regulations/Part6210RoutineMaintenanceTestingVotingSystems.pdf

[EFerrari]

29. You know, if this issue really interests you, you could usefully

go look up the interests of those "knowledgeable people". Because no one with election integrity as a priority would have switched to op scan.

I gave the link to the ER forum up thread. That forum has been following this debacle closely.

[Renew Deal]

30. Which system do you recommend?

What is your recommended voting system? Or is your problem with the process?

[EFerrari]

31. I'm not a control freak and don't need to impose my way on anyone.

And many of the posters to the ER know more than I do, like Bill Bored and Wilms who have followed this story closely.

But even having a significant audit would mitigate the risks of op scan, ditto for securing the chain of custody of those ballots. As it stands now, the system is not secure and like any vulnerable system, it will be exploited.

[Renew Deal]

33. So your issue is process?

That's not the end of the world. We have two people from two different states (CT and MN) in this thread saying they are happy with their Op-Scan machines. I think it sounds better than the alternatives (touchscreen with or without a paper trail).

[EFerrari]

34. You are positing "the end of the world", not me.

And if you believe touch screens are the only alternative, you aren't really into this issue.

That people are happy with Pintos doesn't mean their gas tanks won't blow up and so on.

[Renew Deal]

35. So what do you recommend?

You're knowledgable. What's the best system?

[Bill Bored]

42. How about counting paper ballots with computers and spot-checking 3% of them up to 2 weeks later?

Does that sound like a secure system to you?

Do you think it matters that it might be better than some other states?

Do you think the other 97% of the machines could have problems that won't be detected that could change the winners of elections?

Do you think they can't be programmed to switch votes, or fail to record them, or fail on their own?

We know lever voting machines were accurate and physically can't switch votes. They don't allow overvoting (how Gore lost Florida). That should be the starting point for any replacement system. Instead, the wheel was reinvented with inferior software-based technology that can be manipulated to do whatever the bad guys want it to do. And it ALLOWS overvoting too!

Do you really think checking 3 of those machines out of every 100 is going to catch fraud if it exists?

So the best system is lever voting machines that can't switch votes, or hand-counted paper ballots where such vote switching would be obvious to observers. I agree that process is also important, but with these systems, there can be secure processes.

Any other system would have to prove it cannot be hacked to change the winners of elections. Such proof has never been shown so far. Quite the contrary.

[Bill Bored]

40. Not "many knoweldgable people" fought for the new system.

The people were given a false choice: DREs vs. Scanners.
The better choice was to keep the lever voting machines.
All you need to do to see that is to do the audit math, which the "knowledgeable" ones never bothered to do.

Add to that the expert opinions that certification of software cannot be trusted, which the New York hacks completely ignored, and you've got the current system. Lots of bells, whistles, paper, software, ballot image files, but no verification of election outcomes. Not much better than any other state who didn't do their due diligence either and spent a lot less taxpayer money.

And now NY State is getting sued from all directions. The courts will have to decide if our constitutional rights are being violated by this new voting system. I hope they get it right, don't you?

[Bill Bored]

38. You are uninformed. The lever machines were recanvassed 100%.

The charge that levers can't be recounted like paper ballots is wrong-headed. Lever machines are not computers. If you test them and configure them correctly, there's every reasonable expectation that they will function correctly. Such is not the case with computers. The only way to know if they've functioned correctly is to examine the inputs and outputs, which means hand-counting the paper ballots. And a lot more than 3% of them have to be recounted to confirm the winners of many elections.

Combine this with the risk that the paper ballots might have been tampered with, and you have a system that's very expensive, full of holes, and beyond the ability of election officials to manage properly.

There may be ways of improving it, but they ain't on the table. They are too complex and too expensive.

A completely unaudited system is worse, and I admit there are plenty of those around in states other than NY. But these are VERY LOW standards we're talking about. Not nearly high enough for a democracy. The lever machines offered a much higher standard, even without a paper trail of every vote, because that's how they were designed.

[Renew Deal]

17. Bullshit

Everyone can show up to one place at the same time and we can count heads. Don't you Diebold mouthpieces ever learn anything? :argh:





:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

19. Because election fraud is so George Bush funny!

:sarcasm:

[Renew Deal]

20. About as much is manufactured panic.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

22. LOL. Panic? Exaggerate much?

And you know, just because you don't know something doesn't make it unreal unless you are two and still thinking magically.

[Renew Deal]

26. Your entire message is hyperventilated

It's not that the issue isn't important. It is. Unlike you, I have sat through and spoken at meetings about voting machines in NY. And many of the Democratic Election commissioners in NY are good people that are fully aware of the issues. Particularly in Nassau County. Your posts in this thread are uninformed hyperbole. You can learn about ballots and security measures in this official document. http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/law/Regulations/Part6210RoutineMaintenanceTestingVotingSystems.pdf

Is it perfect? No, but neither was the old system and it's arguably better than what we had before.

[EFerrari]

28. Well, no.

And attacking me or raising "perfection" as a standard pretty much describes the solidity of your position. :)

[Wilms]

36. Well in Nassau, not only are the Dem election officials fully aware good people, the Pubs are too.

That's why BOTH the Dem and Repub election officials are SUING the state to keep lever machines.

[fascisthunter]

39. both are scare-mongering, naturally

:sarcasm:

[Bill Bored]

44. Dude, Nassau County is SUING the state to STOP e-vote counting!

And it's bipartisan!

So perhaps on this, we agree!:toast:

[MineralMan]

23. Yeah. Let's have national town meetings and vote that way.

That'll work real well. :sarcasm:

[Renew Deal]

24. Greek style!

:D

[EFerrari]

32. You really like your false dilemmas. n/t

[Bill Bored]

43. Please explain to us how the chain of custody of MN's paper ballots is maintained.

I thought I recall hearing that it's in the hands of just one election official in a county. True?

[Bill Bored]

12. Bingo! nt

[Bill Bored]

11. Blah, blah, blah. How do we know if a recount is "necessary?"

And please don't tell me the 3% audit will tell us.

You are repeating the line we have been fed by party hacks and election lawyers who will ultimately throw our election outcomes to the courts -- rather than the intent of the voters -- or just blindly accept the computer counts.

The truth is, no one had thought this through when they passed the NY law to require votes to be counted by software in 2005 -- and they still haven't thought it through.

If I were you, I'd be supporting Nassau County's lawsuit to keep the lever machines. You can read about it on the DU Election Reform forum.

[Wilms]

25. Don't pick on "party hacks and election lawyers".

The well intentioned, but actively ignorant "party line" issued by New Yorkers for Verified (sic) Voting has many people unaware of the dangers optical scan AND paper ballots.

Heck, NY had BANNED paper because of so much fraud...and instituted levers. Now it's back to paper...this time counted by...




The wiring harnesses look nice, though.

[Bill Bored]

37. Who else had the power to make this happen, or to stop it?

Yes, the dangers are not well-understood, but when pointed out, they've made no effort to change things. What I see is a bunch of hacks asking and answering softball questions at "oversight" hearings and at the same time grilling someone who calls them on their bullshit as if she's on trial. See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x516232

[fascisthunter]

41. thank you

[fascisthunter]

6. geez