Information on *missing votes* from e-voting in California

[Selwynn]

I am on software testing email list, and Rex Black, a consultant based out of texas I think, re-posted this information there - I thought I would share it with you:

Following is based on information from Rebecca Mercuri.
>
>
>Rebecca Mercuri has analyzed California's recall ballot data and
>reports that it confirms numerous doubts about election systems. Her
>results demonstrate that the style of voting system in use (punchcard,
>optically scanned, or touchscreen) cannot be generically considered
>either "good or bad". She asserts that the particular model of the
>system, as well as the procedural controls in place in each county,
>along with the ballot layout, may have considerably more impact on the
>reliability of the election results than the type of system deployed.
>
>The analysis revealed some shocking details. Of the 8,359,168 votes
>cast statewide, some 384,427 (nearly 4.6%) were not recorded for the
>recall question. Almost half of these missing votes (over 175,000)
>were in Los Angeles, nearly 9% for that county. Yet the Datavote
>punchcards used in 14 other counties fared somewhat better, on average,
>than all of the optically scanned and touchscreen systems, with the
>exception of only the ES&S Optech Eagle (used in San Francisco and San
>Mateo counties) and the Diebold Accu-Vote-TS (used in Alameda, though
>with some reports of equipment malfunctions). The Sequoia Edge
>touchscreens, currently under litigation in Riverside County, performed
>slightly worse than the Datavote punchcards. The ES&S iVotronic
>touchscreens were ranked lowest of the three touchscreen types in the
>state, and were outperformed by all other systems with the exception of
>the Sequoia Optech optically scanned systems and the Pollstar and
>Votomatic punchcards.
>
>In earlier court battles prior to the recall election, the ACLU claimed
>that voters using punchcards would be unfairly disenfranchised, as
>compared to voters using optically scanned or touchscreen systems. As
>it turns out, the counties using Datavote punchcards had residual vote
>rates that were better than all but one of the optically scanned
>systems, and also lower than two of the three touchscreen systems. At
>the other end of the scale, the counties using Pollstar and Votomatic
>punchcards (which included heavily-populated Los Angeles) had worse
>residual vote rates than any other type of voting system in use in the
>state. Clearly it is not the punchcards themselves that are to blame,
>since the Datavote systems demonstrate that punchcards can be used
>successfully.
>
>The residual vote technique was previously used by MIT/Caltech in their
>studies following the 2000 Presidential Election. For the California
>analysis, she performed her calculations by comparing the difference
>between the total number of ballots cast, as reported by California
>Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's office, with the total numbers of
>"yes" and "no" votes on the recall question. It should be noted that
>the residual vote tally is incapable of differentiating between a voter
>who deliberately or accidentally did not make a selection on the recall
>question, and an equipment failure (such as hanging chad) that could
>result in a cast vote not being counted.
>
>The rush to fully computerized ballot casting is misguided. Although
>supplemental technologies are needed for disabled voters, there is no
>clear evidence that touchscreen systems are substantially or
>consistently better for use by the general population than other voting
>methods. The fact that the touchscreens in California do not provide
>any way to perform an independent recount >votes are even handled correctly in the absence of the voter-verified
>audit trail that Rebecca has long been recommending -- PGN] should make
>them less desirable than the paper-based systems that do have such
>capabilities. Counties, like San Francisco, that are doing well with
>optically scanned ballots, and the smaller ones that use punchcards
>effectively, should feel no pressure to modernize.
>
>For further information, contact Rebecca Mercuri via telephone at
>1-609/895-1375 or 1-215/327-7105, email [e-mail] and Internet at
>http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html
>
> -- -- -- --
>Supporting Data for California Recall Question, Rebecca Mercuri 7 Oct
>2003
>
>Numbers represent RESIDUAL VOTE RATE as percentage of total votes cast according to type or model of machine:
>
>Punchcard 6.24
> Datavote 1.94
> Pollstar 6.02
> Votomatic 8.17
>
>Optically Scanned 2.68
> ES&S Eagle 1.87
> Diebold Accu-Vote-OS 2.36
> ES&S 550 and 560 2.42
> Mark-A-Vote 3.04
> Sequoia Optech 4.35
>
>Touchscreen 1.49
> Diebold Accu-Vote-TS 0.72
> Sequoia Edge 2.01
> ES&S iVotronic 3.49
>
>Statewide 4.59

[Spazito]

1. Kick!

*

[Selwynn]

2. Does no one care about this for christ sakes?

[West Coast Democrat]

3. I was not surprised to read your post

And I'm waiting also to hear from one of the BBV people, or someone in CA is has an idea of what to do about this.

[Selwynn]

4. I'm not suprised either, but still I'd like this information....

...to reach as many people as possible.

[kimchi]

5. kick

very interesting

[kentuck]

6. 384,427 votes?

Someone posted the state reg about recall votes last night that suggested that any votes that did not vote for the recall itself were not legitimate votes??? Any info on that?

[maggrwaggr]

7. I'll kick to that

BBV and vote counting in general needs to be the 2nd biggest issue of 2004

:kick:

[shance]

8. More interesting information*** Thanks.

I think slowly people are waking up. There is a meeting Oct 28th(?) here in California, Im assuming Sacramento. I requested the info on another post. Will post it as soon as I find out.

Getting a good crowd of concerned Californeeyans** is key to influencing and putting some heat on these individuals who only have their self-interest as a priority and not the interest of all Americans, uh, not to mention Democracy.

[RedEagle]

9. For all those counties who THINK they have to replace punch cards

HAVA does NOT mandate replacing punch cards.

Lots of local officials don't realize or have lost sight of this fact.

Counties can keep punch card systems if they undertake an educational program.

Lever machinesl should go, and with good reason. They are the mechanical equivalent of touch screens that don't produce a voter-verified paper ballot- they don't produce a physical copy of true voter intent.

The ONLY reason for touch screens is for disabled access.

And for the visually impaired, THEY DON'T USE THE TOUCH SCREEN PORTION OF THE SYSTEM ANYWAY.

Touch screens with a voter-verified paper ballot for the disabled is all that is needed. Visually disabled get audio help and ballot review.