Is it Vote pad that is the ERD's collective choice as a better answer

[Melissa G]

for disabled voter's to use than DRE's? I'm running this thread for a friend and my memory is hazy. I'm headed out of town for the weekend for yet another yoga retreat.:)

I'm hoping my dear friends here can provide wisdom and keep this thread kicked until we have a good answer for a better disabled choice than DRE's.
Hugs,:loveya:
Melissa

[Bill Bored]

1. I think VotePad is one good answer.

I think AutoMark is another one.

Neither may be allowed under HR811 as written though because there is a poorly-worded clause that requires the printed content of the ballot to be converted to accessible media. I don't think there is a consensus about WTF this means.

One interpretation is that it would require all the printed text on the paper ballot to actually be scanned and read back to blind voters, rather than just scanning and reading back the choices represented by the ovals on the voted ballots filled in by the AutoMark (which the AutoMark already does), and reading the rest of the ballot content from memory.

It's also uncertain as to whether the VotePad meets this criteria since it doesn't actually physically convert the printed content either.

Sorry to tie this discussion into the Holt bill, but it's kind of the gorilla in the room lately.

This is why VotersUnite's changes,
http://www.votersunite.org/info/2007ElectionReform.asp
and others,
http://www.wheresthepaper.org/HR811withCmt070214.htm
are so important to endorse at this time.

[Melissa G]

2. Thanks BB! The question leads to a letter about Holt so tie away

cuz it might be useful to the person the thread is for.
Gotta run! :loveya:

[Einsteinia]

3. and Equalivote can accommodate large counties

http://www.equalivote.com

it is another "vote assistive device" based on the Rhode Island tactile ballot (as is Vote-Pad)

[Melissa G]

11. Thanks! I appreciate the assistance.

[eomer]

4. A problem that I need to rant about

There is a major problem that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere, which is the conflict between early voting and pre-printed ballots.

Since early voting allows a voter to go to any one of the various early voting polling places in her county then the election system at that polling place must be capable of providing a ballot that corresponds to any voter's address (generally any voter's precinct, but even precincts can possibly have different ballots for different addresses within them). If pre-printed ballots were used then each early voting polling place would have to stock all the ballots for all the county. They don't do it that way of course. Instead they use touchscreen DREs for early voting.

Meanwhile early voting seems to be catching on more and more. In fact, the new bill introduced by Clinton in the Senate and Tubbs Jones in the House requires early voting for all federal elections nationwide.

We need to figure out what the solution to this problem is because otherwise we will find ourselves in the situation of having perfected election day voting just about the time that most people stop voting on election day and start early voting instead, ON TOUCHSCREEN DRES!!! (sorry about the yelling).

All of the options that are favored around here are based on pre-printed ballots (that includes HCPB, plain old opscan, opscan + Automark, and opscan + Vote-pad) so we really need an answer to this problem.

Unfortunately, the only answers I see are to either eliminate early voting or come up with totally new technology that doesn't currently exist (like a touchscreen ballot marker that starts with blank paper stock and prints both the background of the ballot and the voter's choices at the same time).

If we don't do one of these two things then we are going to be stuck with touchscreen DREs for a large percentage of the voters even if we get all the other reforms enacted.

/rant off

A couple of BTWs:

1. I wonder if this is one of the reasons that MDERC is calling for a totally new solution in their position paper. We've had early voting quite a while here in Miami-Dade County and it is very popular.
   
2. If there is something I'm missing that makes this not a problem, please let me know. I'd love to be wrong about this one.

Edit: Add links for MDERC and some minor wording changes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

5. yes, early and absentee voting both pose problems

(different problems for absentee voting, of course).

It seems to me that an early voting system could be made to work wherein optical-scan ballots with ballot style identifiers are printed "on demand," but getting the audit to work well could be a thrill.

This may be completely off-topic, but wasn't I recently looking at returns from some jurisdiction that had both DRE and op-scan early voting? ...

[eomer]

6. "On demand" printing of op-scan ballots sounds like a possibility.

Of course, no one is working on such a thing as far as I know. This problem seems to be on no one's radar at present.

Both DRE and op-scan early voting rings a bell for me too but looking around at some of the data I've saved, I think what I'm remembering would be provisionals here in Miami-Dade. For some reason our provisionals can be either op-scan or DRE. Here's the Miami-Dade data that has that: http://elections.miamidade.gov/ele110706/detail.pdf (see the PROV-I and PROV-P columns). I thought maybe Mecklenberg County, NC but when I look now I don't see it there.

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. Volusia County

The Volusia SOVC shows "Early Voting TS" for each precinct, and "Early Voting OS" (op scan) for the entire county. It looks like overall 3217 people voted early TS, 15,679 voted early OS, 22,690 voted absentee, and then there were some provisionals etc.

As to the larger issue, I agree: although some folks seem to be alert to the connection between early voting and auditing dilemmas, there seems to be a big disconnect.

[Awsi Dooger]

14. I think Duval County also had optical scan for early voting

That's Jacksonville.

Also I read plenty of Alaska papers leading up to elections and I'm fairly certain they use some form of hand marked ballots during early voting.

[autorank]

8. Eomer, what's MDERC all about. I've been hearing the name.

Is it "non partisan" or "non partisan, partisan?"

Any pointer links?

[eomer]

9. I think I will let them speak for themselves for the most part.

There are plenty of links on their website to position papers over the years since they were founded in 2002.

I will offer one critique, however, which is that they've been too willing to work with the paperless DRE system we've currently got, trying to improve the testing and auditing and setting up citizen observation of the daily DRE closings.

But they seem to have turned the page on that issue now. Their latest position paper comes out clearly in favor of paper ballots and that the paper ballot should be the ballot of record for all purposes, including tabulation.

Now my concern is with the tactical approach they've adopted. They recommend leaving the paperless DRE system in place while Florida commissions the R & D of a totally new solution. I agree with the goals of the new innovation but I don't think we should allow another presidential election (or congressional) on paperless DREs, no matter how well they have perfected the testing and auditing regimes.

[autorank]

10. Thanks...that fills in the gaps...Check these out

1) Today's ERD News thread - David Griscom's article (reprinted from an AAAS presentation this year)

and

2) Source code auditing - I'm not a programmer but this explains things fairly well concerning the limits of having source code. Tell me what you think. If the guy is right,then we're holding the bag with a rubber gun;) with a lot of this legislaiton.

http://www.acm.org/classics/sep95/

[Bill Bored]

12. Auto vs. MDERC? THIS is going to be FUN! :)

(I wish I'd thought of it.) :)

[Patsy Stone]

15. The only thing I would say is that this position paper

was written to the new legislature, not yet in session, when Crist was in office about two weeks. He recently came out with more sweeping statements to the legislature about voting reform.

At the point in time these positions were articulated there was no chance for any sort of voting reform so they were willing to concede to get what they wanted and thought they could get.

I was part of their Observation Project last November. They have their heads mostly in the right place.

[eomer]

16. But the position paper opposes the solution that is now proposed by Crist.

According to press reports Crist is proposing op-scan as the main solution plus touchscreen DREs (with a VVPB) for disability access:

The main piece of Crist's plan calls for replacing the paperless electronic touch screens used by about half the state's voters on Election Day with paper ballots that are read by optical scanners.

Some touch screens would remain for the increasingly popular practice of early voting and to accommodate people with disabilities.

These remaining electronic devices would be outfitted with printers so voters could verify their choices before casting ballots. In a close race that requires a manual recount, Crist wants the paper printout of a voter's electronic selections to be the ballot of record.

But if a printer experiences a jam or other malfunction and paper ballots are lost, Browning says Crist will propose that the electronic results from that machine be the official tally.

"I think, quite frankly, the paper-jam issue is a little overrated. But in the event it happens, there has to be some safety valve," Browning says.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2007/02/24/m1a_PAPER_TRAIL_0225.html

The position paper doesn't just concede that Crist's solution isn't achievable politically (assuming IOW that you are right that they came out with it before the politics shifted), it actively opposes the solution proposed by Crist, not on political reality grounds but rather on the merits:

Replacing Florida's Existing DREs with Currently Certified Precinct Counted Optical Scan Systems (PCOS) Is Not a Viable Option: Disability access: Sight impaired voters and voters with some severe motor impairments cannot vote unaided or in secret on the currently certified PCOS systems. This is why the requirement of disability access is currently being attempted to be met through the use of DREs.

http://www.reformcoalition.org/ressources/MDERC%202007%20Position%20Paper%20on%20Florida%20Voting%20Systems.pdf

If MDERC is now in favor of "the currently certified PCOS systems" that they previously opposed then they should make note of that change on their website. They've had plenty of time to do so by now. I don't think that is the case, though. I think they are opposed to Crist's new proposal because the current op-scan implementations do not have support for multiple languages in the overvote feedback. To me that is not a good enough reason to delay getting rid of paperless DREs until sometime after 2008. I'm not calling them out as having their heads in the wrong place or anything like that. I just disagree with them.

BTW, I too was part of the Observation Project in November -- maybe we met. I thought it was a well-organized effort and one that needs to be done, even though with paperless DREs it is like asking the chickens to guard the hen house -- while blindfolded.

[Patsy Stone]

20. Okay, here's how I read it.

They want a VVPB and they want that to be the ballot of record. They don't want the DREs retro-fitted with printers. Their problem with PCOS is only in reference to issues with multi-language support and the disability requirements, and they don't like the fact that they are using DREs for this, so they suggest changing the way the PCOS deals with these situations, or urge the legislature to come up with another more acceptable solution, tout suite.

It just seems that they could not have been opposed to Crist's proposal in this paper, because he hadn't articulated it yet. As for them updating their website, I think that's a lack of staff and resources not a product of their position.

If I get a chance later, I'll call them and ask then to clarify this position, but work's been a bear recently.

I had observer training in the ACLU offices on Biscayne, but I don't remember which night. I did have a discussion at the training table with Lida about paper ballots and she agreed they were necessary and they should be the ballot of record.

To be honest, I'm not even sure what you and I are arguing about here -- or if we're even arguing at all. :)

[eomer]

22. Sorry, didn't mean to be arguing. Just discussing.

If MDERC has reconsidered their position in light of Crist's proposal and is now on board with an op-scan solution in the interim then that would be good (from my POV, that is).

I agree that a clarification would be helpful and will also ask them about it.

I PMed you with some details about their weekly meeting, etc.

[Patsy Stone]

24. I didn't really think we were arguing.

I saw your PM and I'll respond shortly.

Let me know what you find out if you did get the chance to ask them, and I'll do the same.

Peace out, yo.

[Melissa G]

13. I'm with you on this rant, eomer...

Esp in Texas. The heavy turnout in Travis County (mostly Austin) was what swung this conservative state for Gov Ann Richards. Early voting is a big part of that strategy. We need to have confidence in those votes being reported accurately.

[eomer]

17. Yes, it's a conundrum.

Early voting is good in that it gets some citizens to participate that otherwise wouldn't.

But it is adverse to election transparency in at least a couple of important ways:

1. It causes the use of DREs in place of op-scan.
   
2. It creates a much longer time span during which votes have been cast but not yet counted. For transparency it is better to have the entire election process, from opening to final polling place count, be able to fit in a single day so that an observer can watch the whole thing without one ore more periods (overnight) when the system is inaccessible to observers but not necessarily to hackers or stuffers.

On balance I think I favor a national holiday on election day and no early voting, but I admit I'm conflicted about it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. check on this

Here is perhaps the latest paper by (co-authored by) Paul Gronke, who has basically tried to learn everything worth knowing about early voting: http://earlyvoting.net/resources/ohio07.pdf

Page 15: "We find little evidence that early voting reforms increase turnout, except for voting by mail in Oregon, and then only in presidential elections." If anything, their data imply that in-person early voting decreases turnout.

I'm not really satisfied with this paper at first glance, but without going into the details, it certainly raises questions about whether early voting even does much to boost turnout. So you might not have to be so conflicted. (But don't depend on this one analysis.)

[eomer]

19. Interesting.

Well, if it doesn't actually increase turnout then we have all the negatives and no positives I guess.

From a partisan POV, it seems that there are distinct differences in utilization of early voting versus absentee ballots, versus election day voting -- at least in my state. Looking at the Duval County 2006 results a couple of days ago and also at 2006 Miami-Dade County previously, I noticed that the Republican candidates (including even Katherine Harris) had a large advantage in absentees while the Democratic candidates did better in early voting.

So there might be an advantage of greater turnout of Democrats even if not on the whole. This, if true, would leave me even more conflicted because I like to keep my election reform advocacy separate from my party advocacy. I guess I just want to be conflicted if it's alright with you. ;-)

Edit to add: the Republican advantage in absentees smells fishy to me, especially since Harris did so much better in absentees than other voting and given that Florida (at least S. Florida) has a proud tradition of illegal brokering of absentee votes. So maybe it's not really that absentee voting increases turnout of Republicans -- maybe what it increases is fraud.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. oh, I'm pretty much conflicted as a matter of principle

I was just trying to give you freedom of choice....

The hypothesis that early voting might lead to "greater turnout of Democrats even if not on the whole" seems quirky, unless EV has some weird contrary impact on Republicans. I can't rule it out. (I certainly can't rule out anything about absentee votes.)

Maybe I should clarify one distinction, since we haven't made it explicitly. It could be that Democrats are inclined to vote early instead of on election day, and/or that Republicans are inclined to vote absentee instead of on election day. And I am using "inclined" very loosely, because in practice, there have been some pretty intense efforts to turn out the early and absentee vote -- the results won't just be a matter of predispositions. So, who wins the early voting may or may not be an indication of whether either candidate/party got a benefit.

[eomer]

23. Excellent points.

Sorry, but now I have to go one level of meta -- there's also the predisposition of those who are doing the intense efforts. Here in S. Florida there used to be a bunch of people who went around coercing, buying, and bribing to gather a pile of absentee ballots for their particular patron candidate. It wasn't necessarily the candidate's idea, it could have been just the predisposition of some guys out there who thought it was a good idea on their own. I've never been convinced that Xavier Suarez asked his supporters to broker ballots but his supporters did broker ballots and he was thrown out of office (as Mayor) because of it. I don't know if this is still happening here or whether the law enforcement efforts were enough to stop it.