|
Introduction to the Argument FOR the Optical Scan/Ballot Marking Solution
Accountability, Auditability, Accessibility and Affordability
"A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North Carolina in the days since Election Day, with thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two statewide races still up in the air." -- AP Newswire, Nov 13
Direct Record Voting machines have failed us greatly. Currently, election technology has not advanced to the point where it can provide us with electronic systems (DREs) that are reliable enough to trust with our democracy. In other words, we just aren't there yet. See list of problems with electronic voting in NC here
State, county and town officials have heard a lot from vendors about electronic touch screen voting machines (DREs), but know very little about reliable, cost effective alternatives. In fact, Most have not heard about the cost differences between DREs and paper ballot systems, as well as the other advantages. Now we discover that most electronic voting machines being promoted to our counties do not even meet the standards of the Help America Vote Act, for accuracy and accessibility. Counties purchasing DREs now will have to upgrade or replace these voting systems again in 2007, at their own expense.
|
Dr Rebecca Mercuri - recommending choice to NC Legislative Study Committee on Electronic Voting:
"The best voting systems appear to be those that provide a minimum of intervention when voters are preparing ballots. Optically scanned systems continue to be used successfully now by over 50% of US counties and they are a costeffective and reliable voting solution. Optically scanned ballots can be prepared by disabled voters, they are available for use in independent recounts and as a check against electronic vote totals, they eliminate the need for a dual system to accommodate precinct and absentee voters, and their lost (residual) vote rates have been shown to meet or better that of fully electronic voting products." ~ testimony to the NC State Legislature on January 7, 2005. Link
Justin Moore - Comparing optical scan systems to DRE (direct record, touchscreen or pushbutton):
- DREs need 20% more poll workers at precinct
- DREs need 10% more precincts
- 50% more poll workers in total
- DREs have worse performance on average
"The bottom line is that paperless machines are more expensive to own and operate, while performing worse than other alternatives (including punchcards)." http://www.cs.duke.edu/~justin/voting/VotingForumUU.ppt |
|
|
|
More Advantages of Optical Scanners
Merit of optical scanners -written by election official who uses them. report
Dr. Rebecca Mercuri recommends optical scanners over current technology. link
DREs are still in the beta testing phase -- in a July 2005 test in California, Diebold had a 20% failure rate, with touchscreen machines crashing, BSOD, and printers jamming. report
Advantages of Optical Scan Systems  (right click and select "open link in new window") |
 |
Undervotes & Phantom Votes
North Carolina Study indicating that optical scan machines have the most consistent and lowest undervote rates of the various technologies used this past election. 2004 report
DREs in New Mexico dropped votes 5 times as often as optical scanners did, also had phantom votes: Nov 2004 report
Florida study indicating that DREs had 8 times as many undervotes as optical scanners: July 2004 report |
 |
Taxpayer alert: DREs cost more to own and to operate
Comparing purchase and operating cost of optical scan and DRE machines, 2 pages, includes info about why DREs cost more. Costcomparisons
Additional: actual study of 4 NC Counties -- NC Costs | |
|
Executive Director Will Doherty - Ballot Marking Best for Accessible and Verifiable Voting, Voters Can Have the Best of Both Worlds:
"Our research demonstrates that ballot marking devices -- used by disabled voters to mark paper ballots in precinct-count optical scan voting systems -- provide the most complete combination of accessibility, accuracy, and verifiability of any voting systems on the market today," VVF . "We urge election administrators to choose a voting system that best meets the right of disabled voters to cast votes privately and independently, as well ensuring the voting system records and counts every vote accurately and securely." http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6254
LOCAL ENDORSEMENTS -
Dottie Neely, Social Worker for the Blind in Guilford County NC: Letter of endorsement here
"Neely expressed concerns over the reliability of the reel machines and the confidentiality of votes recorded in sequential order on the paper record. She has used a variety of machines aimed at providing access for the disabled and settled on the Automark machine as the user-friendliest model." http://www.yesweekly.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=603&TM=48903.21
Gary Wray, Wake Chapter of North Carolina NFB:
I had the opportunity to use the Automark machine at the NFB of NC State Convention in 2004. I was able to use it easily. It allowed me to create a paper ballot that could then be run through the scanner.
At the National NFB convention in July 2004, I was able to test one of the computer-based systems. I did NOT like it as well as the Automark. I really think that the Automark could be incorporated into many of our precincts without having to buy all new equipment.
I will be commenting that I think the Automark machine needs to be the way to go in NC. http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbofnc/2005-September/000427.html
National Endorsements
Curtis Chong, President NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND in Computer Science - letter
Automark Ballot marking device can mark any optically scanned ballot. description |
|
 |
Accessible and Verifiable Technology -the Verified Voting Foundation provides an overview and chart here
Voting must be accessible, as much as possible for those with physical, visual, auditory and cognitive impairments |
 |
Compliance
What voting systems are compliant with federal and state law?
Most DRES do not meet the standards of HAVA, the Help America Vote Act! See our Compliance Page | |
|
|
Pictorial cost comparison:
DRE system vs. optical scan + ballot-marking device. One page
Cost for Optical Scan/Ballot Marking devices: $0.00 paid for by state grant.
Cost for DRE systems: 2 to 3 times more than state grant amount. See cost for Your County to Upgrade Machines
(right click click on file, select "open in new window" )
*One Optical Scan machine can serve an entire preinct, while there must be at least 1 DRE each per 170 voters
*The State Board of Elections is recommending one DRE per 250 voters, giving about 3 minutes for each to cast their ballots. Regulations allow voters 5 minutes each, some take longer. | |
|
1. What is a DRE? DRE stands for "Direct Recording Electronic" voting machine. As the name suggests, the voter directly enters the votes, which are recorded electronically. Almost all touch screen voting machines are DREs, although there are other DREs that have knobs or switches instead of touch screens
1.2. Why are computer scientists upset by DRE voting systems? Computer scientists, as well as voters, are upset by paperless DRE voting systems because we know that even a beginning programmer can write code that displays votes one way on a screen, records them another way, and tallies them yet another way. This can happen for a variety of reasons, including software and hardware errors, or "hacks" installed into the voting machines. These problems can occur even when voting machines have been thoroughly inspected and tested. DRE systems experienced a number of problems already in the 2002 elections, and we see this only as the tip of the iceberg. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.phpid=5018#s1q1
2. What is a Precinct Count Optical scan? An optical scan system where the ballot scanner is in the precinct. The voter marks his choices on a paper ballot that resembles a multiple choice test. The ballot is then fed into the scanner, which counts the votes and stores the ballot in a secure manner. The machines can reject the ballot if it can't be read properly, has undervotes or overvotes. Precinct count systems have been studied extensively by political scientists, who have found them to be much less conducive to voter error than punch cards. In this respect they are competitive (perhaps better) than DREs. Precinct count optical scan systems are very widely used in the United States. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5018#s1q1
3. The AutoMark is a ballot marking system designed to provide privacy and accessibility to voters who are blind, vision-impaired, or have a disability or condition that would make it difficult or impossible to mark a ballot in the usual way. In addition, it provides language assistance to voters who are more comfortable speaking an alternative language or who have reading difficulties. The  AutoMark voter assist terminal has been developed with input from election authorities and disability organizations, and meets all of the requirements of The Help America Vote Act of 2002. Made by Vogue Election Products. link
|
