Florida: Bill would exempt electronic votes from manual recount

Palm Beach Post ^ | Apr 1 2004

[george wythe]

he Florida law that requires a manual recount in close elections would not apply to ballots cast on paperless electronic voting machines under a bill endorsed by a state Senate committee Wednesday.

Florida elections officials already interpret the state's recount law that way. The new bill, approved 8-1 by the Senate Ethics and Elections Committee, adds specific language that says a manual recount cannot be conducted on touch-screen machines, which are used by Palm Beach County and 14 other Florida counties.

A House subcommittee will consider a similar bill today.

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, who has filed two lawsuits challenging paperless voting, called the proposed change "blatantly unconstitutional." Wexler claims it's a violation of the Constitution's equal-protection clause if voters in 52 counties can have their votes manually recounted while voters in 15 touch-screen counties cannot.

Florida law requires a manual recount when an election is decided by 0.25 percent or less. In counties that use paper optical-scan ballots, a canvassing board conducts a manual recount by looking at "undervotes" and "overvotes." Undervotes are ballots in which tabulating machines did not detect a choice for any candidate. Overvotes are ballots rejected because voters chose more than one candidate.

The manual recount statute says that, if canvassers examining an undervote or overvote find markings that show "a clear indication on the ballot that the voter has made a definite choice," the ballot is counted.

The law has raised questions in Palm Beach County in two close elections this year because most of the voting was done on touch screens, which produce no tangible ballots.

A February opinion by the state's Division of Elections says a manual recount of touch-screen votes is unnecessary because there is no way a voter who casts an electronic ballot can make a stray mark that might reveal a "clear indication" of a choice.

Although the division contends existing law rules out a manual recount of paperless ballots, Secretary of State Glenda Hood endorses changing the language of the statute. Said Hood spokeswoman Jenny Nash: "This way it's in black and white and there's no question about it."

[george wythe]

Miami Herald quote:

Pasco County elections supervisor Kurt Browning spoke in favor of the bill, stressing that electronic equipment doesn't allow overvotes -- where someone votes more than once in a single race -- so there is nothing to count by hand. And he added that voters have the right not to vote in races, thus registering an ``undervote.''

[camle]

garbage in - garbage out

whoever writes the program in those machines can retire young and wealthy at the hands wo whatever party pays the most to buy the results. its' painfully easy.

[george wythe]

Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel quote:

But some in South Florida aren't so convinced. They point to reports of machines malfunctioning, fears of potential tampering and the lack of anything outside the machines themselves to consult when they log curious results. Critics say the paperless machines also would raise questions of equal treatment in a statewide recount, since the 52 counties that use optical-scan systems still do have paper ballots to count by hand.

[devane617]

I am living in Pasco county FL( God Bless Texas ) on assignment. I voted in the last bond issue and the devices produce no paper. Before you complete your vote it prompts you to review your vote. If you claim a problem with these voting devices, then you must have real mental problems.

[Puddleglum]

There's got to be some hard-copy means to verify the electronic vote tally when necessary. I don't see why electronic votes should be exempted from this. I know it may add to the cost of the voting machines but it will be worth it if it helps verify the accuracy of the electronic tally.

I am a little surprised at how some politicians seem to see the e-voting system as a panacea to election fraud. It's so counter to the otherwise omnipresent warnings we hear about "beware computer fraud! prevent identity theft! do your part to foil hackers!" Someone must be getting some big kick-backs from the voting machine salesmen.

[John Jorsett]

Man, this would devastate employment in Florida. Isn't recounting votes something like 10% of their economy?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Computers can't go wrong.

[george wythe]

I know it may add to the cost of the voting machines but it will be worth it if it helps verify the accuracy of the electronic tally.

Will you feel reassured if you can print out your electronic ballot, review it, and deposit in a box?

Do you think that such printing will discourage potential tampering with the machine voting tally?

[george wythe]

Man, this would devastate employment in Florida. Isn't recounting votes something like 10% of their economy?

:-)

We're currently hiring for the upcoming November elections. New recount workers will be paid while in training, which usually lasts several months or years.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, who has filed two lawsuits challenging paperless voting, called the proposed change "blatantly unconstitutional." Wexler claims it's a violation of the Constitution's equal-protection clause if voters in 52 counties can have their votes manually recounted while voters in 15 touch-screen counties cannot."

You know, if they can get the touch screens in the other 37 before the election it would pretty much gaurantee a Bush victory.

This way there is no voting 3,4,5 times.

Next up? Philadelphia.

[KC Burke]

Do you think that such printing will discourage potential tampering with the machine voting tally?

Unfortunately, nothing will discourage Democrat voter fraud. It's part of there heritage, their chutzpah, their mythos and their driven mission to foster the leftist and machine politics they so dearly depend upon. I see this as the twenty-first century version of the Chicago punch card machine.

[Puddleglum]

Will you feel reassured if you can print out your electronic ballot, review it, and deposit in a box?

Yes. Do you think that such printing will discourage potential tampering with the machine voting tally?

I am no expert on the subject, but it seems to me that with hard copy someone attempting fraud would be more likely to leave some traceable clues or 'fingerprints' that tampering had occurred. What I want to be sure of in all counts is a one-to-one correspondance between registered voters and a tallied vote.

My muddled thinking tells me that the first of these three can't be electronic:

tally of signed-in voters = votes cast = votes counted

I welcome any feedback on these pre-coffee ruminations!

[Bringbackthedraft]

Shouldn't be a problem this year, Buchanan isn't running.

[Balding_Eagle]

If you claim a problem with these voting devices, then you must have real mental problems./

Come on, you can't believe that can you? Doing away with the paper ballot is very dangerous. The paper ballot provides a trail that can be followed in a contested election, the electronic ballot, while it provides a trail I'm sure, provides a trail that only a few techicians can interpet. Very dangerous.

[freethistle]

I think we should outlaw all receipts from computers. The little paper receipts from ATMs and those from the electronic pumps at gas stations are unneeded.

It's like detailed bank statements and credit card statements-totally unnecessary.

I have full faith in financial institutions and and oil companies to count every transaction accurately through electronic means in a world with no detailed paper receipts.

[upchuck]

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, who has filed two lawsuits challenging paperless voting, called the proposed change "blatantly unconstitutional." Wexler claims it's a violation of the Constitution's equal-protection clause if voters in 52 counties can have their votes manually recounted while voters in 15 touch-screen counties cannot.

Here, here Mr. Wexler!! I know you're a RAT but in this case my hat's off to you!

Anyone who thinks electronic voting machines and the associated software are 100% error and tamper free has clearly not been paying attention^.

I predict... the contested 2000 election will seem like a cake walk compared to the debacle we'll see this November. It would not surprise me at all if someone discovered Terry McAwful and his goons have spent many, many manhours learning and practicing how to "stuff" these electronic ballot boxes.

I urge you to follow the link above then then raise Hell if your local precinct plans on using one of these machines. Electronic voting machines are obviously not ready for prime time.

[Qwinn]

"I have full faith in financial institutions and and oil companies to count every transaction accurately through electronic means in a world with no detailed paper receipts."

I've been in the IT business for over 10 years, and working with computers for 20. I'm good at it too.

Your confidence is misplaced. Sometimes, -every- programmer has to go back to hard copy to fix a problem.

I consider this to be a very dangerous precedent. This will not prevent voter fraud, it will encourage it.

Qwinn

[Puddleglum]

tally of signed-in voters = votes cast = votes counted

My ruminations, part II:

So, if the roll of signed-in voters is less than the tally from the computer voting machines, I assume we would want a means of knowing which e-votes to delete.

And, if the roll of signed-in voters is greater than the tally from the computer voting machines, I would want a means of knowing where and when votes got deleted.

Plus we need the means of making sure the dead do not votes, or folks don't have votes cast for them, or people who don't exist get registered, etc.

[upchuck]

"Trust, but verify"
          President Ronald Reagan

Having been the victim of several "computer errors," one in the thousands of dollars, I can only conclude that you must be very naive.