Analysis of California recall data confirms voting system doubts

Risk Digest ^ | 10/9/03 | Rebecca Mercuri

[anniegetyourgun]

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 [and no real assurance that 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 mercuri@acm.org 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

[dirtboy]

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).

So, this beggars the question, was the 4.6% error rate in LA due to the problems with the machines or problems with the voters?

[PhiKapMom]

This is exactly why a landslide was need in the Recall -- to make any vote irregularities they manufactured irrevelant!

[lelio]

Of the 8,359,168 votes cast statewide, some 384,427 (nearly 4.6%) were not recorded for the recall question.

Did you HAVE to vote on the recall? I would imagine you didn't and could just vote on prop 54.

[Always Right]

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.

How can a touchscreen system not work? If a vote was not registered for the recall, maybe it was because they did not want to cast a vote....

[Support Free Republic]

	God Bless Those who Protect our Liberty --- Past, Present and Future.
Please visit the FR Fundraiser

[Semper Paratus]

Before Florida I never hear anything about problems with figuring out how to vote.
Following your bingo card is more difficult.

[dirtboy]

How can a touchscreen system not work? If a vote was not registered for the recall, maybe it was because they did not want to cast a vote....

This raises the question, was a vote not cast for the recall deliberate or an error? The only way they could test the various systems would be to get together different demographic groups, split them, have one group vote with one system and one group vote with the other, and then have them fill out a form indicating how they voted. And you know what? I would bet that at least three percent would have a variance between how they voted on the machines and how they indicate their vote on a form.

Such a survey, however, could be quite racially charged and also cause problems for the likes of Jesse Jackson, so I doubt we'll ever see it. The Dems want a certain level of error to allow manipulation of the system, even as they scream at the GOP for being guilty of wanting such.

[Sabertooth]

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.

This sounds like the "undervote" canard that was thrown dishonestly into the ACLU's error rate argument before the 9th Circuit.

I'm therefore skeptical of the entire article.

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.

Yes, it should be noted, but regularly isn't, by the Left.

[kritikos]

Did you have to vote on the recall?

Your question is right on the mark... No, you did not have to vote on recall. I have seen these statistics on other threads and have wondered what this fuss about "Missing Votes" is all about.

My conclusion?... Spin. To cast doubt on the election system. It allows the "doubt door" to be left ajar making it easier to kick open as needed during the next election cycle.

[BlessedByLiberty]

Many of us on FR noted that the recall vote question itself was at the top of the candidate card (in our area you just used a black marking type pen and marked your ballot...old fashioned but duh, it works!) Some Freepers remarked they questioned themselves about whether they had voted on the recall question itself because it was at the top of the ballot.

My family members began calling one another first thing in the mornig - remember to vote on the recall itself. I think some people actually thought all you had to do was vote a replacement and not the recall question which would lead to this discrepency.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[talleyman]

Following your bingo card is more difficult.

LOL!The voters can handle 5 bingo cards, fill out 10 Lotto slips, juggle a 200-channel TV lineup, remember what's going on with 100 characters in 10 soap operas, but voting is a problem...

[Publius6961]

Academics are a weird bunch.

They are like a kid with a hammer, everything they see is a nail.

Unfortunately academics can be very highly educated, articulate and dumb as posts.

I recall a nationwide article a number of years ago about an academic debunking the "misery loves company" truism.

First the idiot read it literally, then set out to prove that miserable people don't really enjoy the company of others.
Cultural apes piloting the space shuttle!

[kritikos]

Not just academics. Idealogues is a better category.

They can't see the water for their own reflection.

[DoctorZIn]

This post has been added to the… California In Transition- Must read Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin