Orange County: More E-Ballots Cast Than Voters 434
"David Hart, chairman of Texas-based Hart InterCivic, which manufactured Orange County's voting system, said it would be impossible to identify which voters cast ballots in the wrong precincts because of steps the company had taken to ensure voter secrecy. For this reason, an exact account of miscast ballots is impossible. The good news, if the folks there can be believed, is that there is no evidence yet that any result is in jeopardy. In a masterpiece of understatement, elections system analyst Kim Alexander is quoted as saying, "Certainly this kind of problem that's occurred in Orange County doesn't do anything to contribute to greater confidence in electronic voting systems." Steve Rodermund, Orange County's registrar of voters, is quoted as saying that despite the problems, he is satisfied with the performance of Orange County's new electronic voting system."
Paper Ballots (Score:5, Interesting)
How do either of you know? (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously, the problem *in this case* is twofold:
1. They didn't test these systems enough.
2. They have no way of fixing the problem, since they have no audit trail.
Another point is that the problem that arose is not a technological one per se. They could have made the same mistake in previous elections. If people are sent to the wrong voting booth or given the wrong ballot, you have the same effect. This is exacerbated by the fact that this is the first Presidential election since redistricting (in 2000, people may have voted in a different place). Further, the new electronic machines probably increased turnout.
Again, I say: "How do you know that your ballots are counted correctly?" How do you know that you (and everyone else) filled out the correct ballot (the actual problem here)? How do you know that the way you (and everyone else) filled out the ballot is the way that the ballot is meant to be filled out (the problem in Florida)?
Are you really so sure of your system that you can say absolutely that it is working? On what do you base this? Lack of complaints?
Reality Check Kids.. (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't use untested technology for something this important. The perception is that all the old voting systems are inadaquate. What a load of bunk. In the Twin Cities, we use optical scanners, which are fast, easy to use, and hard to screw up. The scanning machine can even complain instantly if you do something silly like vote for two condidates in the same race. I'll stop rambling now.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Off-hand I might say Republicans, but that's really not true.
If you've ever been to CA (a strongly democratic state), you know all about the crime rate. There are gang members galore. Not to mention that I believe we are the only state where bank robers have ever been covered in body armor, and carrying assault rifles.
If you were a criminal who carries assault rifles, are you going to support the man who is the strongest supporter of executions?
I can guarantee that there are plenty of law-abiding democrats that have fully-stocked gun cabinets. Thinking of CA as a pacifist state is clearly a mistake.
Re:How do either of you know? (Score:3, Interesting)
Lower House - up to about 12 candidates. Number each one in order of preference, 1 to your favourite, 2 to the next etc
Upper House - up to about 200 candidates. Either mark 1 in a box above the line (just the party name) or number every box below the line in order of preference. Now this sheet is about A1 size (for Americans that is about the size of a single bed sheet) so this takes time and gets really tedious.
This stops similar candidates splitting the votes as you get voter run off as each lowest candidate is eliminated, but it also leads to lots of secret preference deals with minor parties.
The thing about compulsory voting is that I am really split over it. I know it is my democratic right not to vote, yet I also know that making people vote gives you a much better outcome as everyone is represented.
Having also voted in the UK I can tell you that the Australian system seems really complex in comparison to the UK system, but part of me tells me that in many ways it is better.
Re:Why can't America get this right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Party affiliation ??? (Score:3, Interesting)
What is this about party affiliation? Is that talking about political parties? The way that I read that is that the ticket issued by the worker somehow contains information about the political party that the voter is (presumably) disposed to vote for. If that is true then it is anything but a secret ballot.
I suspect (and hope) that I have misunderstood something here -- can someone please explain.
Sounds more like a training problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't speak for Orange County, but in Fairfax County we have fairly a sophisticated training program that allows our officers to have time with the machine.
We learn to set it up, activate the machine, give voters access, close the polls, and generate the final results.
I don't know about Orange County's machines, but ours are preprogrammed with all the ballots for the precincts and the initialization of the machine with our precinct location smartcard determines that we have the correct ballot.
Our instructions even instruct us to check the ballot against what we were given in our kits to verify that the machine is correct.
It's possible if these machine work in similar fashion that the Orange County Registrar sent out the wrong precinct location cards, and that resulted in the numbers getting skewed.
In all honesty, any voting machine will work properly, but training deficiencies are where the problems arise. You don't need a paper trail, you don't need old fashioned paper ballots, but you do need poll workers that have been trained and familiarized with the equipment and contingencies for when things go wrong.
Fairfax County has been working without a paper trail for years now. Our old Shouptronic 1242 machines recorded the results in a large memory cartridge and only printed out a final tape at the end of polling.
Even the old lever action mechnical machines didn't create a paper trail. I think many in the slashdot crowd are a little deluded in thinking that a paper chit will solve all of voter ills.
In Flordia, one report I read pointed out that the chad trays filled up and prevented the punch from fully extending through the machine. Emptying the chad tray would have solved the issue. But that goes back to training for the poll workers and election officers.
But this last election was only a primary, and as such was a good testing area for the general election coming up. Most jurisdictions know what is at stake, and I'm positive they will be ironing out procedural bugs which will be the correct way to solve the issue.
But regardless, everyone needs to realize that there are always going to be a percentage of spoiled ballots in any system, whether it's written, circle filled, butterfly or electronic. Yes, you can minimize the chance, but in the end it comes down to how your set up your methods and procedures.
But as I can personally attest, I've seen people successfuly use and have trouble with the touch screen voting systems, and it doesn't matter if you 18 or 80. Some people get it, some will be confused. Training and procedures are what get you over that hurdle.
-Crolis
whoops.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Printed receipts would have allowed a recount (Score:4, Interesting)
Here we have an election where the results were obviously wrong, yet no recount is possible.
The fact that the fraud is not alleged and that election was not close enough for the error to matter is irrelevant. What happens when the election is close?
There has to be a way to check the results.