Nathan Moore's Thoughts
Got Pulp?
The Tennessean has an editorial today demanding that all new voting devices have a paper trail to ensure accuracy. I’m still trying to figure out why the “paper trail” is so embraced. It was precisely the failure to function of a “paper based” system that almost let Gore steal the presidency in Florida in 2000. The editorial board cites a problem in Texas this month, where an electronic voting system created by Hart InterCivic allegedly resulted in inaccurate results - “100,000 votes were lost of 150,000 cast”, says The Tennessean. This is supposed to bolster the case for paper ballots.
Well, not exactly.
The Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a story on that March 7th primary election here. Apparently “a computer programming error counted some votes multiple times and boosted the final tally in both primaries by as much as 100,000 votes.” There were no votes “lost”, as our local paper of record has asserted. In short, the program added prior votes together. And apparently the problem was easily fixed. Each candidate was able to obtain hour-by-hour and precinct-by-precinct tallies with no problem. Every candidate in the story feels the results are correct.
In short, there was an addition error (a notably human-like error), which was quickly fixed. I sometimes wonder whether the editors actually investigate the sources they cite. I simply Googled “texas election lost votes” and up came the above-story, first on the list. Then I read it. The whole process took about 90 seconds.
But beside the editorial board’s shoddy research, this infatuation with paper still puzzles me. The real issue is security, not accuracy. Electronic results, which have been backed-up multiple times, are certainly more reliable than mechanic ballot boxes and pulp, where individual votes can be physically misplaced and easily and surreptitiously created. Elections were stolen for years in Tennessee with paper. Typically, you just add more of it. If electronic voting is so easy to manipulate, as many pro-pulp forces insinuate, then adding paper to the mix doesn’t really add any security. Remember Karen Bennett, who locally ran against Rob Briley for State House in 2002, ended up having one ballot box lost for days, and eventually found unattended in a warehouse where it never should have been. Mistakes happen anyway. Anyone can manipulate mechanics and paper. Not everyone can manipulate electronic voting records. Plus, as The Tennessean thoroughly proves through its misrepresentation, the failures of electronic voting are grossly overstated.
Further, I’m not sure how this idea is any better
Voter Verifiable Paper Ballots, or VVPB, instead of touch-screen machines. These electronic machines allow the voter to manually mark a ballot that is then read by an optical scanner.
Yes, and we should give rides to the polls only with horses and buggies. How many potential errors or security problems can you count with this one? I don’t have enough bandwidth to do it. Actually, this is the worst idea of them all, as it creates a seemingly certifiable result with a process ripe for abuse and mistake.
Speaking of mistake, make no mistake - I want accurate vote results. Also remember, we will never reach perfection. But a lot of time and energy is being wasted demanding a “paper trail”, which would do nothing to ensure accuracy. The paper trail represents whatever the electronic voting device receives as votes. As long as the electronic voting device is multiply backed-up, we should be fine with the result. I’ll happily change my mind if someone can make a good argument that paper adds integrity and security to the process. But right now, the arguments for it seem rather weak.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:23 am
I don’t see why this is an either/or issue. Have touch screen voting machine that prints a paper receipt, that way a voter can verify their vote was correctly recorded, and then have them place the receipt in a box like you would do normal paper ballots. Then, the election commission could randomly sample precincts to make sure that the electronic results match the paper receipts. It wouldn’t cost that much more, a thermal printer costs roughly 50 dollars, and would give voters more faith in the electoral process.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:27 am
The perception may indeed be better, I can agree with that. I just don’t think such a system adds a lick of security / integrity to the process.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:45 am
It would be a backup system in case something goes wrong with the electronic machine. When you have 90 year olds who can’t operate a VCR handling the transfer of electronic information, something eventually is bound to get screwed up. Having a paper backup is just a check & balance in the system.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:54 am
But that’s my point - the machine is already backed up electronically, multiple times. Electronic voting itself leaves little room for user error.
The presumption is that the paper will always be “more” right. I don’t think that’s an accurate presumption.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Yeah, but if you back up already flawed data, than the backed up data is wortheless. There were many instances in 2004 of voters and election commissions who noticed that when a person pressed the name of the person they wanted to vote for, another candidate was chosen (most of the time it was Kerry voters having Bush chosen, so maybe that is why there isn’t a push by Republicans to have more voter security). By printing a voter receipt a voter can verify that what is on the piece of paper is what they chose. And if at the end of the night the electronic results don’t conform with the paper results, a deeper investigation could be launched. And yes, if a voter can look at the paper receipt, see the candidates chosen are the ones they selected, than the paper receipt (remember I’m not talking about paper ballots) are more reliable than a digital copy.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:16 am
First, the Kerry conspiracies in Ohio have not been proven. If you have an affidavit and a witness, I’d love to see it.
Besides, Republicans are plenty-fine with election security. That’s the point of my post - paper receipts are a feel good solution with little merit.
Second, the “paper trail” which has become the golden goose of election integrity, can easily be forged. You could essentially call into question an election by generating fake time-stamped receipts, saying votes weren’t counted. It’s not a good system. The conspiracy nuts will believe the paper, the media runs with it without actually thinking about it, and we have more debacles.
And don’t believe that won’t happen. Remember, if you will, the number of pre-voted machines in Philadelphia the morning of the 2004 election. They were all reset (allegedly), but to say that one party wants to manipulate elections more than another is irresponsible. And Democrats in Nashville ought to check some history before throwing a single electoral stone.
N
March 30th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Thats why I support as many checks and balances in the voting system to ensure voter security. I’m not saying that Democrats haven’t been guilty of voter fraud, just that it seems Republicans are usually resistent to further checks in the system. Here is the GAO report on the election of 2004, and apparently it shows that there were irregularities and electronic results can be hacked.
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529
March 30th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Also, perhaps I take this issue to heart more because my Hometown of Gahanna, OH was home to one of these “voting irregularities” that seemed to benefit Bush. And Franklin County (of which Gahanna and Columbus are in) had issues with electronic voting machine errors that favored Bush.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Note that conspicuous by its absence is any concern for verifying the status of those voting, whether it be by paper ballot, electronically, or electronically with a paper receipt. If the vote itself is illegal, no amount of security can make it legal. The Democrats have consistently demagogued any attempt to verify the legality of the vote itself. Take only Florida and convicted felons, Georgia trying to verify the identities of voters, Memphis with illega addresses and felons, to name only the most recent egregious examples. Or try reading “The secrets of the Hopewell Box” for an example of the integrity of paper ballots.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
I’m going to kinda agree with Sean on this one. Not so much because I believe in the whole Diebolt voting conspiracy thing, but because a paper receipt would, if nothing else, nip those conspiracy theories in the bud. And as a backup system, some redundancy would be good.
I think that voting should be like buying a sweater at JC Penney’s with a credit card.
You have to show a photo ID, but you get a paper receipt at the end.
March 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
All these comments, and no one cares that The Tennessean grossly misrepresented the malfunctions of electronic voting machines in Texas to make their case?
March 30th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Nathan, 1) the case for a paper voting receipt can be made without the use of Texas (I’m still hoping Mexico will take them back) and 2) If the Tennessean number is misrepresented, what is the actual number of votes lost?