Voting mechanics

[magid]

OK, so I've only ever voted in MA, and both municipalities I've voted in use paper ballots. Not anything tricky to understand, just basically scantron things: fill in the bubbles and you're done. Just like all those standardized tests everyone has to take these days, so the voters are prepared, as it were. The thought even of using a lever sort of machine makes me nervous, and computers doubly so, since they're theoretically hackable in even more ways. And there's no paper trail.

Please, someone explain why there isn't more standardization in how ballots are made and processed? OK, and why we don't all use a scantron sort of ballot, since it leaves a paper trail, and isn't tricky to use at all.


Nothing about whether the car-repair guys were involved in the election in this post. Or, there wasn't.

Comments

[jwg.livejournal.com]

There is a form of standardization in the sense that there arevery few companies that make voting equipment and each state has some sort of certification process that OKs the equipment. As a result of the florida fiasco in 2000 congress created the Help America Vote Act that among other things provided a lot of funds for voting equipment as well as establishing standards (which some of the new equipment doesn't meet).

A few years ago, I was a member of a committee advising the Cambridge Election Commission in the conversion from handwritten paper ballots to an automated version for the Cambridge PR election system which is very complex where the count used to take a week. At the time Cambridge used punched cards for other elections and had a problem in that card reading was done at Harvard and they were about to decommission their card readers so something had to be done soon. At that time some places (e.g. boston) were using the old lever machines, some were using punched cards and some were using Accuvote (now Diebold) scanning machines. There were some new touch screen systems available but they were not certified by the Secy of State of Mass so choosing them would be risky from the point of getting approval. So when you came down to it we had no choice but to go with scanners. Accuvote modified the firmware to deal with the PR ballots, and there was a PC based PR distribution system available via The Center for Voting and Democracy (http://www.fairvote.org) that could be used for the vote distribution. The Secy of state allowed this variation on the standard system to be used for one election prior to approving it.

The touch screen systems could have a better interface to protect against undervotes and overvotes and can be tied into a registration system as well. They'd be a lot better for the PR system since it could display the ordered choices before the vote was officialized. Voting machines are an interesting form of capital expenditure. You have to buy a lot of them to meet the needs, they get used once or twice a year and have no other use. An advantage of the scanning system is you only need one machine per precinct instead of a bunch of them so they'd be inherently cheaper. This is probably why the voting machine companies are pushing touch screen systems.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the background, general and local.

I know the Cambridge system, though loved by political professors, is a pain to count on the ground. All those signs asking for people's #1 vote, and few who don't pay attention to Cambridge's quirks know that that's what they're doing, and why.

I can see that people would like results faster, but I read too many early stories about places that were adopting touch-screens in the last months before the elections, and how easy they were to get around, which just scares me. Tying them in to the registration system has the potential for making political litmus tests, or otherwise linking specific people to their vote.

*nod* about the expense. Heck, if the size of the paper were the same, I'd wonder about using school scantrons :-).

Which is not to say that our voting is perfect. As Bitty pointed out, I just walk in, give my address and name, and I get a ballot, no ID of any sort required. If I can read upside-down fast enough, I could, in fact vote early and often. I don't know that there have been any issues about this, but it seems sound practice, especially when there were signs all over the T reminding people to bring ID anyway...

Tangent: apparently, in the midwest you get a sticker when you vote, a la blood donation sticker. Part of me wonders at the extra expense, part of me wonders if that encourages more people to vote, and part of me just wants a sticker :-).

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

>> Bitty pointed out, I just walk in, give my address and name, and I get a ballot, no ID of any sort required.

No ID required? I'm curious, why? Here in Georgia they give you a list of what sort of ID will suffice -- I used my DL but you can also show a passport, bank statement, phone bill or the like. Then the poll workers check your ID and check your name off the rolls.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Well, there were ads on the T reminding people to bring ID to the polls, so maybe somewhere it was checked. But in JP (Bitty's area) and Cambridge, no one asked for ID at all. And the sheets with all the registered voters on them are sitting out on the table in front of the poll-worker, not in a book or anything.

As to why, I'm stumped. I don't understand it at all.

[bitty.livejournal.com]

I was never asked in Dorchester, either.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Nor I in Malden.

[jwg.livejournal.com]

I believe the law is that if you registered by mail since 2003 they are supposed to ask for picture ID. Other than that they are allowed to ask for id but don't have to and I guess never do.

Some of this is left over from trying to avoid intimidating tactics that prevented people from voting (e.g. voting cards in the south that black people couldn't easily get).

There is this antiquated system of calling out your name and observers can hear it. One of the ideas was that everyone knew their neighbors and .... A number of elections ago I was involved in a poll watching project where we kept track of which registered voters actually voted by listening to the names and marking them on our registered voter sheets and near the end of the day we brought our lists to a phone bank where we called people who we had IDed as supporters of our side who hadn't voted.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Lack of intimidation is good, though (again, as Bitty pointed out) you need to show ID in so many situations these days that it's less intimidating than perhaps it used to be.

everyone knew their neighbors
Well, I did note that the other people in my building voted before me Tuesday, since their names were already checked off on the list of registered voters. Otherwise, not so much knowing the neighbors. Which is less than ideal.

I didn't realize that poll-watching could be so... active. Sounds foolish, perhaps, but I just never thought of that sort of approach.

A lot of this election has made me feel politically naive.

[cellio]

Here in PA, if it's your first time at that precinct you have to show ID, and otherwise you don't. However, you have to also sign the voter card, and they compare the signature to the one you gave last time. I don't know what's easier to fake, ID or a signature.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'd be happy with either photo ID or signature (I have no clue which would be easier to fake). I've never had a voter card, never knew they existed until this election, actually.

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

I think here they require ID so that people don't have to bring their voter cards along. They do send out voter cards, but I believe that just serves to confirm your registration and give you the address of your precinct polling place.

[cellio]

I should clarify. I'm not talking about your voter-registration card, which they send in the mail to confirm your registration. Here, when you go to the polls someone pulls a physical card out of a box, asks you to confirm your name and address, and has you sign it. They then file that card; this year I found out that they're filing it for signature verification in the future. (I never knew what happened to the cards before.)

If you go N elections in a row without voting (I don't know what N is), you get dropped from the active list and have to re-register. They use the cards to track that.

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

Ah, OK -- that is quite different. Upon further thought, signature verification is probably part of why they check ID here (and it does seem clear that they prefer a picture ID, though they will accept other things). That is, they compare your signature on the form you sign when you walk in to the one on your ID. Bank statements and utility bills don't usually have signatures, but I guess that's part of why they're towards the bottom of the list of acceptable proof of identification. Also, if you can't produce any of the 17 types of acceptable ID in Georgia, they have you sign a sworn oath and then let you vote.

[magid.livejournal.com]

There are 17 types of acceptable ID in GA? Wow.

Just checked the League of Women Voters in MA site, and the forms of ID that are acceptable (if one were asked, which is apparently up to the determination of the poll-worker, unless one registered by mail since 2003 without proper ID included):

" Suitable identification, which must show your name and address, includes a copy of a current and valid photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document."

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

This is what I found at the Georgia Secretary of State's web page:

When you arrive at your polling place, you will complete a voter's certificate which asks for your name and residence address. You will then present the certificate and proper identification to the poll officials who will verify that you are a registered voter in that precinct by checking the voters list for that precinct. Voters are required to present identification at their polling place prior to casting their ballot. Proper identification shall consist of any one of the following:

(1) a valid Georgia driver's license;
(2) a valid identification card issued by a branch, department, agency, or entity of the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States authorized by law to issue personal identification;
(3) a valid United States passport;
(4) a valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government, this state, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state;
(5) a valid employee identification card containing a photograph of the elector and issued by any employer of the elector in the ordinary course of such employer's business;
(6) a valid student identification card containing a photograph of the elector from any public or private college, university, or postgraduate technical or professional school located within the state of Georgia;
(7) a valid Georgia license to carry a pistol or revolver;
(8) a valid pilot's license issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or other authorized agency of the United States;
(9) a valid United States military identification card;
(10) a certified copy of the elector's birth certificate;
(11) a valid social security card;
(12) certified naturalization documentation;
(13) or a certified copy of court records showing adoption, name, or sex change;
(14) A copy of a utility bill;
(15) A bank statement (will be kept confidential);
(16) A government check or payment with name and address; or
(17) A government document that shows the name and address of the elector.
Note: The precinct card you receive to confirm your voter registration and voting location is not a form of identification and is not sufficient identification to vote.

If an elector is unable to produce any of the required identification, the elector shall sign a statement under oath in a form approved by the Secretary of State, separate and distinct from the elector's voter certificate, swearing or affirming that he or she is the person identified on the elector's voter certificate. Such person shall be allowed to vote without undue delay. Falsely swearing or affirming such statement under oath is punishable as a felony.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Wow. A much more comprehensive list than MA.

The only one that strikes me as odd is 10, since showing a baby was born doesn't show that the baby is you.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I got a sticker.

[magid.livejournal.com]

OK, now I really feel cheated, if it's not just a midwest thing.

What does it say? "Be nice to me, I voted"?

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

It's also a Southern thing, apparently -- I got one yesterday with the words "I voted" superimposed over a picture of a peach.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Until my parents live in GA for a while, I never knew that it was famous for peaches.

Interesting, to me, is how Wolf's sticker is (theoretically) more national, and the GA one is state specific. Or maybe it's just that MA doesn't have any easily-identifiable images like a peach :-).

[ichur72.livejournal.com]

No, it's not just MA -- I remember getting American flag stickers that said "I voted" in Texas, which does have some distinctive iconography that could be put to use ...

Random fact: Georgia is actually not the biggest producer of peaches in the US; South Carolina is. (And on Interstate 85 about half an hour into South Carolina, there is a giant water tower with the bulb shaped like a peach.)

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

"My Vote Counted." And it has an American flag on it.

[magid.livejournal.com]

OK, just to be pedantic here. If you voted, you assume your vote is counted. If you didn't vote, then you didn't vote, so of course it's not counted. All this makes me think is that the sticker is trying to deny voting fraud by ignoring some people's votes.
[/pedant]

[geekosaur]

Much of it is what you're used to. I grew up with the lever machines in Ohio, but by the time I reached voting age they'd gone to punch-card ballots (of the Florida "butterfly" sort, no less, although the actual "butterfly" situation I've never actually seen happen on an Ohio ballot). As a result, neither really scares me... but I'm somehow more trusting of the lever-based machines, which are still in use here in Pennsylvania.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I'm sure what I'm used to has something to do with it. I've seen the havoc that can be wreaked using punch cards, and after 2000 don't understand why they'd still be in use if there were any doubt about accuracy (I suppose this is too much of an idealist's view).

Levers: how can I know that the levers I pull actually vote for who I want? I'm probably being suspicious here, but I could imagine (far too easily, unfortunately) someone messing with the machines just enough so that, say 5% of the X votes go to Y. And there'd be no way to double-check this.

I suppose I'm a bit of a dinosaur on this one.

[geekosaur]

For one thing, each party is assigned a specific row on the machine. Admittedly you can't verify, but it makes it relatively easy for someone else to verify the machine has been set up correctly.

And it seems to me your worry applies even more so to punch cards, and especially to touchscreens; both are susceptible to someone tossing in some code to randomly alter (or even more easily, invalidate) the vote.

There comes a point where you just have to trust. A paper record of your ballot would be nice, although it too has problems (many of the social engineering sort, which is one reason why there is pressure not to do this).

[magid.livejournal.com]

My worries definitely apply to punch cards, and even more so to touchscreens. It's one of the things that concerned me even before election day.

I know, my paper vote could be thrown out (though I keep assuming that feeding it into the ballot box myself would keep that from happening, I have to admit there must be some way to get around all that), or something. It still doesn't feel like the high-tech approach is the appropriate one for this situation. Not yet, anyway.

And I know that there are other issues from paper ballots, but for some reason those seem more able to be worked out than the other possible problems. Again, probably just what I'm used to...

[jaq.livejournal.com]

I find it incredible that voting mechanisms and rules vary so much across the US.

Voting here has been standardised for a long time on drawing crosses with a pencil in boxes on bits of paper. This year's election (http://www.livejournal.com/users/jaq/818774.html) was the first where they've used automated counting machines, but they just scanned the paper so it wasn't much different for voters.

[magid.livejournal.com]

My guess is that historically, it has something to do with states rights. Which means that each state gets to choose what to do, just like in education (no national curriculum here, either).

Paper and pencil is so... safe. I mean, we use black felt-tip pens (you get at least one chance to get a new ballot if you make a mistake), but it's the same idea.

[jaq.livejournal.com]

I could understand if it was up to each state, but the stories I've been reading talk about differences at county level. (I don't really know what counties are responsible for there).

[magid.livejournal.com]

County-usefulness varies by state, actually.

In MA, the counties are fairly vestigial at this point (gah, there was a vote about taking yet more rights/responsibilities from the counties a couple of years ago, but I can't seem to come up with anything more than that.). I believe it's the municipalities that run the polling places, but with oversight from the state (see JWG's comment above).

[bitty.livejournal.com]

MD, otoh, considered county-government to be vital. there were even varying tax percentages depending on where you live. I paid federal, state, and county tax (and lived in the most expensive county, at that).