More Letters!
ISP Ire
Long Live RT Mark
Late for the Party
Love the Man in the Uniform
A Morning in the Life
Give This Man a Flamethrower
Being "Sticky" Is Not Enough
Don't Me.Com
Under the Volcanoes
The Cyberslouch
e-Slacking
Stock-Suck

CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility) is a public-interest group that focuses on the social benefits/risks of computer technology. Recently, we have received many questions regarding computer-based voting technology. And we offer the following answers:

Q: Why do vote-counting systems produce different totals when the ballots are recounted? Shouldn't machine counts and recounts of ballots produce repeatable, reliable results?
A: Some older systems are not well-designed and more prone to error. For instance, there are reliability problems with the oldest computerized ballot system, the Vote-O-Matic(tm). This system was once very popular and is still used in many places, including 15 Florida counties: Broward, Collier, Dade, Duval, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, Marion, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Sarasota and Sumpter.

Some level of error is inevitable when counting Vote-O-Matic ballots. CPSR has been studying Vote-O-Matic-type vote counting systems for more than 10 years. Experts, including CPSR's own project personnel, have concluded that the Vote-O-Matic system has inherent accuracy limitations.

The Vote-O-Matic's ballot is the Hollerith punch card, also known as a "computer card." This once-common card is roughly 3" by 7," with small rectangular holes. Each hole in the card represents a vote for one candidate (or in favor or against a ballot measure). The ballot is counted by feeding it, short-side first, into a reader. (The card is made with one corner clipped, so that the correct end of the card is fed in first.)

Hollerith cards were used for the 1890 census, and millions of critical activities between then and the 1970s. Thus, one might expect the Vote-O-Matic system to be extremely reliable. But important differences between the standard Hollerith card and the Vote-O-Matic card make the Vote-O-Matic far less stable and reliable. There are three main problem areas: (1) ballots; (2) ballot-reader machines; (3) what happens when a ballot reader reads a ballot.

Watch out for "Hanging Chad"
***Ballots. The Vote-O-Matic ballots use essentially the same card size and hole positions that IBM adopted in 1924 soon after they bought Hollerith's company. However, the cards are not the same. Hollerith's approach was to punch a hole in a solid piece of paper. Vote-O-Matic cards are pre-punched. Each square "chad" is held in place by a small wad of paper fibers at each corner. The vote then makes a hole by pushing the chad out with a round stylus. But sometimes a chad will be partly punched out or will snag on something and be pulled out, creating what is known as "hanging chad."

Also, these pre-punched cards are reportedly sensitive to changes in humidity. And the pre-punched cards are less rigid than a normal Hollerith card, and thus more prone to bending. Bent cards often cause problems during reading.

***Ballot-reader machines. As far as we know, there are no longer any manufacturers of Hollerith card readers. As the readers age, they become less reliable and more prone to error and breakdown. To rebuild them, elections companies use a dwindling supply of spares, hangar queens and whatever rebuild protocols they devise.

***Ballot reading. Ideally, a stack of ballots is sucked one-at-a-time from the input hopper to the output hopper of a card reader, each being counted accurately. However, sometimes two cards are sucked through. This is probably because pre-punching makes small ridges on the bottom of the card, and an identical pattern of small troughs on the top. The ridges tend to get caught in the troughs.

"Hanging chad" can flip open and closed. Detached chad can become stuck in the feed path, increasing double feeds and misfeeds. Detached chad can jam two cards together, increasing misfeeds. In some machines, detached chad can jam over the light or sensor, causing holes to not be read until the chad blows out of the way. Detached chad can migrate from one card to the next.

The read process can be quite traumatic to a Vote-O-Matic card.

Q: Is counting ballots by hand more or less reliable than counting them by
machine?
A: A human count of Vote-O-Matic cards should almost always produce a significantly more accurate result than automated reading. Any damage a card has sustained can confuse a card reader or cause it to malfunction. People are better able to deal with such problems.

Unfortunately, reading a Vote-O-Matic card by machine changes the card. Cards that have had one or more trips through a high-speed card reader will appear different to a human reader than they would have when freshly punched by the voter.

Erik Nilsson, an election-technology analyst for CPSR, believes that the Vote-O-Matic system should be replaced. "For a quarter century, election experts have been calling for the Vote-O-Matic system to be retired. The results of the 2000 election show that it is now time move beyond this temperamental antique."

Q: Would Internet voting solve this problem?
A: Internet voting is often suggested as a solution to election counting problems, but has many problems of its own, for example:

***If people voted from home, it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to assure that those who vote are who they say they are.

***If people vote from home, vote secrecy and privacy could be compromised.

***A home-based Internet-based voting system would favor people who have computers and Internet connections at home. Today we are far from universal access. For example, in some urban poor districts, 14% of households lack even basic phone service, much less Internet connections. On some Indian reservations, the percentage of phone-less households is even higher: 40%.

***Purely electronic ballots leave no paper trail, so electronic subversion of voting records could be difficult or impossible to detect.

***Voting from home could destroy the sense of shared civic responsibility and pride that most people clearly feel when they go to an actual polling place to vote.

On the other hand, Internet voting could offer the following advantages:
***Customized presentation of voting choices, for example voter-selected
font size.
***Reliable vote tabulation.
***Access for the disabled, and rural.
***Can handle large numbers of voters.

Computers, of course, can and will be used in elections. One approach could be to put Internet terminals in polling places. Voters would come to the polling place and identify themselves, as they always have. Vote-O-Matic and other outdated, unreliable systems would be replaced by more current technology. Each polling place would have a "manual" backup system on site, for when the network connections or computers fail (as they surely will) or when a voter is simply unable to understand how to use the computer.--Susan Envoy, Managing Director, CSPR (email: evoy@cpsr.org)