Election Model: A Simple Precinct/PC/Spreadsheet Solution to Eliminate Election Fraud

[tiptoe]

A Simple Precinct/PC/Spreadsheet Solution to Eliminate Election Fraud

Vote counts on touch screens are lost in cyberspace. States using mechanical levers (NY, CT, etc.) had the highest error rates: gears can be shaved and the votes cannot be verified. Optical scanners (FL, PA, NH, etc.) have a paper trail, but they are never fully inspected for recounts. The chain of custody is often broken (see the NH primary). And if all else fails, the central tabulators finish the job as necessary.

A simple solution would be for each precinct to install just ONE PC and spreadsheet software. Voters would fill out a paper ballot uniquely coded by precinct/voter ID. A copy is made available to the voter. The ballot is entered into the spreadsheet and cross-checked by three volunteers (Dem, Rep, Ind) as if it were a fully monitored recount.

The precinct spreadsheet file is uploaded to the internet for public access. Precinct files are consolidated for district, county and state totals. The files would enable each voter to confirm his vote online by entering his unique voter ID code. A spreadsheet user could download all the state precinct files to check the totals. The networks would no longer be the source of incoming, fraudulent votes. Exit polls would match the online totals to within 1%.

The solution is inexpensive, accurate and would serve the public interest. That is why it will never be implemented. There is no money in it. The voting machine manufacturers and corrupt election officials would fight it all the way. And of course, Congress would never do a cost/benefit analysis.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. You lost me with the lever machines having such high...

error rates. I've worked with them in NY and have seen few errors and heard of no occasion s of fraud. Besides, the machines are locked and sealed and if a recount is ordered, the votes registered on election day will still be there intact. So much for "can't be verified" so I have to assume whoever wrote that has no idea what is really going on in NY. And am there fore suspicious of his knowledge of anywhere else.

Even in the linked report, the lever machines are not seen to be problematic, just the methodology of exit surveys:

"WPE in precincts with any type of automated voting system is higher than the average
error in paper ballot precincts. These errors are not necessarily a function of the voting
equipment. They appear to be a function of the equipment’s location and the voters’
responses to the exit poll at precincts that use this equipment."

"The value of the WPE for the different types of equipment may be more a function of
where the equipment is located than of the equipment itself. The larger urban areas had
higher WPEs than the rural/small towns. The low value of the WPE in paper ballot
precincts may be due to the location of those precincts in rural areas, which had a lower
WPE than other places."

NY will, btw, next year start using optical scan machines and retire the ancient lever machines. Having spent quite a few election days as an election inspector myself, I can't imagine this spreadsheet system working-- it is far too labor intensive, and pretty much all of the errors we have at the polls are tired inspectors making errors on handwritten forms.

[tiptoe]

2. Do you know what a "sensor latch" is? nt

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Yeah-- it stops you from leaving the booth if...

you haven't voted. At least that's the short explanation.

So, back in 1964, NYC disabled the sensors so people could flip the big lever without voting. Or, they would vote and then push the little levers back for some reason, and their vote wouldn't be counted. This was rectified by court order afew years ago and was a management problem, not a machine problem.

Curiously, nobody has the foggiest idea just how many votes were lost because of this, or whose-- the voter would have had to vote and then move the levers back, a strange thing to do, and a thing impossible to track. It may or may not have actually affected elections, but no one knows.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. well, we have a clue

According to Dave Leip's atlas, the rate of invalid presidential votes in the five boroughs was 1.66% in Richmond (Staten Island), 3.21% in New York (Manhattan), 3.50% in Queens, 3.95% in Kings (Brooklyn), and 4.71% in the Bronx, compared with 1.98% statewide (including NYC, which of course skews the average).

In 2004 -- after the Brennan Center sued in 2003 and got the city to fix the sensor latches -- it was 0.42% in Richmond, 0.88% in New York, 0.90% in Queens, 0.85% in Kings, 1.21% in the Bronx, and 0.77% statewide.

I don't know whether anyone has tried to prove that the sensor latches made that difference, but it seems likely. As to whether it affected election outcomes, I surely suspect there must have been at least one in 40 years, but I don't know that either. (I don't think Bloomberg/Green wasn't quite close enough, but maybe.)

[tiptoe]

3. "...a function of the equipment’s location..." There are two types of Lever machines in NY:

When the report assigns an explanation for higher WPEs to location -- i.e. URBAN vs Rural areas -- it may be failing to acknowledge a difference of technology in the Urban and rural areas:

What if the Urban areas of NY (5 NYC counties and other big cities) use a different type of Lever than the Rural areas of NY? What if the "Urban Lever" is more fraud-susceptible than the "Rural Lever"?

Then, explanation for higher WPEs in Urban areas could be assignable to type of Lever technology in the Urban areas vs the other Lever type in Rural areas of NY.

Do you really believe the "< 1% undervotes" figure in the NY BOE election 2004 official recorded vote count?

"One other thing is that NY didn't count many of our provisional ballots. This could have affected the exit polls, but I'm not sure by how much." -- Bill Bored

What might have been more clear to say is that a failure to "count many of our provisional ballots" would have directly contributed to the size of the measured discrepancy between the NY Recorded Vote and the NY Exit polls.

A True Undervote total would be related to the number of uncounted provisional ballots. (And it would likley be a LOT MORE than .77%, if even a modicum of significance is given to the measured WPE.)

(Mitofsky measured the NY WPE as the highest in the nation amongst all voting technologies...p 40)

[TreasonousBastard]

5. This is a real stretch. I don't...

know if they use different machines upstate, and neither do you-- don't guess. I always assumed they used the same ones, but don't know for sure. I know who to ask, but not at this time of night, and might bring it up sometime if I remember.

Anyway, the report was talking about the location of the machines and the proximity of the survey interviewers to the machines making a big difference in error rates, not aboput different types of machines. I'm not sure why they even included this sort of error in their WPE.

As far as provisional ballots go, they are all counted at county election headquarters, and many are thrown out for good reason. A provisional ballot is used when someone is not in the book registered as they say they are. There are good reasons such as name and address changes in marriage and divorce and just moving around, or recent registrations. Since we do not have open primaries, every primary someone comes in and claims to be registered to a party, but we have them as independent, or another party. We have to give them a provisional ballot if they ask for it, but rarely did someone actually bother to change their registration so the ballot is tossed at headquarters when they double-check it. This is very common and a good reason for exit polls to not reflect reality.

[tiptoe]

7. Shoup and AVM Model 61 lever machines. nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. what on earth?

How can you title a post in part "There are two types of Lever machines in NY" and then write in the post, "What if the Urban areas of NY (5 NYC counties and other big cities) use a different type of Lever than the Rural areas of NY?" Umm, what if they don't? What becomes of your post title then?

Do you have any idea what the rate of provisional voting was in New York?

(Mitofsky measured the NY WPE as the highest in the nation amongst all voting technologies...p 40)

No. Page 40 doesn't even report a WPE for New York.