How To Bear False Witness ACLU-Style

[Luke T.]

Any delay in the California recall election will benefit Gray Davis. Thus, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit to delay that election. So far, they have succeeded.

The ACLU believes minorities are dumber than white people and can't figure out how to use the paper ballot system.

Here is a link (http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=13589) to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which has delayed the election. And here is the crux of the biscuit:

On October 7, 2003, California voters will be asked to cast a ballot on some of the most important issues facing the State, including an unprecedented vote on the recall of a governor. However, forty-four percent of the electorate will be forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially
deemed it “unacceptable� and banned its use in all future elections. The inherent defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all.

This is their idea of "voter disenfranchisement."

But take a look at
this! (http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/Rivest-ElectronicVoting-2-ppt.pdf)

Go to page nine of the document and you will be astonished.

The ACLU thinks we are stupid, too.

[edited for spelling]

[Luke T.]

Another nail in the coffin here. (http://www.fcw.com/geb/articles/2002/0909/web-vote-09-13-02.asp)

Switching to new machines actually causes more votes to be not counted.


The Florida voting fiasco of 2000 prompted the state to banish punch card ballots and their pesky paper chads, and buy $32 million worth of electronic voting machines.

The Florida voting fiasco of 2002 might prompt state officials to reassess their opinion of paper.

"There's a good lesson in Florida," said Stephen Ansolabehere, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor. "Put a backup in place -- a paper ballot in case there is a problem."

On Sept. 10, thousands of Florida voters arrived at polling places to find new machines that wouldn't start, offered the wrong ballots, recorded the wrong votes or wouldn't record votes at all.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Switching to new machines actually causes more votes to be not counted.


No, switching to a new system with lots of its own problems causes more votes to be not counted. That's irrelevant to the current situation if California doesn't implement the same changes, with the same problems.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


No, switching to a new system with lots of its own problems causes more votes to be not counted. That's irrelevant to the current situation if California doesn't implement the same changes, with the same problems.

The ACLU's argument is that too many votes would be lost under the current paper ballot system. Some of those lost votes would be minorities' votes. They want the elections postponed until new ballot systems are in place. The links I provided show that not only are the more "modern" ballot systems more inaccurate, there is also a long period of adjustment when switching to new systems in which the number of lost votes skyrockets. So the entire foundation of their argument is invalid, null and void.

[LCBOY]

Didn't they use the same voting system when Davis was elected? Why was it ok then and not ok now?

[Tony]

Are you accusing the ACLU of perverting justice and the law to fit their extreme leftist ideals? Never. :D

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Tony
Are you accusing the ACLU of perverting justice and the law to fit their extreme leftist ideals? Never. :D
Not the ACLU! I can't believe it!! :roll:

[Brown]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The ACLU believes minorities are dumber than white people and can't figure out how to use the paper ballot system.I don't see your point.

First, do you mean that the ACLU believes minorities are dumber than white people and can't figure out how to use the punched card ballot system? It is the punched card system, not a paper ballot system, that is at issue in the Ninth Circuit case.

Second, intelligence of races does not enter into the issue, as far as I can tell. There is no suggestion that white voters, when presented with a punched card ballot, are smart enough to vote correctly, whereas minority voters given the same type of card lack the mental horsepower needed to figure out how to vote correctly.

Instead, the opinion reports that there was evidence presented that minority voters were adversely affected by punched card ballots in two ways:Dr. Brady also concluded that the use of pre-scored punchcard voting systems discriminated against minorities in several respects. First, the six punchcard counties have a larger percentage of minorities (46%) than non-punchcard counties (32%). Second, the analysis indicated that when pre-scored punchcard systems were used, minority voters had significantly higher residual vote rates [uncounted votes] than non-minorities.As far as I can tell, the question of intelligence never came up, and no one argued that anyone was stupid.

Even if there were a question of a group's ability to comprehend the nature of the ballot, that doesn't necessarily mean that the group is unintelligent. Since most Americans who are non-native English speakers are also minorities, there is a question as to whether the residual votes could be caused by a language problem. I mean, suppose I had to cast a vote in Mexico. Now, I speak Spanish, but I'm not fluent, and I doubt I could comprehend anything very technical or complicated. If someone gave me detailed instructions about how to vote, I'm not sure I could comply with them. And yet, I'm a pretty smart guy!

I agree with you that some voting systems are less inaccurate than the punched card system. But there are also some systems that are more accurate. Also, some of these systems are faster, simpler, cheaper to implement, and easier to verify in the event of a recount.

But all of that is really beside the point. The California Secretary of State has ruled the punched card system unacceptable, and the punched card system is what is at issue in the Ninth Circuit.

I have no love for the ACLU, and this Ninth Circuit business is a debacle. But it is not fair to accuse the ACLU of taking a position that (as far as I can tell) the ACLU does not take.

Edited to correct typo.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Brown

But all of that is really beside the point. The California Secretary of State has ruled the punched card system unacceptable, and the punched card system is what is at issue in the Ninth Circuit.


I find it strange that the punch card system used to elect Davis in the first place is now considered unacceptable. And who does the California Sectetary of State work for?

[Nyarlathotep]

I normally am quite supportive of the ACLU and it's goals. However, this instance looks to me like blatant playing of politics. Very regrettable in my opinion.

[Suddenly]

An important fact here is that the California Secretary of State made the decision to ban the old voting machines, for whatever reason. Given that, it appears the ACLU filed a lawsuit to prevent an election where much of the population (mostly poorer areas) would be using machines officially deemed "unacceptable" by the state body overseeing elections.

That you may disagree about the relative merits of the voting methods is a disagreement with the Secretary of State, not the ACLU or the court.

The ACLU's argument is that too many votes would be lost under the current paper ballot system. Some of those lost votes would be minorities' votes. They want the elections postponed until new ballot systems are in place. The links I provided show that not only are the more "modern" ballot systems more inaccurate, there is also a long period of adjustment when switching to new systems in which the number of lost votes skyrockets. So the entire foundation of their argument is invalid, null and void.

The second link makes no mention of error uncounted rate. The first gives numbers with nothing to back it up. In the opinion itself, the court cites a large Caltech/MIT research project that indicates newer systems are more reliable than the older punchcards.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Suddenly
An important fact here is that the California Secretary of State made the decision to ban the old voting machines, for whatever reason. Given that, it appears the ACLU filed a lawsuit to prevent an election where much of the population (mostly poorer areas) would be using machines officially deemed "unacceptable" by the state body overseeing elections.


Good point Suddenly. But why are the punch card machines banned now? They were used in the last election and nobody questioned the Davis won.

[Tmy]

What are you saying ? The ACLU is in Davis back pocket?

The Dems have dumped Davis already, and Bustamante leads the polls, so a delay really doesnt benefit them. The focus on minorities is really a legal tactic that allows the ACLU standing to challenge the machines.


Maybe the states plan was to have the new machines by the next election, but this election popped up out of nowhere.

Inronically the court used Bush v. Gore in ruleing for the ACLU.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Luke T.

The ACLU's argument is that too many votes would be lost under the current paper ballot system. Some of those lost votes would be minorities' votes. They want the elections postponed until new ballot systems are in place. The links I provided show that not only are the more "modern" ballot systems more inaccurate, there is also a long period of adjustment when switching to new systems in which the number of lost votes skyrockets. So the entire foundation of their argument is invalid, null and void.

You seem to think that all paper voting systems are the same, and all electronic voting systems are the same. They are not. Do you have specific information about what system the California counties in question hope to adopt? Do you even know if they're going to use an electronic system, rather than just a more reliable paper system? Seems to me it's not really the court, or the ACLU, that you really have a problem with, but the secretary of state who declared the machines in question unacceptable.

[jj]

Well, I think that Davis is sinking fast, and he'd be better off to get it over with, so if that's what the ACLU is thinking, they are treading on odd ground here.

But I do wonder about this one.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Good point Suddenly. But why are the punch card machines banned now? They were used in the last election and nobody questioned the Davis won.

What does that have to do with anything? They were probably used when Reagan was elected governor as well. I have no idea if the California Secretary of State is playing some angle. The likely explaination is it became a hot button issue after the 2000 election and at the pace government moves the issue is being worked out.

However, to find fault with the ACLU for trying to stop an election where a large portion of the state will be using voting machines officially deemed "unacceptable" by the appropriate authority seems quite unfair.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Good point Suddenly. But why are the punch card machines banned now? They were used in the last election and nobody questioned the Davis won.

Why do people keep saying this? Are you all anti-progress? If something is proven to be a problem do you want to just keep using it because it was used before?

I do agree though that with as much controvery as this already has, adding this to the mix is not a good idea.

[Tmy]

Well lets take the ACLU's point of view. This is a HIGH profile election. The whole country is watching this one states election. What better place to attack the ballot flaw problem made famous by the Bush/Gore thing. This suit will send a message to all states to get on the ball.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You seem to think that all paper voting systems are the same, and all electronic voting systems are the same. They are not. Do you have specific information about what system the California counties in question hope to adopt? Do you even know if they're going to use an electronic system, rather than just a more reliable paper system? Seems to me it's not really the court, or the ACLU, that you really have a problem with, but the secretary of state who declared the machines in question unacceptable.

The punched card ballot systems are the same.

Here (http://vote.caltech.edu/Reports/july01/Map3.pdf) is a link to what systems are used in California, by county.

Looks like punch cards are used in most of california, with one county using electronic machines, and the rest using optical scanners.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Good point Suddenly. But why are the punch card machines banned now? They were used in the last election and nobody questioned the Davis won.


You keep saying the same thing over and over.

They DID question the ballots for Davis' election. Actually, they questioned it BEFORE Davis' election. They sued the State of California to fix it back in 2001. This is how long it takes for these challenges to get through the courts and actually make them change the system. And only Votamatic punch cards are unacceptable. OTHER PUNCH CARDS are fine, as are Optical scanners. See the graphic below, and educate yourselves.

It's probably against forum rules, but I'll just repost the same rebuttal to that point as I posted in another thread about this exact same thing:



Actually, the ACLU and Common Cause filed a similar suit back in 2001 to de-certify the punchcard ballots, arguing that these old votamatic systems needed to be phased out.

As a result of the suit, California was forced to phase out the Votamatic punchcards by 2004.

Nobody foresaw this special election happening before the upgrade.


See:
Common Cause Wins Court Victory Against Secretary of State: Punch Card Voting Machines Must Go Before 2004 Presidential Elections


http://www.commoncause.org/states/california/archives/punchcard.html


Oh, and touch-screens aren't the requirement. There are a number of methods they can use that aren't touch-screens:

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/net/20030916/capt.vmethods.jpg



Again, the main point they make is that the margin of error may very well be larger than the margin of victory.

We're talking about systems that 44% of Californians will be forced to use. Which means an estimated 40,000 ballots will have to be discarded as unreadable.

The victor in this race is likely to win with a smaller lead than 40,000 votes.

You better believe that WHOEVER loses will sue for a recount. Better to count it correctly the first time.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly

The second link makes no mention of error uncounted rate. The first gives numbers with nothing to back it up.


I don't know what you mean by "error uncounted rate," but the second link is from an MIT study of voting machines in 1997, I think, with the percentage of failure for each. It sounds to me like a simple math problem. The court seems to have used it to compute the statement "the inherent defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all."

In the opinion itself, the court cites a large Caltech/MIT research project that indicates newer systems are more reliable than the older punchcards.

This is what the opinion (in my first link) says, in its entirety, about the Caltech/MIT research project.

Independent research confirms the error difference between pre-scored punchcard systems and others in use. The July 2001 Report of the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project (“Caltech-MIT Report�) studied the residual vote rates
of different voting systems from 1988-2000 in the entire country, and found that punchcards lose significantly more votes than optically scanned paper ballots.

More significantly, the report found that: [t]hese patterns hold up to closer statistical scrutiny, holding constant turnout, income, racial composition of counties, age distributions of
counties, literacy rates, the year of a shift in technology, the number of offices and candidates on the ballot, and other factors that operate in a county or in a particular year.� Caltech-MIT Report 22 (italics added by the court).

Here (http://vote.caltech.edu/Reports/july01/July01_VTP_%20Voting_Report_Entire.pdf) is a link to that report to which they refer.

This report actually supports what I've been saying.

From the same page in which they lifted the quote (page 24):


Machine voting, on the whole, has performed significantly
worse than the paper systems. Lever machines
lost relatively few votes in the past four presidential
elections, averaging a residual vote rate of 1.5 percent.
Electronic machines lost nearly as much as punch
cards, averaging 2.3 percent over the past four elections.
The more severe problems appear down the ballot
with these technologies, and here we see real concern
with the continued use of lever machines. In
recent Senate and gubernatorial elections, the average
residual vote rates of lever machines and electronic
machines were 7.6 percent and 5.9 percent, respectively,
of all ballots cast. Had the counties using lever
machines used optical scanning, we estimate that there
would have been 830,000 more votes recorded in
Senate and gubernatorial elections.
percent in 2000).

In my reply to Ziggurat above, I linked what machines are in use in California. Now if optical scanners and electronic machines perform as bad or worse than paper ballots, why isn't the ACLU complaining about those?

[Ed]

Originally posted by jj
Well, I think that Davis is sinking fast, and he'd be better off to get it over with, so if that's what the ACLU is thinking, they are treading on odd ground here.

But I do wonder about this one.

I was under the impression that the recall election had to be held within 80 days of the filings, by law. If the ACLU thingie can be streched beyond that point perhaps the election is not an election and the whole process will have to be gone through again.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Suddenly


What does that have to do with anything? They were probably used when Reagan was elected governor as well. I have no idea if the California Secretary of State is playing some angle. The likely explaination is it became a hot button issue after the 2000 election and at the pace government moves the issue is being worked out.

However, to find fault with the ACLU for trying to stop an election where a large portion of the state will be using voting machines officially deemed "unacceptable" by the appropriate authority seems quite unfair.

I live in CA. To a lot of us here this appears to be clear case of the government trying to subvert the will of the people. Per CA law the recall election must occur within 80 days (I believe it is 80) of the certification of the recall petition. That would mean the recall elction must occur by Oct. 7.

[Luke T.]

According to the link I gave Ziggarat, which is part of the Caltech report, California doesn't even use lever machines.

It appears lever machines, if I am reading correctly, may be the best machines out there. And I also believe they are the oldest technology. I cast my first vote on a lever machine.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
I don't see your point.

First, do you mean that the ACLU believes minorities are dumber than white people and can't figure out how to use the punched card ballot system? It is the punched card system, not a paper ballot system, that is at issue in the Ninth Circuit case.

Yes, it is a punched card system. I got myself confused. California does not use the paper ballot system.

Second, intelligence of races does not enter into the issue, as far as I can tell. There is no suggestion that white voters, when presented with a punched card ballot, are smart enough to vote correctly, whereas minority voters given the same type of card lack the mental horsepower needed to figure out how to vote correctly.

Instead, the opinion reports that there was evidence presented that minority voters were adversely affected by punched card ballots in two ways:As far as I can tell, the question of intelligence never came up, and no one argued that anyone was stupid.

I concede this point. For now. :D

The argument was that minorities were disproportionately affected in the areas which use punch card systems.

I did let my emotions get away with me on that point.


Even if there were a question of a group's ability to comprehend the nature of the ballot, that doesn't necessarily mean that the group is unintelligent. Since most Americans who are non-native English speakers are also minorities, there is a question as to whether the residual votes could be caused by a language problem. I mean, suppose I had to cast a vote in Mexico. Now, I speak Spanish, but I'm not fluent, and I doubt I could comprehend anything very technical or complicated. If someone gave me detailed instructions about how to vote, I'm not sure I could comply with them. And yet, I'm a pretty smart guy!

And there isn't a machine out there that could overcome that problem. Only a bilingual ballot would. [edited to add:] Or a multi-multi-lingual one.


I agree with you that some voting systems are less inaccurate than the punched card system. But there are also some systems that are more accurate. Also, some of these systems are faster, simpler, cheaper to implement, and easier to verify in the event of a recount.

There doesn't appear to be any data which supports the argument there are better systems, except for the older lever systems, and California doesn't use them anywhere. So the disproportionate minority argument wouldn't work here.


But all of that is really beside the point. The California Secretary of State has ruled the punched card system unacceptable, and the punched card system is what is at issue in the Ninth Circuit.

Yes. But why did he do that? What was he doing about it? Working on replacing them with more modern machines which are more inaccurate?

[Brown]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I cast my first vote on a lever machine. Me too. But I remember that there was a question about lever machines losing votes because people didn't know how to use them.

In particular, some folks complained that they thought that they were supposed to move the little levers down and then back up to the way that they found them. (They were not told that the levers automatically move back to the starting position when the voter leaves the booth, and the "voters" did not want the next person in the polling booth to see how they voted.) Moving the lever down and then back up actually records that no vote at all, and leaves no record of the voter's intent.

What they were supposed to do was move down the little levers to make their votes, then pull a BIG lever that (1) registered the votes, (2) returned the little levers to the starting positions, and (3) opened the curtain so the voter could exit the polling booth. Incredibly, many people did not understand that the big lever performed these three functions.

It was always a matter of curiosity to the poll workers as to why more people showed up to vote than actually voted!

[Brown]

Originally posted by Luke T.
And there isn't a machine out there that could overcome that problem. Only a bilingual ballot would. [edited to add:] Or a multi-multi-lingual one.In my voting area, they use pictures to show proper (and improper) ways to mark a ballot. We use an optical system.

What I would really like to see is a "voter's receipt." When you hand in your ballot, you would get a receipt saying something like:

Your vote was recorded for the following contests:
President of the United States
United States Senator
Mayor
Councilman

No vote was recorded for you for the following contests:
United States House of Representatives
Water District Supervisor
Proposition 16

In other words, as a voter, I would like confirmation that my vote isn't going to be an undervote. If my receipt doesn't reflect that I voted, I want to be able to submit a corrected ballot.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Good point Suddenly. But why are the punch card machines banned now? They were used in the last election and nobody questioned the Davis won.

That is because the decision that the machines were not accurate enough was made AFTER Davis' election. To give an analogy, just because women and blacks can vote now and couldn't in the past doesn't mean Washington was never "really" president.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Now if optical scanners and electronic machines perform as bad or worse than paper ballots, why isn't the ACLU complaining about those?

Wait,

Where are you getting that optical scanners and electronic touch-screen (not DRE Push button) machines perform as bad or worse than paper ballots?

No county uses paper ballots in the state of California. Optical scanners perform BETTER than both of those methods, not worse, according to the Cal Tech study you cite.


The data in the report you link show that optical scans are the MOST reliable, far more reliable than punch cards.


The chart lists the residual votes as a percentage of all ballots cast (lower numbers are the better methods):

Presidential elections 1988-2000

Paper Ballot (hand counted) 1.8%
Punch Card 2.5%
Optical Scan 1.5%
Lever Machine 1.5
Electronic Push Button DRE (2/3rds of them not touch screens) 2.3%

(Touch screens aren't the major type of the DRE's, as they are too new to have data from elections 1988-2000)

Goveror and Senator elections 1988-2000

Paper Ballot (hand counted) 3.3%
Punch Card 4.7%
Optical Scan 3.5%
Lever Machine 7.6%
Electronic Push Button DRE (2/3rds of them not touch screens) 5.9%


That supports the conclusion that Caltech reached, that Optical scans are the way to go.


Why do you say that optical scanners are WORSE than paper ballots? The numbers show them to be slightly superior to hand counted paper ballots.

Nevertheless, why are you comparing it to hand-counted ballots? Do you think we can afford to hand count all the votes in California?

Lever machines are one of the WORST machines out there. Are you sure you're reading the report correctly?

A traditional DRE is like an electronic version of the Lever machine They present all choices at once, full face on a large panel with push buttons.
That's what they're talking about when they talk about the error rate of electronic systems. They're talking about DRE's, the majority of which are the old wall of buttons from the old days.

There isn't much data on touch-screens yet, so they don't chart seperately how many residual votes there have been in national elections.

Only one county in California used DRE's in 1999 according to that map. All the other counties used punch cards or optical scanners.


(edited to eat some of my earlier words that I educated myself on)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


But take a look at
this! (http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/Rivest-ElectronicVoting-2-ppt.pdf)

Go to page nine of the document and you will be astonished.



Yeah, I'm looking at page 9.

I'm actually astonished at YOU.

Page 9 says that the highest error rates are, in order of worst system to best are:

Datavote punch cards
Electronic (DRE)
Votomatic punch cards
Optically scanned
Mixed
Paper Ballot
Lever Machine

This is in contrast to the cal-tech study which showd lever to be the worst. Don't know where this guy gets his data, he doesn't cite it anyhere I can see. Is he only counting undervotes?

So in other words, this (not a study, but a slide-show quoting other studies and not referencing them) pointed out that PUNCH CARDS are worse than Optical scanning, and only hand-counted and mixed (what's mixed?) are better.

I think you don't know what a DRE is. I think you're lumping old DRE's in with the touch-screens. The majority of DRE's out there are basically an electronic lever machine. It's a big wall of buttons, like doorbells. Each button has the name of the candidate over it, like you're ringing up someone in an apartment building. You go into the booth and you push a button to vote.

Modern touch-screens are sometimes called DRE's, but these numbers include the old DRE's in the data on touch-screens, if they are counting ALL DRE's.

Votomatic is the punch card system that got Gore into trouble.

Datavote is another punch card system, one that has been noted as being acceptable.

Optical beats both of them. It's likely to be the new standard.


I know that touch-screens are the Libertarians whipping boy, more because of fraud concerns. And punch cards are the left's whipping boy because of uncountable votes due to mechanical problems with punching chads. And it's usually the poorer districts with the older punch-card systems. (Touch-screens problems might be fixed by using redundant paper systems.)



Libertarians are suing Riverside County about this very issue.

What's really happening is that we've known about punch-cards' problem since 2000. There wasn't much data in 2001 about touchscreens being bad, but there was on punchcards. In 2001, Common Cause sued to get a fix for punchcards.

A COURT decided they were right.

Now here we are in 2003.

ACLU is demanding that the court's verdict be upheld.

That's a winnable fight.

Meanwhile Libertarians are crying foul over touchscreens in Riverside County. The Court hasn't yet FOUND in favor of the Libertarians.

Has the court, or the ACLU or Common Cause determined that there is enough data to show that touchscreens cause significant voting problems? When they do, they probably will launch a suit.


(edited to be nicer, and eat some words again)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It appears lever machines, if I am reading correctly, may be the best machines out there. And I also believe they are the oldest technology. I cast my first vote on a lever machine.
There's one problem w/ lever machines. To read the vote count you had to open the back of the machine, stick your head in and read the vote totals. Here in Chicago (where we vote early and often ;) ) they would get a Democrat precinct worker to read the totals, he would then reset the machine when he was done. You can imagine the shenanigans that went on because of this. That and the "deceased" vote gave Kennedy a narrow victory in Illinois in the 1960 presidential race, and the electoral votes this provided was the margin of victory nationally. Nixon was livid, but decided not to sue to avoid a messy and potentially destabilizing transition of power. If only Gore showed such class... though it was ironic that Bill Daley (son of the man who gave so many questionable votes to Kennedy) was the main force behind the decision to sue over the 2000 race.

Cook County has used punch cards as long as I've been voting, does the 9th circuit decision now mean this is illegal?

[VicDaring]

From the very top of this topic:
Any delay in the California recall election will benefit Gray Davis.

Stated another way, it's in the neo-cons' best interests to push this recall through as quickly as possible.

Waiting for the next legit election cycle is out of the question, because the federal Help America Vote Act (http://fecweb1.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm) mandates all punchcard and lever machines be replaced by November, 2004 (with waivers available to extend the deadline to January, 2006).

Again, that's a federal law, passed by a Republican Congress under a Republican administration.

So, what the ACLU is doing is demanding that if the right is going to try to steal another election, they at least abide by their own rules.

Oh, the horror.

[Brown]

Originally posted by WildCat
Nixon was livid, but decided not to sue to avoid a messy and potentially destabilizing transition of power. If only Gore showed such class... Gore was following valid state procedures for recounts and protests. He did not need to go to court to demand a recount or to file a protest.

It was Bush who went to court to stop the recounting, and it was Bush's lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court making an incredible mess.

[Shinytop]

The 9th Circuit does not cover Illinois so its decision has no effect on Chicago.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Shinytop
The 9th Circuit does not cover Illinois so its decision has no effect on Chicago. Except as precedent. You are correct that Ninth Circuit decisions are not binding on the Seventh Circuit (which includes Chicago).

It is not unusual (it's not really all that common, either) for different federal circuits to reach opposite conclusions on the same legal issues.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Brown
Gore was following valid state procedures for recounts and protests. He did not need to go to court to demand a recount or to file a protest.

It was Bush who went to court to stop the recounting, and it was Bush's lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court making an incredible mess.
That right, but what a mess a manual count of ballots meant to be read by a machine was. The look on the guys face on page 4 of the link Luke provided (http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~rivest/Rivest-ElectronicVoting-2-ppt.pdf) says it all. There's no way this recount would have been more accurate than the machine count, too much bias and fatigue-induced errors would create an even higher error rate than the machines. They should have just read the votes by machine 3 times, best 2 out of 3 wins, no whining allowed about the results. ;)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Brown
Except as precedent. You are correct that Ninth Circuit decisions are not binding on the Seventh Circuit (which includes Chicago).

It is not unusual (it's not really all that common, either) for different federal circuits to reach opposite conclusions on the same legal issues.

I'll add to this that the Sec. of States finding that the machines were unacceptable is both not binding in any way in any other state, and is a fact that would allow a different circuit to "distinguish" the facts in the 9th circuit case, unless the Illinois Sec. of state made a like finding.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.



I don't know what you mean by "error uncounted rate," but the second link is from an MIT study of voting machines in 1997, I think, with the percentage of failure for each. It sounds to me like a simple math problem. The court seems to have used it to compute the statement "the inherent defects in the system are such that approximately 40,000 voters who travel to the polls and cast their ballot will not have their vote counted at all."



This is what the opinion (in my first link) says, in its entirety, about the Caltech/MIT research project.



Here (http://vote.caltech.edu/Reports/july01/July01_VTP_%20Voting_Report_Entire.pdf) is a link to that report to which they refer.

This report actually supports what I've been saying.

From the same page in which they lifted the quote (page 24):



In my reply to Ziggurat above, I linked what machines are in use in California. Now if optical scanners and electronic machines perform as bad or worse than paper ballots, why isn't the ACLU complaining about those?


As far as why the ACLU isn't complaining (beyond the points made by others), maybe that is because the Cali Sec of St. never officially found those methods "unacceptable." The issue is the state holding an election where almost half the voters have to use machines officially declared "unacceptable."

.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon



Yeah, I'm looking at page 9.

I'm actually astonished at YOU.

Page 9 says that the highest error rates are, in order of worst system to best are:

Datavote punch cards
Electronic (DRE)
Votomatic punch cards
Optically scanned
Mixed
Paper Ballot
Lever Machine

This is in contrast to the cal-tech study which showd lever to be the worst. Don't know where this guy gets his data, he doesn't cite it anyhere I can see. Is he only counting undervotes?

So in other words, this (not a study, but a slide-show quoting other studies and not referencing them) pointed out that PUNCH CARDS are worse than Optical scanning, and only hand-counted and mixed (what's mixed?) are better.

I think you don't know what a DRE is. I think you're lumping old DRE's in with the touch-screens. The majority of DRE's out there are basically an electronic lever machine. It's a big wall of buttons, like doorbells. Each button has the name of the candidate over it, like you're ringing up someone in an apartment building. You go into the booth and you push a button to vote.

Modern touch-screens are sometimes called DRE's, but these numbers include the old DRE's in the data on touch-screens, if they are counting ALL DRE's.

Votomatic is the punch card system that got Gore into trouble.

Datavote is another punch card system, one that has been noted as being acceptable.

Optical beats both of them. It's likely to be the new standard.

I appreciate the education. Honestly. I did state in a later post that I had confused paper ballots with punch card systems.

It seems to me that no system is perfect, and while the punch card system may "lose" 40,000 votes, the other systems would lose in the same ballpark. If the election were close, which it might be, then that might be an issue.

I think the loss of votes in a switchover to a newer system is still a viable argument. I believe more than 40,000 votes would be lost. Florida is having that problem.

Are all elections or measures to be voted upon to be delayed until California has its ducks in a row? How long will that take? I bet more than a couple years.

I am also curious to know when the Ca. SecState declared these machines unacceptable. Was it before, during, or after the petition drive to recall Davis? Anyone know?

[edited to add:]

A repost of what the CalTech report 22 said:


Machine voting, on the whole, has performed significantly
worse than the paper systems. Lever machines
lost relatively few votes in the past four presidential
elections, averaging a residual vote rate of 1.5 percent.
Electronic machines lost nearly as much as punch
cards, averaging 2.3 percent over the past four elections.
The more severe problems appear down the ballot
with these technologies, and here we see real concern
with the continued use of lever machines. In
recent Senate and gubernatorial elections, the average
residual vote rates of lever machines and electronic
machines were 7.6 percent and 5.9 percent, respectively,
of all ballots cast. Had the counties using lever
machines used optical scanning, we estimate that there
would have been 830,000 more votes recorded in
Senate and gubernatorial elections.
percent in 2000).

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
In my voting area, they use pictures to show proper (and improper) ways to mark a ballot. We use an optical system.

What I would really like to see is a "voter's receipt." When you hand in your ballot, you would get a receipt saying something like:

Your vote was recorded for the following contests:
President of the United States
United States Senator
Mayor
Councilman

No vote was recorded for you for the following contests:
United States House of Representatives
Water District Supervisor
Proposition 16

In other words, as a voter, I would like confirmation that my vote isn't going to be an undervote. If my receipt doesn't reflect that I voted, I want to be able to submit a corrected ballot.

I like this idea very much. The only thing that makes me queasy is the ability of someone to "reset" your vote. Perhaps a timing mechanism where you have a limited time to reset your vote.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Brown
Me too. But I remember that there was a question about lever machines losing votes because people didn't know how to use them.

In particular, some folks complained that they thought that they were supposed to move the little levers down and then back up to the way that they found them. (They were not told that the levers automatically move back to the starting position when the voter leaves the booth, and the "voters" did not want the next person in the polling booth to see how they voted.) Moving the lever down and then back up actually records that no vote at all, and leaves no record of the voter's intent.

What they were supposed to do was move down the little levers to make their votes, then pull a BIG lever that (1) registered the votes, (2) returned the little levers to the starting positions, and (3) opened the curtain so the voter could exit the polling booth. Incredibly, many people did not understand that the big lever performed these three functions.

It was always a matter of curiosity to the poll workers as to why more people showed up to vote than actually voted!

Ah, I remember it well. You pulled a giant lever that registered your votes and opened the curtain to the booth at the same time. We had a little old lady from the League of Women Voters, or some such, who explained the process before you entered the booth. So there was no confusion, on my part at least, about not resetting the little levers.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Luke, I'm coming to this thread late in the game, but I want to agree with your basic sentiment. The whole gist of the lawsuit is - Minorities are too stupid to use certain voting methods. The can couch that sentiment in whatever flowery language they want to, but that's the bottom line.

I'm surprised there isn't more of an uproar when "White Man's Burden" is used as an excuse by the left for some lawsuit or protest. Personally, if I were a minority, I'd be offended by these sorts of things.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I am also curious to know when the Ca. SecState declared these machines unacceptable. Was it before, during, or after the petition drive to recall Davis? Anyone know?



September 18, 2001 was the date California Secretary of State Bill Jones conceded that Votamatic punch cards were obsolete.

February 12, 2002 was when United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled in Common Cause v. Jones to actually force the State of California to change the system before the 2004 presidential election.


http://www.commoncause.org/states/california/archives/punchcard.html

[Brown]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm surprised there isn't more of an uproar when "White Man's Burden" is used as an excuse by the left for some lawsuit or protest. Personally, if I were a minority, I'd be offended by these sorts of things. Maybe they're more offended by being forced to use machines that, due to no fault of their own, have greater tendency to show that no vote was cast, even though the voter voted according to the directions. (This would certainly infuriate me, which is why I like the idea of the "voter's receipt.")

The Secretary of State concluded (and apparently had good grounds for so doing) that the machines in question are more likely to screw up even if the voters follow directions.

Perhaps you're thinking of a ballot layout like the famous butterfly ballot. I have looked at that ballot over and over and I just don't see what was really wrong with it. The people who punched the wrong hole just weren't paying attention. The layout of the ballot is a completely different issue from the reliability of the voting machines themselves.

[Brown]

Originally posted by WildCat
That right, but what a mess a manual count of ballots meant to be read by a machine was.... There's no way this recount would have been more accurate than the machine count, too much bias and fatigue-induced errors would create an even higher error rate than the machines. They should have just read the votes by machine 3 times, best 2 out of 3 wins, no whining allowed about the results. The judgment of virtually everyone with expertise in polling is to the contrary. Hand counts are far more reliable. (Even Bush's own expert conceded this point in Bush vs. Gore.)

Besides, the test for a valid vote is not whether a machine can read a card. The test is whether the voter manifested his intent to vote for a candidate. That is why you have people review the ballots during a recount.

Also, during any recount (and especially during the Florida recount, at least until the Supreme Court put a stop to it), there was considerable redundancy in the counting procedures. Multiple people reviewed votes, and they were under constant official supervision and unofficial supervision (from the media).

True, recounts are a pain in the ass. But what some people seem to forget is that close elections are what recounts are for.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Brown
Maybe they're more offended by being forced to use machines that, due to no fault of their own, have greater tendency to show that no vote was cast, even though the voter voted according to the directions. (This would certainly infuriate me, which is why I like the idea of the "voter's receipt.")

The Secretary of State concluded (and apparently had good grounds for so doing) that the machines in question are more likely to screw up even if the voters follow directions.

Perhaps you're thinking of a ballot layout like the famous butterfly ballot. I have looked at that ballot over and over and I just don't see what was really wrong with it. The people who punched the wrong hole just weren't paying attention. The layout of the ballot is a completely different issue from the reliability of the voting machines themselves.

I love your vote reciept idea. You really need to put together a website advocating that and let this forum, your state and national reps and everyone else you can know about it.

None of the voting methods are rocket science or even more complex than say reading a TV Guide and selecting a television show. To suggest that punching holes in cards is "too complicated" for the feeble minded darkies to figure out smacks of patronism to me - and that's exactly what this (and similar) lawsuits suggest for me.

If we can teach a chicken to play a piano, we can teach everyone how to properly use whatever voting method is used at the polls.

Getting them to care or even be aware of the issues? Well... that's another story...

[Brown]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
None of the voting methods are rocket science or even more complex than say reading a TV Guide and selecting a television show. To suggest that punching holes in cards is "too complicated" for the feeble minded darkies to figure out smacks of patronism to me - and that's exactly what this (and similar) lawsuits suggest for me.Well, I've never actually used a punched card system to cast a vote (I've used it for other things), so I can't speak from experience. But I understand that one of the problems of the punched card system is that people figure it out just fine, and follow the directions, but still their votes don't get counted. I understand that the waste builds up in little trays in the voting booths, making it harder to dislodge the chad that fills the hole. And since the chad is the same color as the rest of the ballot, and the same color as the waste in the trays, the problem is easy to miss.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that sometimes you ought to blame the voters and sometimes you ought not do so. With those punch card machines, a lot of the blame rests with the machine.

The issue really isn't whether steps should be taken to make it easier for one group to vote. Rather the issue really ought to be whether steps should be taken to make sure that everyone's voting is as reliable as is practical. Shoot, I'd be a little upset if I knew that people in other neighborhoods (known to favor dreaded political party X) used voting machines that counted virtually all of their votes, while people in my neighborhood (known to favor the more reasonable party Y) were stuck with older voting machines that were far more likely to result in our votes not being counted at all.

To switch gears back the "voter's receipt"...
Following the little spectacle in Florida in 2000, I expected that there would be a big expose about a "dirty little secret" in the world of voting, namely, that a significant number of votes simply get thrown away without the voters' knowledge or consent. Because of the Florida dispute, people learned about things called "undervotes" and "overvotes." I expected that someone would point out that the polls see undervotes and overvotes in every election, and that they are not unique to Florida in 2000. I expected that someone would be outraged that these undervotes and overvotes are routinely disregarded. The number of undervotes and overvotes in Florida was hardly a trivial matter, and it seems likely that states other than Florida simply don't count a substantial number of votes.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon


September 18, 2001 was the date California Secretary of State Bill Jones conceded that Votamatic punch cards were obsolete.

February 12, 2002 was when United States District Judge Stephen V. Wilson ruled in Common Cause v. Jones to actually force the State of California to change the system before the 2004 presidential election.


http://www.commoncause.org/states/california/archives/punchcard.html

But they have voted on at least one Measure this year in California. Prop 51. (http://www.ncsl.org/ncsldb/elect98/irsrch.cfm?recid=1185) Did they use the punch card machines for this election?

[Luke T.]

Speaking of the California Secretary of State, he has asked for the recall election to go forward on October 7. (http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447189&nav=9qrxI3II)

Shelley says the election, in effect, is already under way. Absentee voters have already sent in some 400-thousand ballots.

I wonder if they have peeked at those ballots. ;)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


But they have voted on at least one Measure this year in California. Prop 51. (http://www.ncsl.org/ncsldb/elect98/irsrch.cfm?recid=1185) Did they use the punch card machines for this election?


Prop 51 was last year, Luke T. November 2002. You know, the one where we elected someone to be the Governor for 4 years?

;)


There wasn't going to be a statewide election this year. There was a municipal election in Los Angeles in May.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Speaking of the California Secretary of State, he has asked for the recall election to go forward on October 7. (http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447189&nav=9qrxI3II)


Well, of course. He's a party to the lawsuit, representing the state of California. He's the one that the ACLU is suing.


You see, the Election officers were required by law to set the date of October. They can't pull a date out of their hat, they have to follow the law.

But that runs them afoul of Common Cause v. Jones, and equal protection as outlined in Bush v. Gore. So ACLU sues the state for that.

That's how the law works. The Secretary of State can't just make stuff up. He has to follow the law. He was FORCED to set the October date.

Common Cause v. Jones states that he has to have the ballots fixed by 2004's presidential primaries, but legally he can't push the Special election until then.

So right now, he's not breaking any law or any court order. He's doing exactly what the law tells him to do.

But the ACLU is saying he's violating the spirit of the Common Cause v. Jones ruling, so they're suing to address that.


Luke T, you've been very critical of the ACLU and this ruling by the 9th Circuit.

Can you provide a solution of what should be done that addresses Common Cause v. Jones, and the 9Th Circuit has the authority to do?

Folks talk about the 9th circuit being this wacko group of liberal judges... but I can't see how they could let Common Cause v. Jones just lay there and not enforce it.

They didn't just make this up, Common Cause v. Jones is decided. Funny, you don't see this part reported in the media. I blame lazyness. Far too easy to just call the 9th circuit a bunch of liberals than to explain the precedent in this case.


The number of discarded ballots may well exceed the margin of victory. This may be the tightest race in California history. And my prediction is, WHOEVER loses will sue for more than 1 recount.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon



Prop 51 was last year, Luke T. November 2002. You know, the one where we elected someone to be the Governor for 4 years?

;)


There wasn't going to be a statewide election this year. There was a municipal election in Los Angeles in May.

That was in the last year. Well after the given date that the machines were declared obsolete by the Secretary in 2001.

[edited to add:] And well after Common Cause v. Jones.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Silicon

Luke T, you've been very critical of the ACLU and this ruling by the 9th Circuit.

Can you provide a solution of what should be done that addresses Common Cause v. Jones, and the 9Th Circuit has the authority to do?


It ain't 2004 yet. So the machines don't need to be replaced yet. So what does that have to do with any elections prior to the deadline? Nothing.

[Silicon]

Revived this thread to post a follow-up.


It's a good thing this election wasn't close.

4.6% of voters apparantly didn't cast a vote for or against the recall in the punch card areas.

But practically nobody in the touch-screen areas had this problem.




Studies: 383,000 Missing Votes in Recall


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=15&u=/ap/20031010/ap_on_el_gu/voting_anomalies



"It's inconceivable that one in 11 people in Los Angeles went to the polls and did not cast a vote on the recall," said Henry E. Brady, professor of political science and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who conducted one study.


By contrast, almost every response to the recall counted in Alameda County, which uses an electronic touch-screen system.