There's a small but significant advantage to some partys when using voting machines, just with touch screen being more likely to malfunction in humid/hot weather, which really is only an issue in poor districts lacking AC.
Article is about voter preference for electronic voting machines vs paper. Where OP voted, there was no line for paper, a small queue for electronic.
When I served as a poll inspector, our poll site had one touchscreen. Voters would use it if it was open.
Aside: touchscreen advocates claim voting electronically is faster. Not true. I timed many voters casting ballots both electronically and using paper. Close enough to make no difference. But god help you if there's a hiccup with the touchscreens.
Other countries rely less on machines where this sort of thing is even possible. The fact that human-built systems are likely to contain errors is an argument for making these system as simple as possible. The fact that we use touchscreen voting machines in the U.S., with all the hidden errors (honest or malicious) they can introduce into the canvass, is insane.
No, you haven't. The issue with touchscreens isn't the machine total, but rather the lack of a mechanism for validating the machine total. Machine-read paper ballots can be and are sometimes hand-counted to validate the machines.
People consistently overestimate the reliability of that solution, especially for older voters with mobility challenges. Pushbuttons or levers that demand macroscopic elbow/shoulder motion are easier for that demographic to use than sensitive screens requiring fine motor control.
And that's all to say nothing of what happens when the screens become miscalibrated and accept taps a few pixels off. I'm fairly confident most of the "It switched my vote" reports we hear are actually this category of "user-error" (which should really be counted as "machine malfunction").
- They can provide different accessibility assistance than pen and paper, allowing people to vote on their own. Multi-language support should be easy.
- They can provide UI improvements over paper. Consider situations where the voter needs to select up to 3 candidates out of a list of 12. Or a long ballot with lots of distinct questions.
- Hopefully less lead time for updates to the ballot if someone drops out of the race, is replaced, etc.
The past few times I've voted (Canada) it's been pencil on paper, stuck into a machine that confirmed it could read the ballot, then I left. When it's been a longer ballot for municipal election it's actually felt like a bit of a test. We are voting for: city councillor, mayor, regional representatives, multiple school board trustees from one of two different school boards (but not both).
It's 2012. You can buy touch screens that don't need constant "calibration". These machines are using 1980s caliber technology when this was a constant problem. The last touch screen I've worked with that had this issue was CRT-based.
All these machines should do, presuming you need machines at all, is print out a receipt with the vote clearly indicated so that it can be deposited in a traditional ballot box. Leaving the tabulation a "trade secret" is really not a good idea.
The most common cause of mis-vote is operator error. I've watched people use the touchscreen devices; with so many voters both unfamiliar with the mechanics of a touchscreen and unsteady on their feet (the median voter age is about 50), and with the machines made of cheap plastic resting on a table, they grip the machine to stabilize it and themselves. Their gripping thumb rests on the screen and creates phantom signal that makes it hard to localize the touch coordinate.
This is the best argument I'm familiar with against the electronic machines we used to use, and our state switched to paper oval-fill ballots that are then electronically tabulated. But, I haven't seen the statistics yet on how many mis-counts we now have as a result relative to the old system and I'd be curious to see them... Ask yourself how confident you are that 100% of voters know how to successfully fully darken the oval. And since the system is anonymous, nobody looks over their shoulder to verify they understand how to do it before the vote is dropped in the box (though in the event of a close race, a manual recount will be automatically triggered and at that point, at least it'll be human eyes deciding whether the voter circling the oval indicates their intent to vote for that candidate).
iPads used capacitive touchscreens which aren't prone to the same sorts of calibration issues that resistive touchscreens are.
I don't know much about electronic voting machines but I wouldn't be surprised if they mostly used resistive touchscreens (which are historically much cheaper to produce).
I was having a discussion about security of the voting systems with my neighbor from Germany. He was of the belief that the mechanical machines without computers were more secure.
I like the type of machines we have in Connecticut. There is a paper ballot that is filled out and then scanned optically. We get a paper ballot that acts as an audit trail. There is always the possibility that the optical scanner contains a bug or something, but the 2000 election showed that even mechanical machines have flaws if not maintained.
I would not prefer the touch screen voting machines as there are always reports of the machines switching the vote. It just seems like more can go wrong with those machines.
Speed, scaling, and ease of use to those who like touch screens. Schneier mentions those benefits in a nice essay that argues against electronic voting:
In past elections, whenever the issue of extremely hackable and vulnerable electronic voting machines was brought up, objections were raised that their use was too limited to make a big enough difference in the election. Well, here that's clearly not the case: the difference was so slight that such fraud could have tipped the scales.
Why is there the need to use these machines in the first place? IMHO the overengineering started when using a tech solution for a non tech problem.
Voting on paper seems to work for most democratic countries and it's definitely harder to rig than the electronics. I just don't see any siginificant advantage in using technology here (and no, a few $/€ saved every other year is not significant in my honest opinion)
What information are you looking for? The article describes the performance and results of these new machines for an admittedly small election:
- "The machines, VotingWorks said, were inexpensive to make, easy to fix and no problem to set up and take down. The hope, the organization said, was to produce shorter lines and more reliable results, a wish that seemed realized on Nov. 5."
- "After the initial trial and a second user test at a retirees potluck lunch, the county election commissioners enthusiastically allowed the company to test the machines countywide during the general election on Tuesday."
- "The machines took poll workers less than two minutes to fully construct, shortening lines and keeping voters calm. Poll workers uniformly said they loved this feature, as it made the machines easier to maneuver and take down."
- "“Everything went just fine,” said Amy Burdine, Choctaw County circuit clerk. “Just as expected.”"
You realize that voting accuracy can be determined on the day of the election with these machines? By the way the operation is described, voters use the machine to mark choices digitally, and a paper printout is produced, allowing each voter to look at and confirm the result. According to the article, there were few, if any mistakes or complaints.
Machines have a higher chance of not working on election day and any issues will lead to people having to wait longer or not being able to vote at all.
Which you can already see happening in areas where voting machines are used. This is especially problematic if specific regions with known political majorities can be targeted and sabotaged.
There is absolutely no reason to not just use a hole puncher or an overhauled ballot design.
Even just keeping the problems that exist with paper ballots beats any risk that introducing electronics in the process pose.
reply