BBV: Casting their vote for electronic ballots

[Andy_Stephenson]

A paper record does not guarantee happy voters.

One Connecticut town learned that lesson last week, when voters tested an electronic voting machine, made by a New Jersey firm, that spits out paper receipts.


Critics of computerized machines insist paper proof is the only way voters can confirm their electronic ballots were recorded accurately, a claim disputed by many in the industry.

Avante International Technology Inc. of Princeton Junction won some rave reviews from four Connecticut towns that tried its $3,500 Vote-Trakker machines, which briefly display printouts under glass.

But when a Southington woman insisted the paper results differed from her electronic tally, she was told it was too late for a do-over.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1068444794272720.xml

[Spazito]

1. I was assuming that, after a voter has voted on the touch screen...

and the vote is displayed under glass that there would be an opportunity to confirm that what was shown under the glass was actually what was voted. Is that incorrect? If they just show what the vote was without an opportunity to confirm it is correct then it would not help at all, imo.

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. I have to agree

Voter Verified Paper Ballot.

Like Canada.

[shance]

4. How do we know that a paper ballot behind some glass screen

that doesnt go into a separate sealed ballot box means anything.

Doesnt increase my confidence that my vote has been correctly tabulated.

The glass case/"museum viewing" voting procedure, allows companies to have their cake and eat it to, while attempting to provide voters with a a false sense of security.

Is image is becoming EVERYTHING in America??

[RedEagle]

3. Machines and parameters are set up by the County

"But when a Southington woman insisted the paper results differed from her electronic tally, she was told it was too late for a do-over.

"I called the registrar, who said once the vote is cast, it is cast as is," said poll worker Nancy Flis. Other election officials then voted on the same machine, Flis said, and saw no discrepancies between their electronic votes and the printouts.

"We can't account for human errors," Avante's Tony Bandiero said."
-snip_

OK, let's get this right.

Election machine parameters are set by election officials. The machines themselves are not at fault if someone doesn't like time frames, etc. That's all up to the officials, the machines can be set up various ways.

Having had to research the paper ballot machines six ways to Sunday, on this system, the voter has to press a button twice to cast that ballot. If they want to spoil it, they can. And the machine can be probalby set up to ask,"Are you sure,? (press button) "Are you really sure, last chance?" (Adding in another button press)

First press, print paper. Voter then looks at the paper and if they accept the vote, presses the button again. Paper is scrolled, cut, and deposited in a ballot box.

At some point, the vote has to be final. I imagine some people would keep doing this for an hour. If the voter dropped a ballot in a ballot box, then said, "oops," would the election official fish around the ballot box to find it?

There was ONE person who said this? No one else experienced the problem with this machine?

Hello?

Since I've had other vendors lie to me about the paper ballot machines, and this is the scenario they like to trot out the most, what is the liklihood that someone was put up to voice this complaint?

The whole point of the paper ballot is to make sure that that ballot is correct. If it wasn't the same as what was on the screeen, the time to do something was before punching that "final cast" button.

IF there was a problem, which wasn't in evidence with other voters, to all appearances, that's the really good point about the paper ballot. It's the important one, AND you run a systems check as you vote. That voter should have alerted officials right then and there.

Perhaps election officials need to make that more clear to voters. You have a real time audit function here. PEOPLE audit the election, that's what it's all about.

I'm glad the story finally mentioned that everyone else used the machines successfully, but to lead with this ONE incidenct is irresponsible, lop sided reporting. And of course people using the machines the first time will be a little slow at first. Were the beeps trying to warn the voters of something? The time you have to complete a vote is up to the election officials. They set the time, not the machines. The machines just do what the election officials decide they need to do.

And about the difficulty with the visually disabled voting-
This is not at all unusual. I watched a blind individual during a demo with Sequoia's machine. At 25 minutes in she still hadn't voted much of her, pretty short, demo ballot. And she was getting pretty frustrated, too. This function is important for independent voting for the blind but it's a cruel illusion to think it will be easy. Some will pick it up better then others. I'd really like election officials and vendors to tell these people that it's going to take that long to get through voting this way.

It's a good feature to have, but it's not a panacea.

[lysergik]

5. kick!

back to the top