Researchers blast voting machine strategy-Bought & Replaced Haphazardly

[kpete]

Researchers blast voting machine strategy
Devices are bought, placed haphazardly, Ohio professor says.
By Elliot Jaspin

WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, October 21, 2006

WASHINGTON — A new concern is surfacing in the debate over switching to electronic voting machines.

Although most of the attention has focused on paper trails and how vulnerable the machines are to hackers, a professor at Ohio State University and one of his former students are questioning the haphazard way these machines are bought and distributed.

During the Nov. 2, 2004, election, lines for polls stretched outside buildings and down sidewalks. Some of these Columbus, Ohio, voters had to wait two hours to cast a ballot. The federal government has not set voter-to-voting machine ratios, so states and counties have had to guess.

Theodore Allen, who teaches industrial engineering, and Mikhail Bernshteyn have found that many voters were either unable to vote or faced long lines during the 2004 election because officials failed to accurately judge how many voting machines they needed.

Compounding this problem, over the past few years the federal government has given state and local governments millions of dollars to buy new voting machines, although no one seems to have any clear idea of how many machines are actually needed.

Because there are no national standards, each county or state decides how many machines it needs.

more at:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/nation/10/21/21votingmachines.htmlmore at:

[Vincardog]

1. That is funny Blackwell seemed to get it pretty right

in the ReThuglican Voting Places. He had voting machines loaded on trucks instead of delivered to Democratic districts. c

[BeFree]

2. Not only that

...in my little burg, our system is the third different style of voting in 6 years. There is no tradition to the process, and no continuum. Its all new-fangled, and the people running these systems hardly have a clue as to what is happening.

I dare say this is a liberal experience, indeed a liberally radical experience being shoved upon the people. There is no conservative feeling to the whole process, yet it is conservatives who are behind the whole idea!

It makes me think that the ensuing chaos has been rather beneficial and a source of amusement to the powers that be, as no one now has much confidence in the election process, and the cons are laughing all the way to the bank.

[Catbird]

3. This is a well known and solved problem

I was surprised at how long it took me to vote in the recent primaries. Very low turnout so no waits for other people to finish. However, the entire process took noticeably longer for a single voter than with the previous lever machines, which appeared to have been replaced on a one-to-one basis by iVotronics. And, if the new machines take longer per person, the lines will be longer. I anticipate a real hassle in November.

This is a fairly simple queuing theory problem. People know how to solve these. Unfortunately the election people don't seem to be talking with the queuing theory people.

Note to those advocating absentee or early voting -- South Carolina requires a documented reason from an approved list. And the absentee lines for those doing absentee voting in person were reported to be quite long at times during the 2004 election.

[Bill Bored]

4. Of course it took longer. There's NOTHING faster to vote on than a lever

machine. Those who have never had the experience are astounded!

[Kurovski]

5. K&R.(nt)

[bleever]

6. Please check link.

Not working for me.

Thx!

[Kurovski]

7. See if this works.

You might have to sign up. And then put the title of the story into the search box.

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/news/stories/nation/10/21/21votingmachines.html

[w4rma]

8. Why assume they "failed to accurately judge how many"?

The basic fact, without resorting to mind reading, is that they failed to deploy enough machines.