Optical scan ballots. No chads, no hacking. Why aren't they universal?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Bev Harris did a bang-up job on CNBC.

Having said that, why doesn't she (and anyone else active on the voting system issue) now come out and push for UNIVERSAL opti scan ballots until reliable machines with paper trails are installed?

It's low tech system, cheap, already developed.

Just talking about and pushing for altering computerized systems only gives elections officials an excuse ("we're working on it") but promoting a specific alternative that already exists leaves them no excuse.

[NMDemDist2]

1. we have those here in AZ but Bev says they can be messed with too

they have to be better than a windows based access program tho...

[Kelvin Mace]

5. Any computer-based system

can be messed with. Optin-scan would be best, but Touchscreen are useful for the disabled and the blind. So, TS with paper ballot is the way to go.

[Stephanie]

2. Because the machines that scan and total the ballots are not reliable

Once it's been scanned, it enters the same hackable central tabulating program as the touchscreens. It's still vulnerable. The only difference is you already have your paper ballot for recounts.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. Exactly. Already have the paper trail, don't need new machine or

new technology

[Stephanie]

6. But the technology is still hackable

So only one problem is dealt with.

[politicat]

10. Yes, but taking care of one hacked system is better than taking care of 0.

There are holes in the security all over when it comes to voting - everything from ensuring that you don't drop 3% of your voters off the rolls to getting people through the door with minimal issues (IDs are now required in Colorado, and that bothers me) to securing the ballots (remember the box that got mislaid?) to counting them.

We use optical scan here in my district (or at least we did a year ago... and I haven't heard of any changes) and even the octogenarians I usually run the office with manage to understand the scanning system. Training this fall is going to be fun...

and our counting system, as of two years ago, was not access. It's a basic scan-tron system, similar to the stuff my high school used.

Pcat

[Florida_Geek]

4. Are they

I am not happy with the OS absentee ballots from my county.


They have the connect the dots system.

You have an arrow with a space and you have to draw a line between them. something like this

< O


the problem this geek sees is if you program they software right, you can throw out too many votes if you want......

[Sinistrous]

7. I suppose they can be messed with too, but

there are all those big, hardcopy paper ballots to recount if problems arise. Much better than BBV's. And there doesn't have to be a "back door" on the tabulating machines on which hackers can ply their trade.

Optical scan has been used in my area for years with no apparent problems.

[TahitiNut]

8. There's nothing wrong with them, as long as there're sample

... hand counts to verify the accuracy of the machine counts to a statistical certainty. It's not enough to have paper ballots - there must be verification and validation procedures in any tabulation process.

The majority of what wrong with the election processes are the procedures themselves. The procedures must incorporate parallel tabulation processes and ensure verification and validation. The basic problem with touch-screens is that this is impossible with that device. So, even if the impossibility is eliminated, the process must still incorporate what's again made possible.

[aquart]

9. You are deluding yourself.

Why ANY tech?

Paper ballots and citizens (and possibly the UN) to watch the counting. Bring back the suspense of the long count. Screw the networks and their deadlines.

We don't need to do it fast. We need to do it accurately, honestly, and transparently.

[Spazito]

11. What, exactly, is wrong with the old paper ballots...

x marks the spot kind, with scrutineers to oversee the count at the voting place? Speaking from a citizen from a country that just went through a national election using the old paper ballots with NO problems, I can't get my head around why there seems to be a problem using that kind of system in the US.

[moondust]

12. Nuthin. I want em.

The U.S. is hooked on gadgetry and is much too busy moneygrubbing to maintain the integrity of its democracy by hand-counting ballots. Capitalism trumps democracy by a wide margin. Dick Cheney rarely bothers to vote.

[Andy_Stephenson]

13. two words

Instant gratification.

[RedEagle]

14. Because in the U.S. there are a gadzillion issues on a ballot, usually.

I'd opt for more frequent elections, and hand counting federal and state races.

Optical scan can work well, but as mentioned previously, unless you audit the computer's count, you don't know what is going on.

The recount laws in most states are not enough. There needs to be at least a 3% hand count audit and it must be of all ballots and all the races on them. There have been some really far out attempts by officials to get around auditing by auditing only a few machines or a few races or a percentage of a race....

I didn't do the research on the perils of optical scan, but here are a few:

Older machines (infrared, I think) don't do color well and usually need a carbon based ink or pencil. So if you want something that can't be changed and choose to use ink, make sure it has a carbon base and don't rely on the poll workers or county to necessarily make sure this is so.

If extra ballots are needed and they make copies to use, shrinkage occurs and this may be enough to throw the ballot off.

Invisible ink with a carbon base does exist. There are uses for this stuff but it's not in elections. I've been told by a printing store that they can tell if it's on paper because it will change the surface appearance where it's at and they seem pretty able to spot it. But the average person wouldn't even think to check that out.

There have been some off hand remarks in some of the tons of literature out there (which means I don't remember where to get a reference to this) that there may have been times when the optical scan machine stored an "image" of the ballot and when a recount was done, those ballot images were printed and the original ballots were never used. Same problem as a ballot printed after the fact from a DRE, the program will print its version of the record and not necessarily what was on the original. Again, this isn't verified, it's been hinted at a few times.

Paper ballots are the only way to go. But that only solves part of the problem. You have to have lots of auditing and you must have an air tight chain of custody, laws and rules that are enforced.

Then you have the disabled issue. Fortuneately, this can be dealt with using a ballot template, which would have an optical scan ballot insered in a tactile folder used with an audio cassette- kind of a low tech touch screen. Also, there is a DRE system that uses the touch screen to mark an optical scan ballot.

Even punch cards are preferable to DRE's. The problems in Florida were largely caused by management- no one ever cleaned out the chad trays. There are counties in this country who have used them well and effectively for years. And they tabulate faster than optical scan. I think we'd all be better served by a well maintained punch card system than a DRE without a voter verified paper ballot.

[Spazito]

17. Thank you for your comprehensive response

I have just a few suggestions re the gazillion issues on the ballot. In Canada, we have other issues on occasions and they are on a separate ballot so that the election of officials are on one ballot and the initiatives are on another. The count takes place at the same location where the vote was placed so there is NO movement of ballot boxes until after the vote has been tallied and has been verified by scrutineers, volunteers from each political party, as being a valid count. We are, currently, going through a judicial process regarding the votes in two ridings from our recent election in Canada but it is not a concern as it has more to do with misdirection to voters than a miscount of the vote.

[stickdog]

15. You can hack the opscan counting programs.

That's not to say that they aren't better than voting into thin air, but the POSSIBILITY of a manual physical recount is all keeping these machines honest.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Counties which ordered paperless machines SHOULD CANCEL

the order and use optical scan ballots isntead, or better yet, hand-counted paper ballots.

[Andy_Stephenson]

18. I am so glad to see you advocating for paper ballots...

over paper trails.

bravo!

[Protected]

19. I like optical scan ballots as well

They're easy to fill out (complete the line) and there are no computer networking issues to worry about. They also facilitate an easy recount by hand. Unfortunately, it's clear that some people are Luddites or overly paranoid and would prefer that there be no computers involved at all. How that's going to work with 100+ million ballots, I don't know.

[ronabop]

20. All the flaws of punchcards, yay?

Hanging chad:
Incompletely filled oval.

Dimpled or "pregnant" chad:
Pen touch in an oval.

Overvote:
Two conflicting ovals.

Undervote:
Blank ovals.

Mis-vote:
Oval location not clear in reference to the vote.

-Bop