WRONG TIME FOR AN E-VOTE GLITCH

[Guest guest]

>

> Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:23:00 -0400

 

> WRONG TIME FOR AN E-VOTE GLITCH

>

>

Read also " How E-vote Threatens Democracy " :

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,62790,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

>

 

> *********************************

> WRONG TIME FOR AN E-VOTE GLITCH

>

http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,64569,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3

>

10:00 AM Aug. 12, 2004 PT

>

> It was simultaneously an uh-oh moment and an ah-ha

> moment.

>

> When Sequoia Voting Systems demonstrated its new

> paper-trail electronic

> voting system for state Senate staffers in

> California last week, the

> company representative got a surprise when the paper

> trail failed to

> record votes that testers cast on the machine.

>

> That was bad news for the voting company, whose

> paper-trail,

> touch-screen machine will be used for the first time

> next month in

> Nevada's state primary. The company advertises that

> its touch-screen

> machines provide " nothing less than 100 percent

> accuracy. "

>

> It was good news, however, for computer scientists

> and voting activists,

> who have long held that touch-screen machines are

> unreliable and

> vulnerable to tampering, and therefore must provide

> a physical

> paper-based audit trail of votes.

>

> " It goes to our point that a paper trail is very

> much needed to (ensure)

> that the machine accurately reports what people

> press, " said Susie

> Swatt, chief of staff for state Sen. Ross Johnson

> (R-Irvine), who

> witnessed the glitch in the Sequoia machine.

>

> With a paper-trail system, the voting machines would

> print out a record

> when voters cast ballots on a touch-screen machine.

> Voters could

> examine, but not touch, the record before casting

> their ballot. The

> paper would then drop into a secure ballot box for

> use in a recount.

>

> For nearly a year, voting companies and many

> election officials have

> resisted the call for a paper record. Election

> officials say that

> putting printers on voting machines would create

> problems for poll

> workers if the printers break down or run out of

> paper, and the paper

> records will cause long poll lines with voters

> taking more time to check

> the record.

> Voting activists maintain, however, that election

> officials don't want

> the paper trail because it opens the way for

> recounts and lawsuits if

> paper records don't match digital vote tallies. And

> they say that paper

> records would provide proof the machines are not as

> accurate as

> companies claim.

> Acting on public pressure for a paper trail, Sequoia

> became the first of

> the four largest voting companies to add printers to

> their voting

> machines earlier this year. Two smaller voting

> companies have had

> paper-trail machines for longer, but have had

> trouble selling the

> machines to election officials.

> During the demonstration of the Sequoia machine last

> week, the machine

> worked fine when the company tested votes using an

> English-language

> ballot. But when the testers switched to a

> Spanish-language ballot, the

> paper trail showed no votes cast for two

> propositions.

> " We did it again and the same thing happened, " said

> Darren Chesin, a

> consultant to the state Senate elections and

> reapportionment committee.

> " The problem was not with the paper trail. The paper

> trail worked

> flawlessly, but it caught a mistake in the

> programming of the

> touch-screen machine itself. For some reason it

> would not record or

> display the votes on the Spanish ballot for these

> two ballot measures.

> The only reason we even caught it was because we

> were looking at the

> paper trail to verify it. "

> Sequoia spokesman Alfie Charles said the problem was

> not a programming

> error but a ballot-design error.

> " It was our fault for not proofing the Spanish

> language ballot before

> demonstrating it, " Charles said. " We had a demo

> ballot that we designed

> in a hurry that didn't include all of the files that

> we needed to have

> the machine present all of the voter's selections on

> the screen and the

> printed ballots. That would never happen in an

> election environment

> because of all the proofing that election officials

> do. "

> Charles said the machine did record the votes

> accurately in its memory,

> but failed to record them on the paper trail and on

> the review screen

> that voters examine before casting their ballot.

> Swatt and Chesin could

> not confirm this, however, because the company did

> not show them

> evidence of the digital votes stored on the

> machine's internal memory.

> " We've been saying all along that these things are

> subject to glitches, "

> Chesin said. " The bottom line is that the paper

> trail caught the

> mistake. Ergo, paper trails are a good idea. "

> Charles agreed the paper trail worked exactly as it

> was supposed to

> work. " If this happened in an election, the first

> voter would see it and

> could call a pollworker. They would take the machine

> out of service if

> they saw a problem, " he said.

> Ironically, just one week after the demonstration

> occurred, California

> took one step back from making sure voters in the

> state will have the

> reassurance that a paper trail provides.

> On Thursday, a Senate bill that would require a

> voter-verified paper

> trail on all electronic voting machines in the state

> by January 2006

> suffered a setback when the Assembly Appropriations

> Committee, where the

> bill resided, decided not to push the bill forward

> during this

> legislative session, which ends Aug. 31. This means

> legislators will

> have to reintroduce a new bill next January when

> they reconvene.

> The bill (PDF), introduced by Johnson and state

> Senator Don Perata

> (D-Oakland), had bipartisan support and the backing

> of Secretary of

> State Kevin Shelley.

> " I'm a little mystified why the committee has

> stalled the bill, " Swatt

> said. " E-voting machines, like them or not, are here

> to stay in

> California. It is clear that if we are going to be

> living with e-voting

> machines the only way to protect voters and to

> ensure that their votes

> are counted accurately is to have a paper trail. "

> Swatt said she hoped the public would pressure the

> legislature to push

> the bill forward before the session ends.

> Have a comment on this article? Send it

> More stories written by Kim Zetter

>

>

> Related Stories

> How E-Voting Threatens Democracy Mar. 29, 2004

> Move to Block California E-Vote Feb. 17, 2004

> E-Vote Machines Drop More Ballots Feb. 09, 2004

> E-Voting Undermined by Sloppiness Dec. 17, 2003

> E-Votes Must Leave a Paper Trail Nov. 21, 2003

> Aussies Do It Right: E-Voting Nov. 03, 2003

> Time to Recall E-Vote Machines? Oct. 06, 2003

> Wired News RSS headline feeds