Interesting People mailing list archives
California Recall Analysis
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:19:30 -0400
Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:41:48 -0400 From: "Dr. R. Mercuri" <notable () mindspring com> Subject: California Recall Analysis To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Mercuri Rebecca <mercuri () acm org> Dave -- I'm sending you the same material I sent Peter regarding my California recall analysis. He's running it in Risks and I'm hoping you'll run it in your e-newsletter as well. The results were rather shocking! Los Angeles voters skipped the recall question at a rate of 8.91% of their ballots cast. Of course they were using the WORST possible system, the infamous Votomatic punchcard. On the other hand, the Datavote punchcard system had only a 1.94% skip rate, which was among the top 3 systems used in the state -- beating all but 1 of the optically scanned and 1 of the touchscreens! Clearly SOME chad has taken a bum rap!!! More details below. If you'd like a full spreadsheet with a breakdown by county (not for publication but for your reference), let me know. Feel free to publish the material below. Good regards, Rebecca Mercuri. ****************FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE******************** Rebecca Mercuri has analyzed California's recall ballot data and reports that it confirms numerous doubts about election systems. Her results demonstrate that the style of voting system in use (punchcard, optically scanned, or touchscreen) cannot be generically considered either "good or bad." She asserts that "The particular model of the system, as well as the procedural controls in place in each county, along with the ballot layout, may have considerably more impact on the reliability of the election results than the type of system deployed." The analysis revealed some shocking details. Of the 8,359,168 votes cast statewide, some 384,427 (nearly 4.6%) were not recorded for the recall question. Almost half of these missing votes (over 175,000) were in Los Angeles, nearly 9% for that county. Yet the Datavote punchcards used in 14 other counties fared somewhat better, on average, than all of the optically scanned and touchscreen systems, with the exception of only the ES&S Optech Eagle (used in San Francisco and San Mateo counties) and the Diebold Accu-Vote-TS (used in Alameda, though with some reports of equipment malfunctions). The Sequoia Edge touchscreens, currently under litigation in Riverside County, performed slightly worse than the Datavote punchcards. The ES&S iVotronic touchscreens were ranked lowest of the three touchscreen types in the state, and were outperformed by all other systems with the exception of the Sequoia Optech optically scanned systems and the Pollstar and Votomatic punchcards. In earlier court battles prior to the recall election, the ACLU claimed that voters using punchcards would be unfairly disenfranchised, as compared to voters using optically scanned or touchscreen systems. As it turns out, the counties using Datavote punchcards had residual vote rates that were better than all but one of the optically scanned systems, and also lower than two of the three touchscreen systems. At the other end of the scale, the counties using Pollstar and Votomatic punchcards (which included heavily-populated Los Angeles) had worse residual vote rates than any other type of voting system in use in the state. "Clearly it is not the punchcards themselves that are to blame, since the Datavote systems demonstrate that punchcards can be used successfully." The residual vote technique was previously used by MIT/Caltech in their studies following the 2000 Presidential Election. For the California analysis, she performed her calculations by comparing the difference between the total number of ballots cast, as reported by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's office, with the total numbers of "yes" and "no" votes on the recall question. It should be noted that the residual vote tally is incapable of differentiating between a voter who deliberately or accidentally did not make a selection on the recall question, and an equipment failure (such as hanging chad) that could result in a cast vote not being counted. "The rush to fully computerized ballot casting is misguided. Although supplemental technologies are needed for disabled voters, there is no clear evidence that touchscreen systems are substantially or consistently better for use by the general population than other voting methods. The fact that the touchscreens in California do not provide any way to perform an independent recount, should make them less desirable than the paper-based systems that do have such capabilities. Counties, like San Francisco, that are doing well with optically scanned ballots, and the smaller ones that use punchcards effectively, should feel no pressure to modernize." Numbers represent residual vote rate as percentage of total votes cast on type or model of machine. Punchcard 6.24 Datavote 1.94 Pollstar 6.02 Votomatic 8.17 Optically Scanned 2.68 ES&S Eagle 1.87 Diebold Accu-Vote-OS 2.36 ES&S 550 and 560 2.42 Mark-A-Vote 3.04 Sequoia Optech 4.35 Touchscreen 1.49 Diebold Accu-Vote-TS 0.72 Sequoia Edge 2.01 ES&S iVotronic 3.49 Statewide 4.59 For further information, contact Rebecca Mercuri via telephone at 1-609/895-1375 or 1-215/327-7105, email mercuri () acm org and Internet at http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- California Recall Analysis Dave Farber (Oct 09)