Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Machine Problems Worsened 2008 Voting Woes

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted November 13, 2008.


Voting machine issues and the confusion they caused compounded the delays faced by untold thousands of voters this fall.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The electronic voting problems in the 2008 election are broader than recently-publicized snafus such as machines not turning on, voter databases omitting names, or touch screens not properly recording votes, according to an analysis of 1,700 incident reports from the nation's largest voter hotline.

Moreover, the voting machine issues and the confusion they caused among poll workers appear to have compounded the delays faced by untold thousands of voters this fall, a preliminary analysis of 1-800-OUR-VOTE reports by Joseph Lorenzo Hall, a researcher at Princeton University and the University of California, has found.

"If we can do anything to improve the experience of the average voter facing a machine problem, it should be reduce the amount of time they spend in line," Hall wrote this week, adding that voters who had machine problems and got back-up paper ballots often were not confident that their votes would count.

"Another curious feature of the data is the voters' uniformly negative attitudes toward contingency or back-up plans," he said. "Voters are often upset and mistrustful."

Hall's analysis is one of the first assessments to look at electronic voting in the 2008 fall election. Many voting rights groups have said the biggest problems this year were inaccurate voter registration records, not enough early voting sites, and planning that did not accommodate high turnout. Hall's findings suggest that the voting machinery used exacerbated these very issues.

1700 Incident Reports

During early voting and on Election Day, the Election Protection Coalition, which had a volunteer staff of 10,000 lawyers, received calls via a national hotline, 1-866-OURVOTE. The calls were notated, categorized and posted on OurVoteLive.org. Of 86,000 calls received this fall, about 1,900 -- or 2.2 percent -- were about the machines. Two-thirds were registration and polling place inquiries.

There were 1,700 incidents after eliminating duplicates, Hall said. These calls generally did not involve problems encountered later Tuesday night during the vote count, he said in an e-mail. In contrast, the Democratic National Committee's election protection team monitoring machine issues, including the count, recorded "thousands" of incidents, a volunteer on that team said.

The most common voter hotline complaints were "about broken machinery, long lines, long waits to vote and reports of emergency ballots being used instead of the normal mode of voting," Hall said. "However, there are some interesting features from these reports."

Machine breakdowns and electronic poll book bottlenecks -- where voters check in before voting -- lead to many delays, Hall said. He cited a report from Atlanta where all 15 voting machines in a polling place had stopped working, and a New York City report of one poll book for hundreds of voters. A shortage of e-poll book laptops was reported in Georgia, while in Maryland poll workers could not get their electronic voting systems up and running, he said, citing typical complaints.

One surprise, Hall said, was that the delays in voting did not just come with checking in voters -- but with voters wanting to run their ballots through vote-count scanners. "We have reports of people waiting in line for 3 hours in New Jersey, 3.5 hours in Georgia, 5 hours in Ohio, 6 hours in Missouri," he said. "In many cases, long lines were exacerbated by voters insisting on feeding their own ballot into an optical scan machine, despite it taking a long time to service or replace the affected equipment."

Hall said he was "very encouraged to see that in most cases, emergency ballots were available," though he noted that in Virginia some precincts ran out of back-up ballots. "What I didn't count on was that voters consider voting via an emergency ballot to be fundamentally suspect; that is, most were worried that their vote wouldn't count if cast via emergency ballot."

Poll workers compounded this issue, he said, by confusing back-up and provisional ballots. The latter are used for unlisted voters and must be verified to count.

"We saw cases in at least two states where poll workers were refusing to hand out emergency ballots despite significant machine failures," he said referring to New York and Pennsylvania. "In one case a caller claimed that voters in line were "fighting with poll workers" over emergency ballots," he said. In addition, some voters were upset their vote was not secret because election officials could see their backup ballots.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: election intergity, election protection coali, election protection incid, 1-866-our-vote, joseph lorenzo hall

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and author of Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting (AlterNet Books, 2008).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ElectionAd
Posted by: ElectionAd on Nov 14, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One must take with a grain of salt the accuracy of the 1,700 incident reports noted in the column. As a state administrator we received their e-mail alerts (from the meida) during the day on Tuesday and found many did not check out at all and other were grossly exaggerated. A two minute paper jam is reported as a tabulator out of service.

I applaud their efforts, but not their conclusions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dipconsult
Posted by: dipconsult on Nov 21, 2008 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely the solution is to return to paper ballots and count them in public? In many cases it is clear that would actually save time in producing the result. And getting rid of machines would vastly increase voter confidence so essential to democracy(and thereby also save time).

And would it not be best if all federal elections were held under federal rules?

(our website www.dipconsult.eu details the disastrous worldwide results for us Europeans as well as for Americans of the 2000 elections and of the way they were held and their oucome decided)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't believe that people are ignoring the obvious
Posted by: eridani on Nov 21, 2008 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quite a few of the lines are caused by the very nature of DRE machines. I was a pollworker at a site with a DRE option (one machine) for disabled people, and the paper poll-scanned ballots that most people used despite the fact that we were instructed to offer the DRE option. People took one look at the DRE line and another look at people filling out ballots in 16 privacy booths and other available flat surfaces and quickly realized that if they wanted to get out in a reasonable amount of time, paper was the only option.

I refused to notify voters of the DRE option unless I could see that the machine was open, n the grounds that you'd have to be an grade A jerk to do something analogous to using the restroom stall with the large door and grab bars if you didn't need it.

I can't see why anybody who does even a cursory examination of the whole voting process would think even for two seconds that DREs are a good idea. They conflate the sometimes very slow act of voting with the very fast act of tabulation. Why in bleeding hell would anybody think that chaining a process taking 2 to 15 minutes to a process taking a millisecond is a good idea? Lines at polling places were long because of that fact. If it isn't worth doing at all, it isn't worth doing well, sez I.

Our poll scanner had no problems, but if it did we would have just collected the ballots and turned them in to be processed with the mail-in absentee votes (70% of the total vote to begin with in Washington State).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]