Verified Voting Logo
Edit Your PreferencesContact VerifiedVoting.orgAbout VerifiedVoting.org
Verified Voting HomeJoin - Help us do this work!Donate - Help us do this work!Take Action Today!Endorse the resolution!
Printer Friendly Version
Site Map

See information for:

The Verified Voting Foundation engages in educational activities permitted by IRC Section 501(c)(3). Please visit VerifiedVoting.org for info about 501(c)(4) lobbying activities. You can also visit Vote Trust USA, a project of the Verified Voting Foundation.

E-Mail This Page

Home   »  National: The Coming Paper-Trail ...


National: The Coming Paper-Trail Debacle? (analysis)

by Dan Seligsonelectionline.org
August 18th, 2006

A 240-page report on failures and foibles during Cuyahoga County's May primary raised more questions about the accuracy and reliability of touch-screen voting machines which researchers say failed to match up electronic ballots to paper versions of the vote.

Perhaps equally significant - and noteworthy - are the details of the considerable woes that plagued the voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) system through careless election administration, printer failures or both.

Buried some 93 pages into the report, which was commissioned by county leaders and produced by the San Francisco-based Election Science Institute, are details of errors that included poll workers loading thermal paper into VVPAT printers backwards, blank audit trails, "accordion-style" crumpling of ballots, long blank spaces between ballots that could have represented missing or unprinted VVPATs, torn and taped-together VVPATs and missing ballot text.

ESI researchers found that nearly 10 percent of VVPAT ballots sampled were in some way compromised, damaged or otherwise uncountable, an alarmingly high proportion for a state that requires that paper be used as the ballot of record in the event of a recount.

That led ESI to the ominous conclusion that "in the event of a recount or election contest, the risk of legal challenges is exceptionally high if no significant modifications are made to the current election system."

"The VVPAT is only as reliable as the administration of the system that produces the paper trail," said Tracy Warren, the ESI researcher who led the manual VVPAT recount.

Warren said she hoped the ESI findings would be "immensely valuable" in helping jurisdictions - and particularly Cuyahoga County - avoid future mishaps in administrating votes using VVPAT systems.

Diebold Election Systems, the company that produces the TSx voting system used in Cuyahoga and widely throughout the rest of Ohio, saw the report differently.

In a letter to the Cuyahoga County Commissioners, Michael Lindroos, Diebold's vice president and counsel, wrote that the report was "inaccurate and the result of an erroneous and misleading investigation that is clearly false."

Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio's secretary of state and Republican nominee for governor, said in press reports that it would similarly be "irresponsible to summarily dismiss any of their findings, and it would be equally irresponsible to sound alarms about the accuracy and effectiveness of this equipment."

Diebold spokesman David Bear said most of the problems with Cuyahoga's paper trails were caused by poll worker mistakes, with poor training as the primary culprit.

"Obviously it reflects poorly on the company and the county," Bear said. "But the main concern is that you lessen the likelihood of that occurring. The things that we can do are to lessen the likelihood of problems with design. The other issue is that you have to beef up training. We work extremely hard with jurisdictions to help them make sure their training is at as high a level as possible."

Bear said successful elections using the same equipment in other Ohio counties and outside of the state suggest "they're not too difficult. It's an issue of familiarity."

Increasing training will be critical as more states adopt rules requiring paper trails. The latest count by electionline.org found 23 states require the use of VVPATs. Four other states require paper-based systems.

Michael Vu, Cuyahoga County's embattled election director, said while problems certainly occurred, there are safeguards in place. For example, misprinted or unprinted VVPATs could be reproduced from a machine's memory. However, he acknowledged a paper version of the electronic record would not qualify necessarily as an independent, voter-verified ballot.

"Certainly there's the redundancy issue," he said. "But at least no votes are being lost."

Vu said he was moving ahead with more training for election-day technicians as well as poll workers in advance of the November vote. And he sounded at least cautiously optimistic that lost, damaged or otherwise uncountable VVPATs would not cause a Florida-esque meltdown with blank thermal paper spools becoming the new hanging chad.

"I think there are a number of ways problems can be resolved," he said. "One is training, two there is a mechanism confirmed by the secretary of state in place that resolves any situation that we come across, like when a paper trail is put in backwards. It's not a perfect system, but neither was the punch card or optical scan system."

To critics, the high percentage of damaged or uncountable VVPATs damaged rated as significantly worse than 'imperfect."

"Ten percent is a complete disaster and totally defeats the purpose of a VVPAT," said David Dill, a Stanford University computer science professor and founder of Verified Voting. "You can blame it on poll worker training, but there are ways to design equipment that makes user error less likely. There are indications that Diebold has done a less than adequate job in design. The company has adopted a generally reluctant and unenthusiastic stance to paper trails and it shows in the design."

The answer to VVPAT problems, Dill said, would be precinct-counted optical-scan units.

"There are fewer questions about it," he said. "We know with appropriate care and poll worker training, we can run a good election on optical scan."

Announcements

NJ Judge Issues Mixed Order on Use of E-voting Machines
Ruling Issued in Rutgers–Newark Law School’s Constitutional Litigation Clinic Challenge to NJ's Electronic Voting Machines
Holt Statement on NJ Court Decision on Paper Ballots
Internet Voting, Still in Beta
MD: State elections head says new voting system costly, not effective
Coalition Supports Improvements for Troop Voting; Rejects Risky Internet Ballot Proposals
WV: The Internet is not a secure-enough platform for overseas voters
Maryland needs secure, verifiable voting system
TN: Voters need confidence in electoral process
Election Technology Leaders Launch "The Power To MOVE"
Patrick OKs expanded benefits for veterans
Plaintiffs Comment on Court Order regarding TN Voter Confidence Act
Security expert: no way to secure Internet voting
E-voting system lets voters verify their ballots are counted
Justice Department Probing Diebold Sale
In Industry First, Voting Machine Company to Publish Source Code
TN: State Division Of Elections Hosts Meeting On Optical Scan Voting
Verified Voting Statement on the Acquisition of Premier Election Solutions
Common Cause Tennessee Takes Legal Action to Protect Voters
Advocates warn of voting-machine 'monopoly'

Get E-Mail Alerts




Important Links

  • Election Workers: Take our 2008 Election Worker Survey
  • Election Day Problems?
    Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE
  • Find Your Polling Place: Vote411.org
  • Questions? Contact Us
  • Vote Trust USA - national resource for state-based organizations supporting verifiable elections, a Verified Voting Foundation project


  • "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question." (more here)

    Kevin Shelley, former
    California Sec. of State





    Verified Voting Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.

    © Copyright 2008, Verified Voting Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved, although reprint permission granted for nonprofit purposes with attribution to Verified Voting Foundation, Inc.


    Privacy    Site Map