[ExI] FW: elections again (with new analysis)

[Joshua Cowan]

Below is an editorial from the NY Times advocating the quick passage of a 
bill for "upgrading to paper based system".  In the editorial they mention 
that there have been documented cases of "flipping" where votes for one 
candidate go to another and vice versa. On another note, NH law states that 
a candidate can ask for a recount but they have to pay for it themselves. 
Not surprisingly, Kucinich hasn't chosen to pay for a state wide recount.

Josh


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/opinion/16wed1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

A Quick Fix for Electronic Voting

Published: January 16, 2008

When Americans go to the polls in November, many will likely have to cast 
their ballots on unreliable paperless electronic voting machines. If the 
election is close, the country could end up with a rerun of 2000’s bitterly 
contentious and mistrusted count. In an effort to avoid another such 
disaster, Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, plans to 
introduce a bill this week that would help address the weaknesses in 
electronic voting. Congress should pass it without delay.

The flaws of electronic voting machines have been thoroughly documented by 
academic studies and by voters’ experiences. The machines are far too 
vulnerable to hacking that could change the outcomes of elections. They are 
also so prone to mechanical error and breakdown that there is no way to be 
sure that the totals they report are correct. In some cases, these machines 
have been known to “flip” votes — award votes cast for one candidate to an 
opponent.

The solution is for all votes to be recorded on paper records. Voters can 
then verify that their choice has been accurately reflected — and the paper 
record can be used as a backup for the electronic machines. Whenever votes 
are tallied on electronic machines, there should be an audit of paper 
records as a check on the electronic results. If the paper totals do not 
match the electronic tallies, something has clearly gone wrong — and the 
tally of the paper ballots can be treated as the official one.

As voters have learned about the problems with electronic voting, they have 
sensibly pressed their representatives to adopt laws requiring 
voter-verified paper records. Most states, including New York, Ohio and 
California have now done so. Mr. Holt’s bill would make money available on 
an expedited basis — in time for this year’s election — for jurisdictions 
that still have not.

In addition to money for upgrading to paper-based voting, the bill would 
provide funds to conduct audits of paper records. It rightly prods 
jurisdictions to adopt optical-scan voting, in which ballots are marked by 
hand, much like a standardized test, and then fed into a computer for 
tabulation. Optical scans are the most reliable, efficient and 
cost-effective technology available. The bill also allows jurisdictions to 
use the money to switch to simple paper ballots that are counted by hand.

Because the bill is opt-in — it does not force any jurisdiction to make 
changes — it has not drawn the entrenched opposition from local election 
officials that mandatory paper-record bills have met. The ultimate solution 
to the problem of electronic voting is a national law requiring 
voter-verified paper records, something Congress has been inexcusably slow 
in adopting. As a temporary measure, however, Mr. Holt’s legislation is a 
good step forward.

Time to upgrade voting machines before this year’s presidential election is 
short, but it is not yet too late. Congress should pass the Holt bill 
quickly. In the meantime, eligible states and localities should prepare to 
apply for the money and to put in place voting systems that voters can 
trust.