The Problems with Vote Centers

This article is to address the push for Vote Centers. Any jurisdictions considering Vote Centers must be warned that they run an increased risk for voting machine malfunction and error and an increased risk for fraud. Officials also must consider the impact on vulnerable populations when their neighborhood polling places are eliminated.

Some readers may not be aware of or even believe in the problems with electronic voting. Please visit this link for this sortable database of voting systems problems, failures, malfunctions etc in the United States. You only need to glance at it to get the picture.

The bar has been set very low for voting machines and their vendors. These voting machines are not “ATM” quality! And we voters do not hold “accounts” with which to check our “vote” account, either, due to the secrecy of the ballot. While computers count quickly, they also suffer from “garbage in, garbage out” syndrome, and exponentially increase the risk of error, malfunction and fraud.

Its shocking but true that the machines sold in just 2006 have technology that is over a decade out of date. It is truly shocking to know that the machines in use in the United States are considered to meet federal standards as long as they do not exceed a 9.2% failure rate in a 15-hour election day.

So one reason not to push for vote centers is that they would require these same machines to run day after day, increasing the likelihood of problems.

But lets say that YOU don’t believe the computer scientists or activists like me when I say we need to minimize our exposure on these machines.

Lets say – that you DO care about the voters, especially the vulnerable segments of the population. Say you think voting should be fair to the elderly sick or poor….Then if so, please read on:

Vote Centers do not “add” to choices for voters, but instead reduce choices for voters.

To pay for Vote Centers, sacrifices are made: Which precincts will be eliminated? Who decides? The number of voting locations and voting machines are cut by as much as 66% or more. Neighborhood election day precincts are often eliminated.

Certain segments of the population have a bigger burden in trying to exercise their right to vote. Vote Centers or Super Precincts don’t serve the voter’s needs or the precise requirements for democratic elections — transparency being one of them. Vote Centers remove places from the neighborhood locations where voters without the means can have easier access.

With Vote Centers, you will see as many as 10,000 votes concentrated at one location, making it easier to commit fraud on a large scale in one fell swoop. The smaller neighborhood polling places offer a buffer against election fraud by keeping the number of votes in one location down to an average of 3,000 ballots or fewer. Voting machine malfunction or a rogue election worker can affect far fewer votes in a neighborhood precinct than in a consolidated vote center.

Larimer County, Colorado is an example of how vote centers can disenfranchise large numbers of people when just one thing goes wrong:

Rocky Mountain News: Elections Nov. 7, 2006. Voters at many of the city’s new 55 voting centers have been encountering long lines, computer problems and an inadequate number of computers to check proof

If the goal is to improve access to voting, then the best solution is to offer a 2 week period of early voting which ceases the week-end before election day, and to continue with neighborhood polling places on election day. This provides the best of both worlds, without creating a barrier to voting for the elderly and poor, and without exposing extremely large numbers of votes to software malfunctions and fraud.
See http://www.ncvoter.net/votecenters.html

1. Will Vote Centers be on private property, and if so, a) how will voting machines be secured, and b) will electioneering be allowed?

2. How will the poor, elderly, or sick or those with transportation issues get to the vote centers? Do you know what a bus ride across town is like, since vote centers end up being across town. It can take a person hours to get across town and back, and then there’s the wait in line.

3. What is the backup plan in the event of a Larimer County style meltdown?

I wouldn’t expect these Vote Centers to be very busy during small elections, but in General Elections and especially Presidential (the one more voters pay attention to) alot can go wrong and the lines will be a mess.

Will your county provide some sort of transportation for voters that won’t take hours out of their day? Often it is the poor who can’t miss any work time, they won’t get reimbursed.

And when all of your neighborhood polling places are eliminated, who decides where the vote centers will be?

If the goal is to enfranchise the most voters in the fairest way possible, Vote Centers do not meet the goal.

Hendersonville Instant runoff voting in Nov - Will your vote be counted? Surprising answer

Will Hendersonville voters' instant runoff votes in the November election count or even be counted? Does Hendersonville's IRV counting method rob some voters of their say in the runoff? How will Hendersonville North Carolina tally the upcoming instant runoff voting election for Mayor and City Council? Will voters understand how votes are sorted, allocated and reallocated? Will voters help or hurt their favorite candidate by ranking choices? The answers are discouraging if you care about every vote counting, about election integrity, transparency and about fairness to voters.

I sent an email to Henderson County's Board of Elections to find out: what votes will be counted and reported, which IRV votes will be counted, and how will the IRV votes be counted and reported? Henderson BoE Director Beverly Cunningham promptly provided these answers below in 2 emails on October 16, see lower down the page.

The answer -not all Instant runoff votes get counted. It is a fact that some or all 2nd and 3rd choice votes cast will be kept secret and hidden from the public and never counted. Just because second and third round votes are not needed or utilized in determining an outcome does not mean that they were not cast by a voter. It is a bad practice for government to keep any expression by voters secret.

If there is a winner in the first round of voting, then officials will not count or even report the voters 2nd and 3rd choice votes. If there is not a winner in the first round, then only votes for the top two candidates will be considered from the 2nd round. 2nd choice votes for any other candidates will not be counted or reported.

Not only will candidates and voters be in the dark as to how much support each candidate got, but voters will not be able to look at the results and see if they hurt or helped their preferred candidates by ranking. It is a fact that Hendersonville voters can hurt their preferred candidates just by ranking them, according to Dr. Steven Brams of New York University. But if Henderson's Board of Elections does not count and report all 2nd and 3rd choice votes, we have no way to know if this happens.

Nothing about how Hendersonville's election is typical of IRV - IRV is for single seat election contests, Hendersonville is using it for multi-seat elections and thwarting the use of bullet voting also called "single shot" voting.

Downsides with Hendersonville's Instant runoff voting procedures:

1. Voters are handicapped by IRV because they do not know who the top 2 candidates are that they should vote for, so there vote might not count in the "instant runoff". In a traditional runoff, voters would all have an equal opportunity to vote for the runoff candidates.

2. Candidates, supporters and IRV advocates will not know how IRV benefited or hindered their 2nd and 3rd choice votes since Henderson's BoE doesn't plan to count or report these votes. Democracy and transparency are weakened when all votes are not counted.

Most IRV jurisdictions count and report all of the voters choices. Only Hendersonville, NC will not do so. Below is an example of how San Francisco reports all of the vote data:

Henderson BoE Director Beverly Cunningham 2 emails on October 16:

1) In Hendersonville's 2007 IRV election, did the Henderson County BoE count or record or report any of the 2nd or 3rd choice votes? No, we stop counting when a threshold of victory is met.

2) What plans does the Henderson County Board of Elections have in order to count, record and report the 2nd and 3rd choice votes for the 2009 IRV election? I understand we will follow the same procedures as explained in No. 1).

3) In the 2009 IRV election, which if any of the 2nd and 3rd choice votes will be publicly reported and or counted? Only votes needed to determine the threshold of victory will be reported.

4) Provide the method, algorithm and spreadsheet that will be used to report and tally the IRV results. Still waiting on state to provide info.

5) Provide the "rules" to sorting and re-allocating the IRV 2nd and 3rd choice votes. (this is a second request) Still waiting on state to provide info.

Beverly W. Cunningham, Director
Henderson County Board of Elections
828 697 4970

Email 2, info requests continued:

4) Provide the method, algorithm and spreadsheet that will be used to report and tally the IRV results. The method of tabulation is a manual process utilizing Microsoft Excel to augment the sorting and totaling.

5) Provide the "rules" to sorting and re-allocating the IRV 2nd and 3rd choice votes.

1. Tabulation

o Determine the two (2) candidates with the most votes that are in the instant runoff.
o The candidates retain all the votes from the 1st round of tabulation. All ballots for the contest that have votes for candidates in the runoff are removed from the tabulation (they have
already been tabulated).
o Review (2nd Choice) to determine ifthere is a vote for either runoff candidate. If yes, add the vote to therunoff candidate and no further examination of the ballot is necessary.
o If there is no vote for either runoff candidate in (2ndChoice) then
review (3rd Choice) to determine if there is a vote for a runoff candidate.
If yes, add the vote to the runoff candidate and no further examination of the ballot is necessary.
o End of ballot examination. The runoff candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.

Beverly W. Cunningham,Director
Henderson County Board of Elections
828 697 4970

Hendersonville Contests and Candidates for November IRV election:

CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE MAYOR
Timm Kurtz
Mary Jo Padgett
Barbara G. Volk

CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE COUNCIL
Diane Caldwell
Jeff Collis
Ralph Freeman
Jerry Smith
Ron Stephens

Want to see what Hendersonville's ballot will look like?

If you vote in person, you will cast your ballot on a touchscreen machine. Here are screen shots of that ballot. Its easy to see how confusing the ballot would be when presented on a touchscreen machine.

If you cast an absentee by mail ballot, here is a copy of the paper ballot and some information: CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE w/ Instant Runoff Voting

About us: The North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting is a grassroots non-partisan organization fighting for clean and verified elections. We study and research the issue of voting to ensure the dignity and integrity of the intention of each voting citizen. The NC Voter Verified Coalition has consistently fought for increasing access, participation and ensuring the voter franchise. Contact Joyce McCloy, Director, N.C. Coalition for Verifiable Voting - phone 336-794-1240 website http://www.ncvoter.net/ and also http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/

FVAP recommends 4 changes to NC law to help overseas military voters

Four good ideas, one really bad one. A Federal agency is recommending four changes to North Carolina law to help our overseas military vote. The Federal Voting Assistance Program also endorses having troops send voted ballots by "unsecure electronic means" as long as the troops volunteer.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program has recommended four changes:

1. Expanded Use of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot,
2. Participation with Uniform Law Commission Effort and Adoption of Recommendations,
3. Removal of Notarization and Witnessing Requirements...
4. Enfranchise Citizens, Who Have Never Resided in the U.S.

In the meanwhile, the NC State Board of Elections is seeking ways to immediately help our military voters. On Oct 8, 2009, the NC SBoE recently sent a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Defense, Robert Gates asking the DoD to designate the DOD as a voter registration agency in our state.

Details of The Federal Voting Assistance Program Recommendations
FVAP recommendations are in this letter dated Oct 7. See excerpts below, and note that a long term goal is to transmit voted ballots electronically :

Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) letter to North Carolina State Board of Elections, dated October 7, 2009

Given our new focus, FVAP is realigning in Legislative Initiative recommendations to the States. The enclosed initiatives focus on sending ballots to voters at least 45 days before the election. FVAP also recommends the expanded use of email and online retransmission for all election materials throughout the entire absentee voting process, replacing fax and postal mail where possible. Until secure electronic transmission of voted ballots has been established, we recommend that States allow voters to return static copies of voted ballots through available electronic means. However, the decision to send a voted ballot by unsecure electronic means must rest with the individual voter based on the voter's desire to cast his or her vote electronically or to ensure the secrecy of their ballot.

Email and online capabilities are widely available to Uniformed Service members and overseas citizens, vastly eclipsing the usefulness of faxing. After a September 2008 visit to military bases in the Middle East, Asia and Europe, a delegation of six State Chief Election Officials reported that "the system of delivering ballots and returning them by mail is archaic compared to the pace of modern military operations" and "...reliance on fax machines to speed the voting process....is largely unworkable for deployed troops." The delegation also reported that individual service members and overseas citizens confirmed that in overseas locales fax capabilities were not readily available and "indicated a strong preference for, and almost universal access to, email or internet based voting procedures."

We realize that universal adoption of email and online applications to deliver voting materials will not happen immediately, as State governments must engage the legislative and policy decision making process to implement such changes (that is also why, for the first time, FVAP is sending this letter to both the State Chief Election Officer and the leaders of State legislative chambers, in recognition of the role of both branches of government play in resolving these problems). In the interim, FVAP will encourage and assist Uniformed Service and overseas voters to greatly increase the use of the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot (FWAB). Given the inherent delays in sending ballots by mail, the FWAB represents the only ballot readily available for many of these voters. Therefore, FVAP recommends that States expand its use to include simultaneous registration, ballot request, and voted absentee ballot for all elections at all levels: general, primary, special, and runoff elections for Federal, State, and local offices. In expanding the use of the FWAB in this manner, individually developed State Write-In Ballots will no standardize the "emergency ballot" process for these voters, reduce confusion as to which form to use, and allow election officials to focus their education on one form and its processes.

Additionally, FVAP strongly supports standardizing the voting process for Uniformed Services and overseas voters across all States...
...
This year, FVAP evaluated its legislative initiatives with regard to the impact they have on absentee voting by uniformed service members and overseas citizens, as both separate populations and collectively. FVAP sorted these initiatives according to the degree which each affected these populations. That analysis indicated that three initiatives provided the most benefit to the voters: 45 day ballot transit time prior to the election, the use of electronic transmission, and expanding the use of the Federal Write-In Absentee ballot to include, in addition to general elections, primary, run-off and special elections for federal, State and local offices. These three initiatives, therefore, received the highest weighting, totaling 8-%. Based upon this weighted measure, FVAP is providing a State-by-State score representing FVAP's success in convincing States to adopt our legislative initiatives.

...North Carolina's score is 71.5%.
.....
After reviewing North Carolina's existing election code and procedures, we have identified four initiatives for your legislature to consider during the upcoming legislative session. These Initiatives are discussed in detail with suggested working in the enclosed Legislative Initiatives document. Information available to FVAP indicates that there are 32,718 Uniformed Service members, an estimated 78,832 family members of voting age, and approximately 116,200 overseas citizens who claim North Carolina as their voting residence....

2010 Legislative Initiatives

Expanded Use of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot
...
...the FWAB should be accepted simultaneously as a voter registration application, absentee ballot request, and absentee ballot. This provision will allow highly mobile population to participate in elections far in advance of a deployment, reassignment or move. Finally, FVAP is recommending a new policy that the FWAB be the only write-in ballot used for Uniformed Services and overseas voters, the authorization and use of both a FWAB and a State Write-In Absentee Ballot introduces greater complexity and opportunity for error for Uniformed Services and overseas voters. Using the single FWAB will allow future technological solution by FVAP to incorporate State and local races into online FWAB solutions, further extending this franchise opportunity.
...
Participation with Uniform Law Commission Effort and Adoption of Recommendations

The Uniform Law Commission (ULC) is drafting the "Military Services and Overseas Civilian Absentee Voting Act" to be presented for future adoption by the States. FVAP
...
Uniformity and standardization of voting laws for the Uniformed Services and overseas voters would substantially ease the burden of compliance and improve voter success. Furthermore, FVAP recommends that the State Chief Election Official work closely with the State legislative body to enact the Act when it is presented to the
States for adoption. ...

Removal of Notarization and Witnessing Requirements
...
Enfranchise Citizens Who Have Never Resided in the U.S.
...
Many U.S. citizens, who have never resided in a State or territory, are not entitled to vote under current State law. These citizens are voting age children of U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote under UOCAVA themselves...

complete letter here
(pdf)

Letter to DOD, help us help troops vote says North Carolina State Board of Elections

Our overseas troops need help voting, and the North Carolina State Board of Elections is seeking options.

Election boards wonder if military ballots are too costly Saturday, September 26, 2009 By Gerald Witt Staff Writer GREENSBORO — An overwhelming majority of military and overseas voters did not return ballots to the United States in 2006, costing local election offices staff time and money

According to the Overseas Vote Foundation:

"The number one reason that many overseas and military citizens are unable to vote is missed registration and ballot request deadlines."

The North Carolina State Board of Elections is doing what it can right now to address the issue of military voter registration and voting.

On Oct 8, 2009 the NC State Board of Elections sent a letter to Robert Gates, Secretary of DOD enlisting their cooperation. An excerpt:

"I request that the Department of Defense, in its operation of military pay/personnel offices in North Carolina, agree to be designated as a voter registration agency. This designation would allow military citizens helped by your agency to be offered the same voter registration services given by state and county public services agencies to the persons they serve. "

The State BoE is also offering help and materials in order to do this.

Their solution, if implemented - will help alleviate some of the problems military voters have in voting. Troops can more easily keep their voter registration updated and get help in obtaining a ballot and getting that ballot returned.

One big problem for troops is that they move around frequently, their registrations are not updated, and we keep sending ballots to the old addresses.

This makes sense. North Carolina enforced Section 7 of the Voting Rights Act more vigorously in 2008, resulting in government agencies assisting increased numbers of their clients in registering to vote.

It is efforts like these, often successful ones, that make me appreciate our officials at the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

ES&S back like a bad penny in Sarasota County Florida

ES&S is back like a bad penny in Sarasota County. The ES&S purchase of Diebold is causing Sarasota officials major heartburn. The county ditched ES&S as a vendor in the wake of the disastrous 18,000 undervotes in the 13th Congressional District race in 2006. That same year, a referendum to ditch the paperless voting machines was passed. ES&S was thrown out even though they were the lowest bid for new paper ballot systems.
It looks like Sarasota is stuck with ES&S, but are they stuck with Kathy Dent?

3 years after vote furor, machine vendor is back
MERGER: ES&S, once again the provider in Sarasota, now dominates the field
By Doug Sword September 24, 2009 at 1:00 a.m.
Two years after being shown the door for its role in an election that local officials would just as soon forget, voting machine maker ES&S is once again overseeing the system Sarasota County residents will use to cast their votes. ...Opposition locally, though, is less legal and more emotional, stemming from the role of the ES&S iVotronic voting system in the disputed November 2006 election.

Feelings toward the company among locals has not changed much since July 2007 when county commissioners, still smarting from the controversy over the 18,000 undervotes in the 13th Congressional District race in 2006, replaced ES&S with Diebold, which later changed its name to Premier.

Sarasota should have ditched the Elections Supervisor, Kathy Dent, instead of or along with the vendor. All voting systems have bugs, and Dent was warned in plenty of time, and what did she do to protect voters? If that had happened in our state, it is quite possible Dent would have been relieved of her job.

The vendor had warned Election Supervisor Kathy Dent ahead of time of issues that might cause problems voting.

ES&S sent a "software bug" memo to Florida SOEs in August of 2006 that there was a problem with a "smoothing filter" that would possibly delay the recording of the voter's selections. This delay would be longer than expected, and the voter might move on before the vote was recorded.

ES&S recommended putting signs in the voting booths to warn voters, and also recommended a "software patch" prior to the November election.

I do not know if all or any Florida machines ever received that patch, or if the patch was distributed, if it was put on every single voting machine. Further, if the patch was applied, was it tested? Did it work uniformly on all machines, including those that were ADA enabled?

See the memo that ES&S sent Kathy Dent, here: http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/ESS_Aug_2006_iVotronic_FL_memo.pdf

If ballot style was the sole cause of FL 13 undervote, then we in North Carolina should have had far worse problems in our iVotronic counties.

Here is Sarasota FL 13's ballot http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/sarasota_ballot_style.pdf

Now take a look at what appears to be a more confusing ballot style
for Mecklenburg County NC, the NC 08 ballot:
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Mecklenburg_2006_ballot.pdf
(notice the nearly hidden placement of the US congressional race?)
Meckelnburg had a 4 % undervote rate for that contest.

Here is a memo from the NC State Board of Elections explaining the differences in NC iVotronics and the FL iVotronics, as well as a ballot comparison:
http://www.ncvoter.net/downloads/Sarasota_NC_Ballot_Comparison_06.pdf