« Voting Machine Demo Today! | Main | Governor Questioned on HB213 »
Voting Machine Report
The Tribune and Deseret News both had articles on yesterday’s voting machine demo:
Joe Fullmer went to the demo and sent in this report:
I tested an optical scanner and a touch screen.
Optical Scanner
I tried various ways to determine effectiveness, with bad marks, etc. When I scanned in the ballot the first time, the screen told me there were THREE unreadable marks, “Including Race #K”. It spit the ballot back out and I corrected ONE of the unreadable marks (the one that for race #K indicated on the screen). I fed it in again, and this time it told me that there was ONE unreadable mark. So much for consistency!
I marked one race as write-in and left the name blank. I left the bubble blank for another race, but wrote in a write-in name. The optical scanner did not complain about this at all. I do not even know if the write-in that I wrote a name in but did not mark the bubble for is counted or not.
Also, I left one race entirely blank to see if the machine would provide a warning as the individual manning the station verbally told me it would. It did not. She noticed this, with a somewhat quizical/concerned look on her face.
Clearly, in the survey taken after testing this machine, I indicated I “Strongly Disagree” that I was confident that my vote was accurately recorded.
Touch Screen
The touch screen was much better. It prevented some concerns with the optical scanner, such as poorly marked races, or marking a write-in and then forgetting to write in the individual, or writing in an individual but not marking the bubble. I did discover a point of confusion/conflict between behavior and described behavior. I marked a Straight Party ticket, which automatically checks the candidates for that party on all the races, and then changed some of the races. At the “Review” screen you can touch any race to change it. I changed the Straight Party selection from one party to another. The screen gave instructions indicating that All Candidates from the Straight Party originally chosen would be changed to the Newly chosen Straight Party, but that any races that I had changed to another party’s candidates would remain unchanged. I found this to NOT be technically true. On one race, I had changed a selection, and then changed it back to the party of the Straight Ticket choice. When I changed the Straight Party, that race did not get updated to the new Straight Party choice, it kept the candidate I had deliberately selected for that race, even tho it matched the party of the original Straight Party ticket. Whether this is correct behavior or not could be debated, but it did NOT match the textual instructions telling me what would happen, which could cause confusion and indeed even accidentally voting different than you intended.
I suppose either answer to the question of whether those deliberately chosen races which match the Straight Party choice should be updated along with non-deliberately chosen races (where the choice is defaulting to the straight party choice) could result in unexpected behavior and confusion.
I wrote on the survey for this machine that I was more confident than with the optical scanner, but I am not confident with *any* scheme that doesn’t have a physical, printed copy component.
Citizen Open-source Advocate
At the beginning of the line, there was a concerned citizen handing out a two-page flyer on Open-Source systems, and talking to people about problems with the proposed systems.
Initial Survey
About half-way through the line, people were given a survey to fill out. The validity of one of the questions is compromised. The question asked: When was the last time you voted? There were several choices, including 2004 Primary Election. However, they somehow slipped up and didn’t put 2004 General Election on! People had to write it in to the “Other” space, and the people handing out the survery were not consistently telling people of this.
Another question on the survey was about one’s political leanings with 8 bubbles to fill in. The Leftmost bubble, numbered 1 had the text “Strongly Democrat” above it. Then 2 and 3 had no text above. 4 in the middle had “Independent”, then 5 and 6 with no text, then 7 had “Strongly Republican”. Then there was 8 Other with a space to write in. It made me ponder where someone from the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party would put themselves? #4 for “Independent”? But then, does that imply that they are somewhere in the middle of Democrats and Republicans? What would 2, 3, 5, and 6 represent? It clearly seems to be an implied ‘spectrum’ with Independents being smack dab in the middle of Democrats and Republicans. Seems dismissive of those further right or left such as Socialists or Libertarians. That’s OK, tho, I guess, because there’s the “Other” space to write in. But it seemed a clear indication of basic assumptions about the two-party system and which are ‘legitimate’ parties. (Not necessarily of just the State, but of our society as a whole).
Demo definitely by State
While waiting in line, one of the staff operating the demo stations loudly stated several times to the entire line, as if trying to allay fears that anyone might have, that this demo was being staged by the State, NOT by a private corporation.
Only Two Companies
Later in the line a lady standing behind me asked a staffer about the citizen passing out the Open-Source info flyer. The response at first was “I’ve never heard of this”. But then as the conversation went on, she seemingly dismissively stated, “The State is running this demo, not a private business. This (signaling the open-source flyer) is a private business.” The state put out an RFP and only two business applied. They had their opportunity.” (paraphrased)
Posted by windley on March 31, 2005 09:12 AM
