As long as I'm collecting links to news stories, here are some about
attempts to block voter registration or otherwise intimidate or
discourage voters. States involved: Nevada, Florida,
Oregon, Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa.
Tags: politics, election04, elections, voting
[
23:07 Nov 02, 2004
More politics/election04 |
permalink to this entry |
]
I mentioned to someone the problems that have been showing up for a
week where voters think they've voted for one candidate, then
realize upon getting to the final review that the machine has
recorded votes for a different candidate, and discovered that
I didn't have handy links to any of those stories. So here's a
collection of stories from Texas and New Mexico:
Unfortunately the stories seldom say what type of touchscreen voting
machine was being used.
And keep in mind that changing
only a single vote per voting machine in the 2000 election could
have made a difference of 25 electoral votes, according to a
recent ACM study (which unfortunately isn't readable online unless
you're an ACM member).
Tags: politics, election04, elections, voting
[
22:43 Nov 02, 2004
More politics/election04 |
permalink to this entry |
]
BoingBoing seems to be slashdotted (probably not by slashdot) but
two other sites with excellent up-to-date news on election problems
are
E-Voting Experts,
covering reports of problems with touchscreen and optical scan
voting machines,
and
Equal Vote,
covering some of the legal challenges against voters, in states
such as Ohio and (of course) Florida.
Tags: politics, election04, elections, voting
[
14:07 Nov 02, 2004
More politics/election04 |
permalink to this entry |
]
I'm happy to report that voting with paper in my neighborhood was
surprisingly low hassle.
The registrar did not ask me whether I wanted paper, but when I
saw her circle "E" I hastily told her "I want a paper ballot".
She looked momentarily surprised, but recovered quickly, scribbled
over the "E" and marked "P". They didn't offer a pen, but I had
brought one so I didn't ask.
Then came the wait. They had four or five touchscreen machines,
but only one booth (made from a cardboard box) for paper voters,
already occupied. The ballot is long (in fact, there are two
paper ballots, each 2-sided) so it takes quite a while to finish it.
That was fine, because it gave me a chance to hear that they began
asking the people registering behind me whether they wanted paper
or electronic. They often had to explain the difference to voters
who had no idea what the options were, which didn't sound easy;
they were very patient about helping people understand the options
and didn't try to brush anyone off.
Roughly half of the people there chose paper.
Voting was straightforward except that the booth's ledge was very
low (for wheelchair access; the voter ahead of me was in a
wheelchair). I probably should have grabbed a chair.
While I was marking my paper ballot, I heard a woman who was having
a lot of trouble getting the touchscreen machine to work. The
pollworker worked with her for quite a while. I think they
eventually straightened it out; it sounded like maybe she had
to press really hard to get it to register her votes.
When I had finished, my ballot went straight into a box, no
provisional envelopes or anything like that. Paper voters get
a different sticker, not the new "I voted, touchscreen" sticker
(so I don't get to draw a circle-slash with a Sharpie like I'd
planned).
Reports I hear from other Santa Clara county voters: most have been
asked "electronic or paper?" and I haven't heard any reports of
provisional envelopes or other weirdness. Many who voted paper
report people voting outside booths; in one case no booth was
available, and paper voters sat at a folding table. There wasn't
much privacy on the machines either, though: they don't have much of
a wing to hide the screen from onlookers, so if you wanted to snoop
on someone's votes, it's not difficult.
All in all, I was pleased with how easy it was to vote with paper,
with the competence of the poll workers,
and with how many people chose the paper option.
Tags: politics, election04, elections, voting
[
12:44 Nov 02, 2004
More politics/election04 |
permalink to this entry |
]
BoingBoing
(the esteemed Cory Doctorow) already has coverage of some
of the problems people are encountering trying to vote here in
Santa Clara County (California) this morning.
Like the Vote
Save Error #9. Use the Backup Voting Procedure." message one
voter got when trying to use the touchscreens.
But about that backup voting procedure: it seems that even if you
can persuade them to give you a paper ballot (bring your own pen,
even though the Voter Information Guide specifically says on page
164 that after signing in at the polls the voter "receives a paper
ballot along with an approved marking device"), the ballots
cast on paper are being put in "provisional" envelopes,
yet without the identifying information on the envelope which is
used to approve provisional ballots. One really wonders if such
votes will be counted.
I wonder if it will be possible to get statistics after the fact for
the total number of paper ballots counted in each precinct (and how
many of them were provisional)? For comparison, I wish someone was
doing exit polls to get an idea of what percentage of people are
requesting paper ballots.
Meanwhile, Kelly Martin reports that in Cook County, Ill. voting
is no longer by secret ballot. Each ballot has a number on it
which is correlated with the voter's name.
One of the boingboing comments points out that voting problems should be
reported to voteproblem.org.
The EFF suggests using the Election Incident Reporting
System.
Stay tuned.
Tags: politics, election04, elections, voting
[
10:58 Nov 02, 2004
More politics/election04 |
permalink to this entry |
]