2008 Woodie Awards
Rage against the voting machine
By: U- WIRE
Issue date: 10/13/08 Section: Forum
After the calamity known as the 2000 presidential election, public outcry forced the U.S. Congress to pass the Help America Vote Act of 2002. HAVA solved the problem of those pesky "hanging chads," giving states about $3.9 billion to switch from the punch-card voting system to touch-screen machines, among other changes. But due to the way these machines are monitored (or rather, not monitored), this election is precariously close to mirroring the contentious election of eight years ago.
With HAVA's help, the high-tech, computerized touch screens that have replaced paper ballots appear to have resolved the issue of determining voter intent in the event of a recount. Few besides residents of Sarasota, Fla. realize that some models of the new machines actually eliminate the possibility of an accurate recall entirely.
In the 2006 race in Sarasota, tallies revealed that Democratic candidate Christine Jennings lost to Republican Vern Buchanan by about 368 votes. The results wouldn't have been an issue, but it turned out 18,000 members of the community "undervoted." In other words, 18,000 voters bizarrely cast a non-valid vote for neither Buchanan nor Jennings.
Sarasota polling places used Electronic Systems & Software, Inc.'s iVotronic touch screens, which record votes on a digital memory card similar to a flash drive. However, the iVotronic only stores a copy of the voter's selections on its digital memory card. No paper copy is ever created. This means that if the 18,000 undervotes were caused by a problem with the computers themselves, a digital recount would produce similar figures, confirming some doubts already surrounding the new technology.
With the exception of a few more votes in favor of Jennings, the results of the digital recount were the same as the previous tally, leaving the rest of the 18,000 undervotes unexplained. Some have argued that voters deliberately abstained from voting in the mudslinging Buchanan-Jennings campaign. But even after the 2000 election, it is unlikely that the acidic aftertaste would be enough to discourage 18,000 from participating. Rather, it is more likely that the software was responsible for the undervotes.
With HAVA's help, the high-tech, computerized touch screens that have replaced paper ballots appear to have resolved the issue of determining voter intent in the event of a recount. Few besides residents of Sarasota, Fla. realize that some models of the new machines actually eliminate the possibility of an accurate recall entirely.
In the 2006 race in Sarasota, tallies revealed that Democratic candidate Christine Jennings lost to Republican Vern Buchanan by about 368 votes. The results wouldn't have been an issue, but it turned out 18,000 members of the community "undervoted." In other words, 18,000 voters bizarrely cast a non-valid vote for neither Buchanan nor Jennings.
Sarasota polling places used Electronic Systems & Software, Inc.'s iVotronic touch screens, which record votes on a digital memory card similar to a flash drive. However, the iVotronic only stores a copy of the voter's selections on its digital memory card. No paper copy is ever created. This means that if the 18,000 undervotes were caused by a problem with the computers themselves, a digital recount would produce similar figures, confirming some doubts already surrounding the new technology.
With the exception of a few more votes in favor of Jennings, the results of the digital recount were the same as the previous tally, leaving the rest of the 18,000 undervotes unexplained. Some have argued that voters deliberately abstained from voting in the mudslinging Buchanan-Jennings campaign. But even after the 2000 election, it is unlikely that the acidic aftertaste would be enough to discourage 18,000 from participating. Rather, it is more likely that the software was responsible for the undervotes.
Be the first to comment on this story