I'm not sure how to start this diary, but I felt compelled to write it after reading both of the recommended diaries about supposed "vote flipping" in Texas.
I am an election judge in Texas, so I thought I could provide some insight.
First of all, with all due respect to Jules,
that diary was thin on facts and thick on speculation. It speaks to the paranoia of this community that it shot up the rec list. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be paranoid, but I do think we should be fact-based rather than fact-esque.
Whiskey Sam tried to lay out some anecdotal evidence regarding the sensitivity of touch screen voting in his diary. I commend him for weighing in because, well, he's basically right. I'll elaborate on that momentarily.
First let me add a disclaimer: I would prefer paper ballots. The chairman of my county Democratic party is in the process of filing a lawsuit against Hart Intercivics and the Tarrant County Elections Administrator demanding a paper trail (aka "audit trail") for our voting machines. This is a huge issue in my county and is of concern to both party officials and election judges like me. We also passed a Verified Voting resolution at our Democratic state convention over the summer. So before you slam me, realise that this is an issue of great concern to me.
But I didn't write this diary to defend myself or to make you feel better about electronic voting in Texas. I'm writing it to give you some facts.
There are a few peices of information that I would like to share regarding the ES&S "touchscreen" (iVotronic), Diebold touchscreen (AccuVote), and the Hart Intercivics "eScan" voting machines. I have been thoroughly trained and have worked several elections using this equipment, so I feel I can speak with some authority.
First, to answer Sam's question, Hart eScan machines are used by nearly 100 Texas counties (including Tarrant). Most of the other counties use ES&S or Diebold touchscreens. The Texas Secretary of State did an extensive audit of the Diebold machines earlier this year, which you can read here. They made a few recommendations on how to secure the machines further, and many of these changes have been implemented.
The symptoms described in the article from Jefferson county describe some behaviors on the iVotronic that are well known and are not programming errors, as suggested by the professor quoted in the article.
The fact is that the touchscreens can lose their calibration. What I mean by that is that within the software, the machines will recognise a touch within a certain area of the screen, usually based on coordinates. The machine will assume that if you touch coordinate A, then you intend to vote for candidate A. But if the machine has lost it's calibration, it may register a touch for candidate B even though you touched what appears to be coordinate A. That is why it's extremely important to carefully review your ballot before submitting it. There is a very simple procedure that all election judges using touchscreens are trained to do in order to recalibrate the machine. The symptoms described in the KFDM article match this behavior almost to a tee. Election judges are also trained to remove machines that repeatedly exhibit these symptoms.
In other words, there isn't some devious programmer who put in some code telling the machine to fuck up every tenth vote. It's just that the technology is not where it needs to be yet. Like I said, this isn't going to make you feel any better - but it's just the facts.
Another thing that happens to the touchscreens is exactly what Sam described in his diary: oversensitivity. If you barely bump the screen, the machine will think you are trying to vote for something. This is not a programming error, either. The best way to avoid this problem is to not touch the screen unless you are trying to cast a vote. It's like the touchscreens you see in restaraunts: a server is trained not to touch the screen unless they are performing some kind of action. This is a voter education issue. These machines are programmed to be sensitive - in other words, this is expected behavior. But people see one little thing and freak out thinking the vote's being hacked. Wrong. The machine is simply not being used properly. Sure, we could do more to educate voters on this behavior. I don't argue with that. But in a majority of cases, it is user error that is causing these machines to "flip votes".
Finally, regarding the eScans... We had big problems closing the polls back in March and Hart realised they made an error and rectified the issue before the runoff elections. During the runoff an error was discovered with the central tabulator, and again Hart responded quickly and resolved the issue. I do have confidence that Hart is responsive to their customers and have no problem voting on the eScans, which are used in my home county. The eScans don't have the calibration issues that are seen in the touchscreens, and to be honest, since HAVA mandates electronic voting, I'd rather see all Texas counties convert to eScans. eScans are also compatible with paper ballots and can provide an audit trail if a printer component is installed (kindof like an ATM).
One more thing. Some folks around here seem to be hellbent on claiming that people in Texas are stealing votes. Can I just say something? I'm tired of seeing people who have never worked as election judges, who have not received the training I have, who have not spent hours trying to break/overvote/defraud the machine, and who have not participated in this process claim that fraud is occurring. Until you have spent hours and hours in training with the vendors, until you have spent 15 hour days working the polls in your precinct, don't try to claim fraud is happening. I personally - with a team of five others - tried every possible combination of defrauding the eScans as we could think of during training. We fed it torn ballots, overvotes, undervotes... we tried to feed it the same ballot repeatedly... We were unable to break the eScan. We tried using the eSlate machine (HAVA-mandated) with old/expired codes, we tried over/undervoting on them, we tried using "used" codes... nothing worked. The eSlate rejected each one. And most of you have never bothered to seek out this sort of training, yet you jump to conclusions and hit the recommend button.
I am an election judge. I became a judge for several reasons, the formative one being that I was very concerned about election integrity and possible vote fraud - especially after HAVA passed. I decided that since I do not have the ability to oversee elections in every county in America, that I better get off my butt and take care of my own precinct. Once I got involved, I realised that my paranoia wasn't quite justified. We election judges take our duty very seriously, and it offends me to realise that people do not trust us to conduct elections with integrity and ethics. I have yet to meet an election judge - D or R - who didn't care deeply about making sure every vote counts. All of us were involved in the Hart snafu and we worked to ensure that those errors didn't reoccur. So don't try to claim fraud, because you are accusing me and every other election judge of not doing our jobs.
Am I concerned with electronic voting? Absolutely, but I also realise that the machines only do what we (voters, programmers, and election officials) tell them to do. And I also know that most average voters don't know shit about these machines, so when they see something they feel "isn't right" their first assumption is fraud. That's just wrong. We have a long way to go when it comes to educating voters about these machines. And dammit, I still want the machine to spit out a paper receipt of some sort. But I am disappointed at the ignorance displayed by everyone who assumed that fraud was occurring in Jefferson county.
Please, if you are really concerned about election integrity, go sign up to become an election judge in your precinct. Secure the vote in your own backyard. God knows that we need more people to do this, because the elderly election judges are resigning in droves because they are intimidated by electronic voting. We need ethical people to take their place. Please become one of them.
update: Ok, lots of good comments downthread. I've got to be in class in an hour so I'll just try to address a few of the repeated comments.
First, there's a big difference between "programming error" and "design flaw". I totally agree that the calibration issue should not exist, and as an IT worker, I'd agree with the programmers who chimed in saying as much. An example of a programming error would be review screen issues I wrote about on TexasKaos a few days ago. A design flaw would be the calibration issue. I thought that was obvious, but if not, hopefully it's clarified now.
Second, I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that I'm apologising for the machines. I'm not. I'm just explaining the reality of the situation.
Third, someone made the point that we shouldn't call the output of the machine a "receipt". I understand the concern, especially considering it's a bit of an ovesimplification. I'm not sure what term you'd substitute for it, though.
Fourth, yes, I do look at this as a voter education issue, and here's why. The bottom line here is that Texas is using these machines; they're not going to magically disappear between now and next Tuesday. Dealing with that reality means practising due diligence as an election judge. It's my responsibility to make sure my voters know they need to carefully review their ballots before submitting them. This again goes without saying within the election official community, but it may not be as obvious to everyone else. I can't speak for efforts in other states nor can I speak on behalf of local Republicans, but as Democrats we have made this an issue statewide. The Texas Democratic Party has made voter education a key issue - our people should know what to do when they walk in the voting booth. Beyond that, media coverage is helping educate voters as well. Yes, more could always be done, but I believe we are doing our best to get the word out in north Texas.
To those who may quibble with me looking at this as a voter education issue, again, these machines aren't going anywhere between now and the election. But on November 8, make no mistake, as a party we will be focused on removing these machines or creating a paper trail. AAMOF, shortly after this diary was posted, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported that my county Democratic party filed the lawsuit yesterday in Austin:
The Tarrant County Democratic Party and four local voters have filed a federal lawsuit against the Texas secretary of state declaring that the electronic voting machines used in Tarrant County are unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.
The suit calls for the county's election system to install a verifiable paper trail in time for Tuesday's general election, a process that the top local election official said would be impossible.
Art Brender, chairman of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, filed the suit in Austin on Monday charging that without a backup paper trail that voters can use to double-check their vote when casting their ballot electronically, the voting system in Tarrant County violates the Texas Election Code, the Help America Vote Act, and the first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Brender said he's aware that a paper-trail system cannot be adopted in time for next week's election. The purpose of the suit, he said, is to force courts to determine whether federal law already requires a paper trail.
I could not be much prouder of our county party leadership than I am right now. And this effort has come from the grassroots. Our county Democratic Executive Committee (of which I am a member) spreadheaded this effort locally and at the state convention. To those who question whether I share your concerns about electronic voting, just read the article.
But the point is that realistically, that fight is going to have to wait until November 8. For now, we have to deal with what we've got. Screaming about it or banging harder on your keyboard isn't going to change that.
I stand by my assertion that what we're seeing is not systemic or intentional fraud. What we're seeing are symptoms of a flawed election system. I hope we can all agree on that and get on board with the idea of reversing this trend after we get through next Tuesday.
And I meant what I said about people signing up to be election judges. It's not difficult - although it can be stressful. You get paid and you have the satisfaction of knowing everything is on the level in your precinct. Honestly, if you're not willing to do at least that much and give up a few days a year, I've really got nothing else to say.
Ok... I'm off to class now.