Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:41:48 -0400
From: "Dr. R. Mercuri" <notable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: California Recall Analysis
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mercuri Rebecca <mercuri@xxxxxxx>
Dave --
I'm sending you the same material I sent Peter regarding my California
recall analysis. He's running it in Risks and I'm hoping you'll run it in
your e-newsletter as well. The results were rather shocking! Los Angeles
voters skipped the recall question at a rate of 8.91% of their ballots cast.
Of course they were using the WORST possible system, the infamous Votomatic
punchcard. On the other hand, the Datavote punchcard system had only a
1.94% skip rate, which was among the top 3 systems used in the state --
beating all but 1 of the optically scanned and 1 of the touchscreens!
Clearly SOME chad has taken a bum rap!!!
More details below. If you'd like a full spreadsheet with a breakdown by
county (not for publication but for your reference), let me know. Feel free
to publish the material below.
Good regards,
Rebecca Mercuri.
****************FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE********************
Rebecca Mercuri has analyzed California's recall ballot data and reports
that it confirms numerous doubts about election systems. Her results
demonstrate that the style of voting system in use (punchcard, optically
scanned, or touchscreen) cannot be generically considered either "good or
bad." She asserts that "The particular model of the system, as well as the
procedural controls in place in each county, along with the ballot layout,
may have considerably more impact on the reliability of the election results
than the type of system deployed."
The analysis revealed some shocking details. Of the 8,359,168 votes cast
statewide, some 384,427 (nearly 4.6%) were not recorded for the recall
question. Almost half of these missing votes (over 175,000) were in Los
Angeles, nearly 9% for that county. Yet the Datavote punchcards used in 14
other counties fared somewhat better, on average, than all of the optically
scanned and touchscreen systems, with the exception of only the ES&S Optech
Eagle (used in San Francisco and San Mateo counties) and the Diebold
Accu-Vote-TS (used in Alameda, though with some reports of equipment
malfunctions). The Sequoia Edge touchscreens, currently under litigation in
Riverside County, performed slightly worse than the Datavote punchcards.
The ES&S iVotronic touchscreens were ranked lowest of the three touchscreen
types in the state, and were outperformed by all other systems with the
exception of the Sequoia Optech optically scanned systems and the Pollstar
and Votomatic punchcards.
In earlier court battles prior to the recall election, the ACLU claimed that
voters using punchcards would be unfairly disenfranchised, as compared to
voters using optically scanned or touchscreen systems. As it turns out, the
counties using Datavote punchcards had residual vote rates that were better
than all but one of the optically scanned systems, and also lower than two
of the three touchscreen systems. At the other end of the scale, the
counties using Pollstar and Votomatic punchcards (which included
heavily-populated Los Angeles) had worse residual vote rates than any other
type of voting system in use in the state. "Clearly it is not the
punchcards themselves that are to blame, since the Datavote systems
demonstrate that punchcards can be used successfully."
The residual vote technique was previously used by MIT/Caltech in their
studies following the 2000 Presidential Election. For the California
analysis, she performed her calculations by comparing the difference between
the total number of ballots cast, as reported by California Secretary of
State Kevin Shelley's office, with the total numbers of "yes" and "no" votes
on the recall question. It should be noted that the residual vote tally is
incapable of differentiating between a voter who deliberately or
accidentally did not make a selection on the recall question, and an
equipment failure (such as hanging chad) that could result in a cast vote
not being counted.
"The rush to fully computerized ballot casting is misguided. Although
supplemental technologies are needed for disabled voters, there is no clear
evidence that touchscreen systems are substantially or consistently better
for use by the general population than other voting methods. The fact that
the touchscreens in California do not provide any way to perform an
independent recount, should make them less desirable than the paper-based
systems that do have such capabilities. Counties, like San Francisco, that
are doing well with optically scanned ballots, and the smaller ones that use
punchcards effectively, should feel no pressure to modernize."
Numbers represent residual vote rate as percentage of
total votes cast on type or model of machine.
Punchcard 6.24
Datavote 1.94
Pollstar 6.02
Votomatic 8.17
Optically Scanned 2.68
ES&S Eagle 1.87
Diebold Accu-Vote-OS 2.36
ES&S 550 and 560 2.42
Mark-A-Vote 3.04
Sequoia Optech 4.35
Touchscreen 1.49
Diebold Accu-Vote-TS 0.72
Sequoia Edge 2.01
ES&S iVotronic 3.49
Statewide 4.59
For further information, contact Rebecca Mercuri via telephone at
1-609/895-1375 or 1-215/327-7105, email mercuri@xxxxxxx and Internet at
http://www.notablesoftware.com/evote.html