Readers of The BRAD BLOG may remember my disturbing experience last June, while voting in the California state primary election on the audio balloting system here in Los Angeles County, as 4 out of 12 of my votes were misprinted by the lousy electronic voting system. As the ES&S InkaVote Plus system is generally meant for blind voters, it was doubly troubling that the only way I was able to discover the misprinted votes was by closely studying my computer-marked paper ballot before dropping it into the optical-scanner, where it would have disappeared, incorrectly voted, forever.
Well, it was Election Day again today in CA. And, after skipping the “opportunity” to use the audio ballot system to vote in last November’s General Election (it takes too damn long, and I had very little time to vote that day), I thought I’d take it out for another spin during today’s special election…
After last June’s sorry episode, it was discovered, by LA County’s Registrar/Recorder Dean Logan, that the misprinting was due to a poll worker having mis-keyed my polling place number into the computer when setting up my audio ballot. That these systems are so poorly designed, that such an error could occur in the first place, was acknowledged to be a problem by Logan, at the time. He and his crew had devoted quite a bit of time to forensically testing the specific machine I had used, on which the vote-flipping had occurred — and which they quarantined that night, after I’d sent them notice of the problem — in order to determine why the failure had happened. They later invited me to witness their tests of the system, which was video taped, and in which they were able to recreate the precise failure that had occurred.
(Whether such pains would have been taken had the problem occurred for anybody else — say, someone who didnt have a loud, trouble-making, election integrity-related blog — I still couldn’t tell you.)
I was happy to see that both of the audio ballot machines at my polling place (there are are two precincts combined into one polling place, so one machine for each) were working this afternoon, for a change. In three of the past five elections, the system at my precinct had been broken and unusable. Last June, I had to vote provisionally on the machine at the precinct across the room from my own precinct’s table, because the machine at mine was down. In one instance, the pollworkers were afraid to touch it, due to the hanging, exposed electrical wires.
In either case, last June, as today, nobody else had ever voted on the machines at my polling place, other than me, according to the poll workers there. So glad we spent billions of dollars on the entire disabled voter scam used to force almost everyone in America to vote on crappy, hackable, non-transparent electronic devices.
Anyway, the good news is that this time, out of the 9 votes I was able to cast on the machine, all of them printed correctly!
I was disenfranchised, however, on a 10th vote I had hoped to cast, for a write-in candidate, since, as I learned today, write-ins cannot be done on the ES&S InkaVote Plus system.
Logan confirmed to me, via email tonight, that “The audio ballot booth is not set-up or equipped to record write-in votes.”
Swell. Given the millions of dollars spent on these machines in LA County alone, it’s somewhat incredible that they do not allow for write-in votes. Actually, it seems rather illegal to me. But Logan says the matter is addressed in CA Sec. of State Debra Bowen’s conditional certification documents for these systems, and he conceded that “it is something that needs to be addressed and considered in the dialog and strategic planning for future voting system(s) needs in L.A. County.”
Uh, yeah.
In hopes of documenting my experience today, in case there were problems again — last time it was a photograph of the misprinted ballot which helped lead to the County’s quick discovery of why the failure occurred — we attempted to take a few shots, but were stopped by a poll worker who informed us that he was instructed by the Registrar (Logan) that photos were not allowed, and that they were told to call the sheriff if anyone tried to do so.
“It was because of you, because of what happened last time when you had your problem,” the poll worker told me. Several of them remembered the incident from last June.
The new policy, as the poll worker explained it to me, seemed in direct contradiction to a previous ruling by Bowen allowing voters to document their experience at the polling place, on camera, as long as they didn’t violate the privacy of other voters.
Logan told me tonight, in response to my question about that: “Our policies on photography and video taping in polling places is consistent with Secretary Bowen’s advisory to County Registrars. It sounds as if the poll worker you spoke with was over zealous in his protection of the privacy of other voters and the polling place environment.”
He may have been, as I was the only one voting in the entire polling place, I believe, at that particular moment. There was certainly nobody else voting in camera range of where I was voting. The special election had a very low turnout across the state.
[Update 5/20/09: On follow-up, after publication of this article, Logan sent me the link to his advisory [PDF] in re: the use of cameras at the polling place and, unless the poll worker received differing instructions, it would appear that he was indeed “over zealous”. The advisory allows that “Press and Media may take pictures or run a television camera inside the polling place providing they respect the voter’s privacy and do not interfere with voting. However, voters…may not be filmed inside the polling place, without the voter’s permission,” as per CA Election Code §18541.]Nonetheless, as usual, all the poll workers there were very nice, and lord knows we could use a lot more of those dedicated folks who perform a rather thankless task, over an incredibly long day. One of them, Eugenia Dallas, handed me her business card on my way out, asking me to look at the compelling story on her website, which features information on her book, One Woman, Five Lives, Five Countries, and details of her life from the great famine of the Ukraine, through Nazi Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the U.S., where she was a model, artist, poet, activist and much more.
She told me, on my way out, with a smile, in her heavily accented English, after I’d asked so many questions today: “You are a very challenging young man.”
I’ll take it as a compliment, Eugenia. And thanks again for serving.
So, other than the matter of my lost write-in vote — and a stuttering audio tape that confusingly said, for example, “you selec”, instead of “you selected”, and referred to YES/NO options on initiatives as “candidates” — things went without too many problems today. At least for me. Whether my computer-printed, optically-scanned paper ballot will actually be counted accurately, or even at all, well, that’s something that we can likely never know. At least not with the lousy electronic voting system we are forced to use here in Los Angeles County.
But many people are trying, at least. If those people were allowed to actually count our votes — instead of being forced to make due with horribly designed, often failing, easily hacked, stupidly expensive, inaccurate and untested electronic equipment made by irresponsible private companies and running on secret software — we might be able to get one step closer to a government of the people, by the people and for the people once again.
I’m waiting for that Eugenia quote to become part of the rotation at the top of the blog.
“You are a very challenging young man.”
I second that! 😛
Don’t worry!
Holt will galvanize the Democratic Majority into using its newfound powers to make sure the situation you describe is a permanent one!
Relax! 🙂
Fascinating, especially considering that the certification testing for the Vote-PAD in California required each disabled test subject to vote four (yes, 4) write-ins. Much of the staff report was dedicated to concern about the write-in capabilities of the Vote-PAD. Yet, this same staff recommended certification for a system on which a write-in is, not just challenging, but impossible.
I went to a Poll Monitor “training” in Norwalk before November election (even though I was going to be a pollworker). It was led by Tim what’s his name? The Logan crony from San Diego? Anyway, they handed out a paper from SOS with requirements for video/photo, which said had to be done, I think, 100 feet outside of poll. I probably still have it somewhere if you want to atually see it. I’m sure Logan can provide you with same. In my poll yesterday, we only had one provisional — guy never received his absentee ballot in mail.
Ellen –
Yeah, but the ES&S InkaVote Plus system is only used in one single CA county. Oh, but wait, it’s the largest county not only in CA, but in the entire country, larger than 43 states combined, as I recall!
Yeah, no wonder they didn’t want to certify the inexpensive, non-computerized VotePAD for use in the state, since it didn’t properly allow for write-ins. Yeesh!
Brad,
What fuels your fire? Not just this story but the whole picture? Why have you dedicated yourself in this direction? It is an odd dedication for someone without a story.
And why have you not focused in the direction of designing a system yourself?
Time on Target salvo in 3.. 2… 1… 🙂
I was serving as a poll worker in San Mateo County, and I told one of my fellow workers my opinion that the more people know about computers, the less likely they are to trust the voting machines.
Right on cue, a voter walked in and requested a paper ballot. When the other poll worker tried to persuade him how “easy” it is to use the machine, he said (paraphrasing) “I don’t trust the machines because I’m a computer security expert.”
At the end of the (rather slow) day, we had 7 paper ballots out of 60 votes, if I recall correctly.
Marvelous, Brad. And I also would like to see Eugenia’s quote at the top. Let’s here it for challenging young men and whatever fuels their fire! 😀
Vaguely Written asked:
Not sure what’s “odd” about speaking up, and standing up, in defense of one’s country, particularly given the gifts granted us by so many who have given their lives in the past, so that we might have the freedoms we enjoy, which we find ourselves now fighting to retain and hopefully, to expand to all.
I’d suggest it’s more of a duty, than a dedication, but I suppose I can elucidate someday, should I ever find the freedom to write a book, or three, about my fascinating journey.
Suffice to say, however, I’m hardly anymore “without a story” than anybody else in this world. Bits and pieces and clues to that “story” are littered through thousands of pages on this blog, and elsewhere, if you’re in the mood to go exploring.
What type of “system”? A general voting system? If that, then we already have such a system, we just fail to use it. Quite simply, it’s here: Take a piece a paper, mark your votes on it with a pen, put it in a clear, locked, plastic box on the table, open the box and count the ballots, in front of everyone, and post the results at the precinct, before the ballots move anywhere. Not much “design” needed. Just implementation.
If you meant a voting system for disabled voters, well, though I’m a former computer programmer, I’d likely not bother to waste effort burning electrons there either, but would rather like to see tactile, transparent, human readable and understandable systems (akin to the VotePAD mentioned above) developed to meet the needs of such voters.
Hope that answers all of your questions, for the moment.
Dolphyn said:
I was speaking in your sister county of Orange earlier this week (your sister, because you are both the last two counties in the state to use shitty DRE system for general voting), and strongly urged the folks I was speaking to, to encourage the use of paper ballots, and a SERIOUS campaign to educate voters on their RIGHT, as Californians, to vote on a paper ballot.
Hope San Mateo and Orange can poll their efforts to ramp up such an effort! (Even while they ramp up efforts to dump the 100% unverifiable, Hart Intercivic DREs they both still use!)
Added this as a mid-story update, but as some may not notice it there, I figured I’d post it here in comments as well:
Brad,
Here in Santa Clara County, we had one Sequoia DRE machine (with an enclosed thermal printer attached to the machine) per polling place for people who would prefer to use it either because they are visually impaired or they just like touch screen voting. Where I voted, no one even tried to use it, everyone voted by marking a paper ballot designed for optical scan counting. On these paper ballots, a vote is indicated by the voter connecting the ends of a broken line with a black ball point pen. While these ballots are designed for machine counting, they could be hand counted, if necessary. I am disappointed to learn there are counties in California clinging to their expensive and unreliable computer based voting technology.
Think that’s bad, Bob?
Riverside County also uses Sequoia DRE’s, supposedly only for disabled voters or those who wish to use them. But their unapologetically irresponsible Registrar of Voters, Barbara Dunmore, is actively encouraging voters to use them! Even though, as you know, they are 100% unverifiable.
More details here…
In LA, almost nobody uses those lousy e-voting systems, theoretically for disabled voters. I hear similar reports in every other county, other than Riverside. It’s shameful.
Wilburrr… ~ I wonder what a roll of thermal printer paper looks like after sitting in a HOT car all day . . .
~
Brad,
The choose of words I used was a mistake and set in stone after enter was pressed.
“It is an odd dedication for someone without a story”
I meant the voting industry as a whole, their isn’t a whole lot of fame in being an advocate of such an unpopular subject (no pun intended). My interests where developed through a past job. However I can understand both sides of the picture.
I have more interest in the process than the means in which a vote is cast. No system is fool proof as anything man built can be taken apart (Paper included). But the system in whole is broken in so many ways. However I do realize their just isn’t a perfect system (or machine).
Coming from a vendor to counties in which I cared more about the process than the people who actually where running it. Of course until a news media or higher up was breathing down their neck.
Proper English literature has never been my forte (grain of salt). Be flexible but stand tall.
Vaguely Written wrote:
Tell me about it. And, glad you noticed! Particularly since I frequently hear from folks who oppose what we do here — largely vendors and their proxies — who use the absurd attack that somehow, I’m in it “for the money” or “the fame” or some such nonsense. Believe me, if making money here at BRAD BLOG was the top concern, we’d cover some very different topics, and in a very different way!
I cover this stuff because a) someone’s got to and b) it’s the right thing to do and c) it seems we’re one of very few outlets who seem to be able to make sense of these issues (usually) and tell them in a way that folks can understand and/or relate to (usually).
That’s 100% correct. Which is why the answer is not the system itself, but rather, the ability for the citizenry to oversee that system. Thus, transparency is the key. The more transparency, the harder it is for bad guys to get away with anything. See my “system” as detailed at your request above. That’s a very very difficult one to game, and not get caught doing so in the process.
If you’ve got a better one — or anyone else does — I’m always open to seeing it.
Not entirely sure what that means. But if you were previously (or even currently) with a vendor, I’d love to learn more. Please feel free to drop me an email and we can pick it up in private. I will, of course, keep any such information 100% off record, unless it’s otherwise agreed to first. (I could not do what I do here, unless I fully respected the privacy of sources.)
But Brad… the Jim Dicksons of the world would be satisfied with your experience as long as you did not have to touch tor handle the ballot in any way.
I wonder how few of the “disabled accessible” machines would actually work correctly in each election, if someone actually used the machines?
Sigh.
Brad you are the greatest!
I believe that anyone should be allowed to audit any election at anytime, including re-counting all of the ballots one by one if they choose, and that all elections must be completely transparent.
To that end, obviously, there must be something to re-count.
How come no one got prosecuted for the many illegal actions at this precinct? It was all very fishy!